Search powered by Google



Mitt Romney doesn't speak for me

I, frankly, don't care what the capital of Israel is.  It's not my problem.

The capital of Israel wouldn't affect me at all, if it weren't for people's custom of forcing their personal opinions on others.  Think of it: everybody could have their own opinion of what the capital is (or no opinion at all), and as long as they didn't engage in the use of force against others who disagreed with them, we could all simply coexist.

Now, I understand why people with religious convictions in the Middle East feel they must use force to defend their opinions about the capital and ownership of the territory there.  Here you get into a genuine property rights issue.

But neither Mitt Romney nor I have such religious convictions, nor do we have any property right claim to any territory in the Middle East.  It's none of my business, and none of his.

And it's perfectly fine for him to have a personal opinion about who is right in the conflict.  The problem is that Mitt Romney seeks to forcibly represent me.  Meaning his personal opinion becomes an "official" opinion.  And those who do not agree with his personal opinion may look for ways to initiate force against the people Romney claims to represent, since they will take his opinion as being representative and official.  And in a sense it will be: Romney will commit to the use of force at some level to defend his opinions about the Middle East.  This is what we call "policy."

And Romney will use the resources of those he represents.  The problem, of course, is that Romney doesn't really represent people.  He's just the man seeking the next turn at being tyrant and parasite.  To genuinely represent people you have to be actually selected by the people who want you to act as their agent.  Not just proclaim yourself victor because their neighbors want you to represent them, and then start violating property rights and other rights left and right.

Nobody deserves a turn to do what Romney and Obama seek a turn to do in November.

Update: be sure to read Lysander Spooner's explanation of why voting does not create a relationship where the winner represents the governed.