How does a libertarian defend the right to vote freely

[RCA]

When the voting itself infringes upon the freedom of others?

[Elwar]

I can vote all I want...

I vote you for mayor of the world.

But you still don't have the right to infringe upon my rights.

[Andrew-Austin]

When the voting itself infringes upon the freedom of others?

You mean if people vote for candidates who will infringe upon the freedom of others?

Thats not exactly the same thing. But Democracy does seem to be incompatible with libertarianism.

[UnReconstructed]

the person voting has the choice to or not. <--- their freedom
the people who do not agree with their vote have their liberties infringed <--- democracy

[RCA]

the person voting has the choice to or not. <--- their freedom
the people who do not agree with their vote have their liberties infringed <--- democracy

Exactly, so how is this paradox avoided besides ending the State altogether?

[Elwar]

the people who do not agree with their vote have their liberties infringed <--- democracy

How are their liberties infringed upon just by having some people vote for some person?

[TastyWheat]

Guaranteeing the right to vote is like guaranteeing a right to use force. Voting is a very useful tool for those that wish to preserve liberty and those that wish to subvert it. It's not a right, it's a privilege.

[Elwar]

It is only when the person "elected" by those votes infringes upon one's liberty that the violation occurs.

Like I said, I can elect anyone to anything...that does not give them the right to initiate force.

[nobody's_hero]

Well, once upon a time we had a republic.

[Andrew-Austin]

Well, once upon a time we had a republic.

Except republics are democratic.

[UnReconstructed]

voting is infringing because you are deciding for someone else how their life should be. you do not have the right to decide for someone else therefore you cannot give that right via election to a governor, senator, etc.

[ClayTrainor]

Exactly, so how is this paradox avoided besides ending the State altogether?

It can't be... :)

[nayjevin]

It is only when the person "elected" by those votes infringes upon one's liberty that the violation occurs.

Like I said, I can elect anyone to anything...that does not give them the right to initiate force.

If this is accepted, then an immoral vote would be one that reasonably can be assumed to result in new law that involves increased, or change in method of, coercion.

The converse would be that it is still moral to vote for one who can reasonably be assumed to repeal existing coercive laws.

[TastyWheat]

Except republics are democratic.
We used to be much less democratic. I believe the only things the people voted on were local, possibly state, propositions and Congressional Representatives. No votes for Senators, Presidents, and I assume Judges.