3 Comments

Neera says that libertarians are indirectly helping Trump win by saying we don't have a duty to vote.

Neera has argued against Peter Singer's view that we should donate lots of money to help the poor. Would she thereby say that she is indirectly helping children starve?

The rhetorical move seems really slimy, but if she is willing to accuse herself of helping to get kids killed, then I am willing to withdraw my claim that it's slimy for her to say this.

Expand full comment

Well said. A couple of points.

FIrst, Caplan et al always cite an odds calculation that was debunked decades ago. This is more up to date: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2010.00272.x And this is a better take on actually thinking about the expected value of your vote https://sweettalkconversation.com/2016/08/08/take-note-of-the-value-of-your-vote/

Second, per your argument, this is simply a collective action problem. Normally libertarians (of the kind we're talking about here anyway) are quite clear on the fact that the thing needed to overcome collective action problems is to avoid freeriding. An individual who doesn't vote because their individual vote won't matter is freeriding; if enough people who would have voted for the better candidate feel that way, you get a collective action failure.

Expand full comment