Ethics of Voting, Revisited

Can I vote ethically? 

Voters, in effect, direct candidates to implement the promises the candidates made during their campaign. We can think of the election as creating a conditional contract - if enough people vote for it, it takes effect. Although the voters cannot literally instruct the office holders after they are elected and have no recourse if the candidates renege on their promises, by voting the voters do in some sense give instructions in the form of those campaign promises to their chosen candidates. The candidate says “this is what I plan to do” and the voters reply, in effect, “yes, you do that”. And so one prerequisite for voting ethically would be for the candidate one chose to solemnly and credibly promise not to use the power of their office unethically.

Principals who direct an agent to act for them share responsibility for the consequences of the action. If the principals have no right to act on their own, they cannot delegate such a right to their agents.

Even if the deed is never actually done, a principal cannot ethically command an agent to do something unethical. Just as I would be wrong to shoot at you and miss, I would be wrong to give the order to kill you, even if no one obeys the order. Principals can direct agents ethically only if the principal gives ethical directions and the agent carries them out ethically.

Voters lack some of the rights of principals, but still share responsibility for the plans of the candidates, as if the candidates acted as agents for the voters. The details differ, but the same principle applies. If I intend to cause something to happen, I am responsible for the consequences. I am included among the persons who should pay compensation or make amends.

So, the ethics of voting depends on the ethics of the candidate and the candidate's campaign promises. If I could hire the candidate to carry out those instructions without violating ethics, I can vote to have them carried out without violating ethics. Voters can vote ethically if they find candidates who credibly promise ethically to fulfill their campaign promises. From a voluntaryist standpoint, this appears theoretically possible but practically impossible.

Voluntaryist ethical concerns about the ethics of political office holders might include the ethics of:

• instructing enforcers to enforce legislation and taxation upon persons who have not consented,
• fulfilling the duties and prerequisites of office, such as taking the oath of office,
• accepting a salary and an office budget funded by taxes,
• perpetuating the institution of government, the social environment it creates and its illusion of legitimacy.

I wonder, will the candidates exceed their campaign promises in an unethical way? Are they credible? I could argue that principals share no responsibility for an action taken by their agent if the action violates their instructions. But I could also argue that this holds only if the principals have good reason to treat the agents as credible or have the power to monitor and end the principal/agent relationship as soon as they learn of unethical behavior. If the principals know that the agent is prone to ethical violations, and they have no means to nullify their contract, they can hardly avoid taking some responsibility for entrusting that person as their agent. If there is no way for me to monitor or constrain my agents, I must take extra care in selecting them, and if I fail to choose wisely I share the blame for the agents' actions.

So the question, “can I vote ethically”, boils down to, can I find a candidate that credibly promises to behave ethically while holding office? By voluntaryist standards, no such candidate has ever run for office or likely ever will. Such candidates could theoretically behave ethically, but only if they would vote “no” on every bill except repeals and refuse to accept any tax-funded benefits until taxation and obedience to legislation were made voluntary.