Ȅǿȃ Partʺʺ: Politics and Philosophyown interest. But our control over government is less precise and effec-
tive than our control over economic activity through our “voting in the
marketplace.” Some analogy does hold between political and economic
decisions, but we should not delude ourselves about how closely it holds.
Is the state a product of its citizens’ voluntary consent, a mechanism
voluntarily established to attend to their common concerns? Nonsense. I
have no choice about being subjected to its laws. True enough, I am glad
that the state exists; I prefer it to anarchy; but the state is there whether
I want it or not. My welcoming certain arrangements does not mean that
they are not compulsory. I am glad to have seat belts in my car and would
probably have bought them willingly if I had had a free choice, but the fact
remains that I did not have a free choice and that the belts were installed
under compulsion of law.
Far from the state’s being a voluntary arrangement, then, its essence is
compulsion. It relies as a last resort on its power to seize goods and persons,
to imprison, and to execute. If obedience to government is not compulsory,
then what is? What does the word “compulsory” mean? What happens to
the distinction between the voluntary and the compulsory?
To say this is not to glorify the compulsory aspects of government.
I concede their necessity only with regret. I want to keep them tightly
restrained, as the cause of human liberty requires. One serves that cause
poorly if one deludes oneself into thinking that government embodies free
exchange and that compliance with its orders is voluntary. Hard-headed-
ness or tough-mindedness better serves one’s values.
While libertarians want to extend the voluntary aspects of society
and government, they should not delude themselves about reality and
the human condition. Society and government are not and cannot be
the results of a social contract. Ļeir justification rests on other consid-
erations.
Ļe key element in the case for democracy, as I see it, is that democ-
racy lessens the necessity or desirability of violent rebellion. It makes the
alternative, discussion, relevant. If a policy or a law really is oppressively
bad, citizens and their political representatives may come to understand
why and may change it peacefully. Ļis case for democracy is a far cry from
asserting that all decisions made under democratic government are there-
fore made in accordance with each citizen’s will, or his real will, or are to
be “considered” as having been so made. We need not appeal to any fiction
about unanimous constitution agreement to waive unanimous agreement
on specific issues.