In a free society, you make the choices about your life.  In a politically dominated society, someone else makes the choices.  And because people naturally resist letting others make important choices for them, political society is, of necessity, based upon coercion.  From “The Libertarian Mind” by David Boaz

If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.  Friedrich August von Hayek

When an individual uses physical threat, financial threat, political force, trickery, salesmanship (offering a promise of value in exchange for cooperation) in order to cause other individuals to a particular action, can we call that leadership?  We can say that leadership is the act of inspiring people toward some end or goal.  In a free society, however, any coercive methods would not be an acceptable form of leadership.  Would they?

Many think of someone who vocalizes ideas as a leader, of sorts.  We, however, have heard the reference to a “silent leader”.  We have heard of the reference “lead by example.”  Interestingly a follower can also be a leader in that a respected person may demonstrate to others his desire to follow someone else’s instruction or idea, thus leading those others down the same path.  Leadership can be passive (the followers may not even realize they are being led) and can be active (the person attempting to lead is explicit in articulating his desire for others to act).

I have used the reference of “leader” when referring to the president and members of congress.   If one gains a source of power to control the behavior of other people, is that a form of leadership or is it just coercion?  If that power comes from the vote of the people you control so that you can move “the people” toward  a goal you believe is appropriate, is that reasonably characterized as leadership in a free society.  What about those among “the people” that did not vote for you?  Are they following you by choice or are they coerced?  And if they are coerced and are forced to comply with threat of imprisonment, can the redistribution be the characterized as the result of leadership in a free society?

What if we were to say that our freedom has limitations such that we are free to chose to do whatever we want as long as we do not harm another or infringe upon the ability of another to pursue their own happiness?  That is different than saying others have the right to take the fruit of your efforts in their quest for happiness and in the name of “fairness.”  “Vote for me and put me in a position of power, and I will force others who have gained more than you in their pursuit of happiness, to give you their property, even at their objection.”  Confiscation of property does not lead a person to, of their own free will, give to the cause of another.  Whether armed with votes or armed with guns, confiscation of the property of another against their will is a coercive act and it is difficult to characterize that act as leading people to help others.   We do have examples of people giving their property to the cause of others of their own free will in our society.  Giving by free will and choice is a common and well documented practice among our country’s most wealthy individuals and yet we subscribe, at the price of our own voice (votes), to confiscation from “the wealthy” and allow ourselves to be wards of the confiscators.

The practice of securing power through promise of the confiscation and redistribution of property from one citizen to another in exchange for votes is not a form of inspirational leadership in a free society, it is a form of bribery.  The fact that it is done on a large scale somehow causes us not to take notice.  Imagine if you received a call from a candidate for president of the United States indicating that, if you vote for him, he will distribute enough money for you to make your car payment and that the funds will come from your neighbor who has a nicer car?