Well, Spooner divides harm into those two categories; I don’t know whether he thinks that exhausts the moral realm. In any case, I subscribe to Spencer’s division of our other-regarding duties into justice, negative beneficence, and positive beneficence.

In any case, any moral wrong is a harm to oneself.

If their claim is legitimate then why aren’t they entitled to enforce it?

Because they have a duty of non-aggression.

Most people agree we ought to have government and taxes. Is that supposed to be an argument?

I subscribe to Spooner’s distinction which divides moral infractions into crime (harm to others) and vice (harm to self). Declining to go out of one’s way to produce public goods doesn’t fall in either category.

“A legitimate claim of others upon oneself is violated.”

If their claim is legitimate then why aren’t they entitled to enforce it?

That’s like asking “what is morality?” — which is rather too large a topic for the comments section of a blog entry. I can go on a long philosophical harangue if you want. But wouldn’t most people agree that there are things we morally ought to do over and above just not violating people’s rights?

What is the harm in failing to satisfy a supposed duty of virtue? Or is there no harm at all?

A legitimate claim of others upon oneself is violated. Don’t know whether “harm” is the right term for that or not. I’m not a consequentialist, if that’s what you’re asking.

What would be wrong with Drudge convincing millions to vote against Clinton and then flipping a coin to determine his own vote when he got in the booth because he knew his individual vote didn’t matter?

What’s wrong with cheating on your spouse if your spouse is guaranteed never to find out? Well, it’s dishonourable. Isn’t that enough?

X. Trapnel: An article on it, by a Bayesian statistician

Thanks, but I don’t think I want to appeal to that argument, since I don’t accept a Bayesian approach to rational choice.

What is the harm in failing to satisfy a supposed duty of virtue? Or is there no harm at all?

“That’s like asking everyone else to help clean up after the picnic, yet not do so oneself.”

What’s wrong with that as long as they’re free act as they see fit? In the case of voting they usually have no way of knowing whether you vote or not. By law they have no way of knowing who or what you voted for even if you did enter the booth.

What would be wrong with Drudge convincing millions to vote against Clinton and then flipping a coin to determine his own vote when he got in the booth because he knew his individual vote didn’t matter? Everybody gets the same political return and nobody else knows he voted for Clinton because the coin came up tails. What’s the problem?

But wouldn’t it be dubious for Drudge to encourage people to vote, yet refuse to vote himself? That’s like asking everyone else to help clean up after the picnic, yet not do so oneself. It might well be true that I would make a much bigger contribtion to the cleanup through my exhortations to others than through my own efforts, but given those exhortations I ought to follow suit.

If one don’t fulfill that supposed duty, who are the injured parties and to what relief are they entitled?

It’s not an enforceable duty; it’s a duty of virtue, not a duty of justice or rights. So the question of “entitlement to relief” doesn’t apply.

If one don’t fulfill that supposed duty, who are the injured parties and to what relief are they entitled?

I think I’m consistent with the economic argument that voting in large elections makes a *negligible*, not just small or smaller, contribution to the result. A blog need not be negligible, it’s entirely conceivable that a blogger could someday tilt a national election. Matt Drudge (not a blogger per se, but you get the idea) has probably had a major effect on some elections.

“It seems to me to make more sense to diversify.”

But diversifying into activities with negligible return makes little sense.