Our will is to keep the torch of freedom burning for all.

So...no matter how big, expensive, and instrusive the Rs make government...we should just keep voting for them, otherwise the Ds will get power and...what?... make government big, expensive and intrusive?

With such sound logic as that, you fit right in with the GOP.

Libertarian Jason -

My rationale for sticking with the GOP is essentially because, of the two extremes -socialism and fascism - there are far more people out there already guarding us from the latter [i.e. Mainstream media, academia, Hollywood, Europe, Libertarians such as you and me, etc.]. But who's out there railing against socialism? The GOP is the only thing standing between the U.S. becoming France.

rammage-

Ram -

For all intents and purposes, fascism IS socialism... they are diametrical opposites. The only differences are cosmetic... under socialism, the State owns the means of production....in fascism, while property remains in the hands of individuals, _control_ of that property is reserved for the State. Given our massive government regulatory apparatus...doesn't this smack of fascism?

Yet..where are the calls to _eliminate_ these fascist elements? Conservatives and the GOP are only fighting to preserve the status quo There are no calls to defend against it, because they're fighting to preserve it!

Jason, I will agree with you that there is no viable party in American politics calling for more liberty and less regulation/government. I think Rammage’s point is that a voter is left with the question, Which is the lesser of the two evils? Or rather, Which is the evil of these two lessers?
I take it you refuse the false dilemma, and instead vote Libertarian? I have done so before and will do so again, but they are not a viable party. Most people see a vote for the LP as no better than staying home on election day. For most Americans, I think it is true that the Democrats are the only reason to vote Republican. Personally, I fear their socialist agenda, their apologist platform, their self-hatred and kowtowing to other nations. For me, that is the biggest draw of the G.O.P. See here (http://www.atlasblogged.com/archives/2005/10/the_problem_wit.php)
But the opposite is also true for me, much to Rammage’s chagrin. On those occasions when I am punching a Democrat’s chad (no, that is not a euphemism), it is because I fear the election of his fascist opponent. Few Republicans have my support – but I don’t usually see them as the evil of the two lessers. You really do, Jason?

Rammage, I ask you again, Where is the viable party of smaller government? See here (http://www.atlasblogged.com/archives/2005/08/cato_slams_gop.php)

I take it you refuse the false dilemma, and instead vote Libertarian?

You would take it correctly! As of the 2000 general election (when I discovered the LP and libertarianism), I can proudly say that I have not cast any vote for a D nor an R.

I refuse to kowtow to the fear-mongering the other parties engage in. I will use my ballot to vote FOR what I want...even if I don't get it...and not merely against something I'm afraid of. I can always look myself in the mirror and say that I asked for what I wanted, and that I've finally shed the "battered voter syndrome" to walk around in a constant state of fear. (Reminds me of that old quote by Jefferson...or was it Franklin...when the government fears the people, you have liberty...when the people fear government, you have tyranny.)

And isn't it odd, that we tell young children that they can be anything they want, or have anything they want, when they grow up if they just focus on it and work for it? Yet, as adults, we put our tail between our legs, and shrink like cowards into voting for "the lesser of two evils", because what we really want...which IS being offered to us...doesn't seem attainable.... Are we lying to our kids?

I have done so before and will do so again, but they are not a viable party. Most people see a vote for the LP as no better than staying home on election day.

That's funny... to me, voting for a D or an R is like staying at home. In both cases, I'm still going to get more government. However, with staying at home, at least it wouldn't be my fault for giving them my blessing/consent/vote.

But there are two points in response:

One...you are correct that the LP may not be viable...but how can it be viable when people who actually want what the LP is offering are to afraid to stand up and ask for what they want? You have no hope of getting what you want unless you ask for it.

Two...every vote an LP candidate gets registers on the radar for Ds and Rs. Even if they don't win, they are still a gauge that political professionals will use when researching voter patterns. If an LP candidate gets 3% of the vote...sure, a D or an R will probably ignore the L's constituency in favor of more lucrative voter blocks. But what if the LP candidate gets 10%...or 15%...or 20%.... Suddenly, they're becoming a threat.

As the history of minor parties in the country has shown...smaller parties are incubators for new ideas. Once they start growing big enough to be a threat, the bigger two parties tend to adopt their issues in order to stave off the competition. And be honest with me...if the Ds came out tomorrow and said they would abolish the income tax, or all gun control laws, or social security, would you really care? If you are like me, you want the change...you want liberty...and you don't care which party gives it to you....right?

But the fact is...the LP is the only party advocating such things.... If you want to see these things happen, then you must have the courage of your convictions, and vote for the ideas and values that you hold dear.

Because if you're going to ignore them, then why shouldn't anyone else?

Few Republicans have my support – but I don’t usually see them as the evil of the two lessers. You really do, Jason?

6 of 1...half dozen of the other. Honestly, I dislike Ds and Rs for completely different reasons. But I can't bring myself to vote for them, because neither party represents me, and what kind of government I want. As I said...the chances of me getting what I want are very slim, anyway...so why not ask for what I really want?

In 2000, LP pres candidate Harry Browne wrote a very good article about this very subject. In it, he wrote:

Can I win? Probably not. But if you vote for anyone else, you won't win either. Your candidate might win, but you won't get what you want. Government will continue to get bigger and more intrusive--and you'll have given this your approval. No matter what your reason for voting for Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore, your vote will be interpreted as an endorsement of every big-government proposal your candidate has made.

Link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=65000469

Check it out...It's very inspiring.

Jason, I am very familiar with your argument, and it is exactly why I vote LP when I do (including twice for HB). I would love to see any LP candidate for Congress or the White House pull >10% of the vote, because my ideals would have to be taken a little more seriously by the two viable parties. And no, I wouldn't care which of the two started pushing a more libertarian platform - Rammage, would you?

But voting for a D or R is not somehow against my morals. Anyone who feels that way is being silly. We cast our vote in the way that best serves our own interests. If the election is a foregone conclusion, then it is fine to vote LP, to make a point. But in a tight race, libertarians may be wiser to vote for the lesser of two evils, depending on how much less evil he is. In fact, they should do so publicly - "Candidate A is so awful that the LP is encouraging voters to go with Candidate B, despite the previously documented complaints we have against his positions. It's that important to keep Candidate A out of office."

I refuse to kowtow to the fear-mongering the other parties engage in. I will use my ballot to vote FOR what I want...even if I don't get it...and not merely against something I'm afraid of.
Would you accept a job that was not your dream job? Or would you refuse such a lesser job and its inferior pay, holding out for what you really want... even if you don't get it? When you take that job at Subway to work your way through college, aren't you really being pragmatic, addressing an immediate need, and plotting course on a long term plan for what you really want?

This is no different.

Jason, So how's that workin' for you? Get any candidates elected? Any laws changed?

I would love to see any LP candidate for Congress or the White House pull >10% of the vote, because my ideals would have to be taken a little more seriously by the two viable parties.

In all reality, it would start at your lower levels first... at the city, county, and state levels. Not saying that's a reason to not vote LP higher up the ticket...But as the ticket goes higher, so do the stakes, and more the likilihood that more people will be voting out of fear.

But voting for a D or R is not somehow against my morals. Anyone who feels that way is being silly. We cast our vote in the way that best serves our own interests.

So...bigger government is in your best interests? The bottom line...that's what you're getting when you vote D or R.

I mean.. I get what you're saying... No one is perfect, and its foolish to "make the perfect the enemy of the good", and barring from running for office yourself, your bound to have some disagreements with the candidate you are voting for. But on the most important question that any self proclaimed liberty lover needs to ask...is this candidate for bigger government or smaller government...there is no difference between the two. If we want small government, we need to ask for it...plain and simple.

Would you accept a job that was not your dream job? Or would you refuse such a lesser job and its inferior pay, holding out for what you really want... even if you don't get it?

I think that's an inaccurate analogy because, in the case of a job, the only person affecting that decision is me, and the consequences of that decision is mine and mine alone to bear. Plus, the point was about _asking_ for what you want...not _asking_ for a lesser choice. Absent a dream job, I would have to accept a lesser choice, that's a given, just as in every election, I'm pretty much going to have to accept the election of a D or an R. My point was that you can't get that dream job if you don't ask for it. So the question for you is...would you ask for your dream job if you thought that your chances of getting it were rather slim? Or would you _ask_ for a lesser job right from the start?

Jason, So how's that workin' for you? Get any candidates elected? Any laws changed?

We've had some candidates elected, and impacted the debate on various issues over here in Ohio. Granted, not as much as we'd like, but we always want more.

But more to the point...even if were to vote R or D, I'd still have the PATRIOT Act, a FedGov meddling in education, health care, and foreign countries. We still have a war on drugs, a war on guns, and a war on overachievers. We'd still be forced into a socialist, Ponzi retirement scheme. In short...we'd still have big government.

On all the important issues...there is no substantial difference. Voting for a D or an R, I would still not "get any laws changed", because they all agree on the basic fundamentals. Sure, I may get a candidate elected...but how's that going to change anything?

What D and R voters seem to suffer from is the delusion that maybe, just maybe, THIS time will be different...even though all rational and empirical evidence would show otherwise. Instead of thinking critically about what they are voting for, they delude themselves into thinking that their candidate will somehow magically deliver them everything they want.

Case in point... after a blatantly pro-war convention, and John Kerry even publicly admitting he would have done the same thing to Iraq that Bush had done...even to the end insisting that he wouldn't end the war, bring troops home, etc. etc..... the anti-war left still embraced him as their ticket to salvation. All those voters were thinking was "Bush got us into a war, he's got to go." But by voting Kerry, nothing would have changed. Kerry wasn't proposing to undo any of the damage wrought by Bush in even the slightest degree. Furthermore, when you mention this to these types, they dismiss it, and give me the same arguments you are using now. So I have to question them: do you _really_ want to end the war? Or are you just feign outrage against the war for political purposes? (Given that most supported Clinton's wars, I strongly suspect the latter).

If the anti-war left was serious about registering their disapproval, they could have voted for the only candidate that proposed to end the war and bring the troops home by Christmas (or shortly thereafter): The LP candidate, Michael Badnarik. In such a case, there would be no mistaking what that vote means... A vote for Bush could be construed either as a vote against Kerry or a vote for Bush...(subject to Bush's interpretation, of course, and which he even admitted that his re-election was an endorsement of his policies...)... but a vote for Badnarik could not be construed as anything but a vote for smaller government.

I get rationale behind the whole pragmatic view you are taking...but I reject that it will do any good in the long run. The truth of my assertion still stands....the only way you have a chance to get what you want is to ask for it.

So...bigger government is in your best interests? The bottom line...that's what you're getting when you vote D or R.

Jason, you can keep saying that it's somehow immoral to vote D or R, but it is not necessarily so. Each case is different. You think that you are rejecting a false dilemma between D and R, by finding a third option that is actually aligned with your beliefs. But you are also creating a false dilemma of LP vs [D+R], where one choice is moral and one is not. It's not just about good/bad, it's also about useful/pointless. In some elections, voting LP makes as much sense as excusing yourself when you fart in an empty room. It has no effect but to make you feel better about yourself.

While some of my friends are charging windmills on an LP horse, working for LP campaigns and voting party line, there are others (in both D and R camps) who are actually able to affect government policy, and who are working for the most libertarian candidates they can find within the two viable parties. They have a chance of getting results. The problem with shooting for utopia is that you cannot get there, and it is naive to believe otherwise.

On all the important issues...there is no substantial difference. Voting for a D or an R, I would still not "get any laws changed", because they all agree on the basic fundamentals. Sure, I may get a candidate elected...but how's that going to change anything?

This just isn't true. I have two words for you: Ron Paul. What was more useful, for him to be the LP candidate who got

You don't draw votes by coming across as a fringe group.

If the anti-war left was serious about registering their disapproval, they could have voted for the only candidate that proposed to end the war and bring the troops home by Christmas (or shortly thereafter): The LP candidate, Michael Badnarik. In such a case, there would be no mistaking what that vote means...

Actually, it would be easy to mistake what it means. Were most of us who voted for Badnarik punching his chad because we are isolationists who wanted our troops home by Christmas? That's certainly not why I voted for him. If you or he took it to mean that, then you do mistake me.

but a vote for Badnarik could not be construed as anything but a vote for smaller government.

Exactly - and this is why most of the anti-war crowd could not be brought to vote for him. They don't want the elimination of their pet projects.

It is ironic that the LP is so business-friendly, but it still does not supply any popular demand and effectively advertise that position. Most Americans say they want less government interference with this or that, but they want more government involvement with other aspects of life, be it environmentalism, transportation, policing, health care, or whatever. The D and R parties have managed to make themselves more trustworthy and viable than the LP, and as a student of market forces, I have to recognize that. You can feel as moral as you like when you vote Libertarian, but you can't fight the market, you have to work the market, if you want to change its current direction.

Jason, you can keep saying that it's somehow immoral to vote D or R, but it is not necessarily so.

Well, I don't believe I made that argument...but if increasing the size of government (thus, the amount of institutionalized violent coercion), then yes such would be the case. I, however, do not believe I made that assertion.

But you are also creating a false dilemma of LP vs [D+R], where one choice is moral and one is not.

No...I am simply stating that the choice LP vs. [D+R] is an accurate one of depicting the choice of smaller government vs. bigger government.

In some elections, voting LP makes as much sense as excusing yourself when you fart in an empty room. It has no effect but to make you feel better about yourself.

Well, true enough...but if you acknowledge, as the Declaration of Independence does, that all governments derive their power from consent of the governed...when you vote D or R you are giving your consent to bigger government. Empirically speaking, this is fact: Ds and Rs both work to expand government wherever they are. Giving them your vote registers your approval.

They have a chance of getting results.

Like how? When was the last time Congress or the President proposed _ending_ a program, _eliminating_ a tax, or _abolishing_ a regulation? The only thing working with Ds and Rs does is allow you have an opportunity to adjust your chains a little bit.

The problem with shooting for utopia is that you cannot get there, and it is naive to believe otherwise.

I'm not "shooting for utopia". I'm shooting to make change. I want to turn the cart in a different direction, so we can start heading down a different path. I'm not a purist who thinks it should all happen overnight....I am a realist who recognizes that voting for Ds and Rs DOESN'T WORK. The Rs have had Congress for 10 years, the Presidency for 5...and is government smaller...or at least the same size...as it was then? Nope. It is growing even FASTER than it has in 40 years.

To make matters worse...when you question Republicans about it...they are never short on excuses as to why smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and personal liberty haven't been delivered, or need to wait a little longer. They'll tell you things like...well, we need to make government bigger and more expensive so we can correct the mistakes that were made by the Democrats....or they'll tell you that they need to get a supermajority in the house, or appoint some judges... Everything except taking responsibility for admitting what is painfully clear....they have no interest in making government smaller. They, being the consummate politicians that they, are more interested in rewarding their friends and punishing their enemies.

And since you bring up a reference to the free market.....As I say all the time...if you don't like the product McDonald's serving you and you'd like to change their menu, the answer isn't to work for them as their head fry guy... the answer is to open up a Burger King across the street and steal their customers with a better product. This is the challenge for the LP...one that they have not been very successful at so far...but it is the model that needs to be followed. Competition is what drives change...not monopoly.

This just isn't true. I have two words for you: Ron Paul.

Yes, I'm glad you brought him up. The problem with that example is that, for many years, the Republican party actively tried to undermine his candidacy, to get more establishment friendly candidates put in his place. They would run other candidates against him in the primaries, underfund his campaign, etc. Once they realized that Paul was just too popular, and couldn't be removed so easily, they gave up.

Furthermore, Ron Paul himself is not very effective in the House. When was the last time you heard a bill with his name attached to it as the primary sponsor, get passed? Lobby groups don't even attempt to stop in at his office. There's a reason why he's earned the moniker "Dr. No".

Trust me.. I love Ron Paul...But I don't think he supports your argument.

That's certainly not why I voted for him. If you or he took it to mean that, then you do mistake me.

I meant that example simply to point out that people who claim to want one thing...and one thing really really bad...tend to vote against their own self interests. This was in response that voting D or R is a matter of promoting one's self interest.

Exactly - and this is why most of the anti-war crowd could not be brought to vote for him. They don't want the elimination of their pet projects.

Agreed. Which is why I questioned their sincerity about ending the war.

It is ironic that the LP is so business-friendly, but it still does not supply any popular demand and effectively advertise that position.

Here in Ohio, as well as some other mid-west states...our party is attempting to work on a branding strategy to market the LP as the party of small business. Its really taken off over in Indiana, and Missouri seems to be doing ok with it...so, stay tuned.

The D and R parties have managed to make themselves more trustworthy and viable than the LP

If by viable, you mean, "able to win major elections", I'd agree. But "trustworthy"? I don't agree. Republicans promised smaller government for years....where is it?

You can feel as moral as you like when you vote Libertarian, but you can't fight the market, you have to work the market, if you want to change its current direction.

I agree. See my previous McDonalds/Burger King reference.

I, however, do not believe I made that assertion.

Semantics. You've made it clear that is your position, that voting D or R is immoral. I am not disagreeing with your basic libertarian ideals, but rather with your thoughts on how best to implement them. And by the way, I am very glad that you have decided to share your thoughts with us here. It's a shame Rammage is working all weekend and can't join in.

Empirically speaking, this is fact: Ds and Rs both work to expand government wherever they are. Giving them your vote registers your approval.

These parties give the voter what they think the voter wants. That's it - just like a business. For the Democrats even more than the Republicans, the platform is based on whatever the polls say voters want, and there is no coherent philosophy for which they stand.

The high point of the LP is either getting a single electoral vote in 1972, or getting 1% of the vote in 1980. Neither is promising, and both are dusty history. You might feel differently, but I see this as quixotic.

The libertarian minded people who work within the D or R party do have a chance of getting results. You ask how. Well, they find those proposals that are authoritiarian and they work against them. They try to steer their party to the libertarian issues. They remind their politicians what they want. This is the biggest problem in the GOP, afaiac. Voters like Rammage need to make sure the Republicans they vote for know why they got his vote, and how they will lose it. If Rammage doesn't actively push for smaller government from within the GOP, that party will never return to its Reganesque ways. But make no mistake, these parties can be steered. It's not going to be easy, but neither would it be easy to get Libertarians into Congress or the White House. I think you and I just disagree about which is more difficult.

Also, you say that Ron Paul is not a good example because he is not very effective. But is he less effective than Harry Browne? Your argument against Ron Paul is exactly my argument about voting for the LP. They are a statement vote, but they have changed nothing in the last 30 years. In fact, as the number of registered libertarians has risen, the GOP has moved towards authoritarianism. It may be that a million libertarians may be exactly what that party needs.

And since you bring up a reference to the free market.....As I say all the time...if you don't like the product McDonald's serving you and you'd like to change their menu, the answer isn't to work for them as their head fry guy... the answer is to open up a Burger King across the street and steal their customers with a better product.

Actually, it also works pretty well to go in and say "I'd like you to change your menu." If consumers want specific changes, they will get them. I have never opened a restaurant across the street from McDonald's, but I have still seen their menu change for the better over the last 20 years.

These parties give the voter what they think the voter wants. That's it - just like a business.

Perhaps..but don't count out the nefarious factor of organized constituencies who use the State to plunder everyone else. Ask the average Joe on the Street if he approves of all the things congress does, and more than likely, he'll say no. So how could so many people not want government to be so huge, yet it grows by leaps and bounds each year?

The answer: log-rolling.

Let's say their are three Congressman. Congressman A wants a program that Congressmen B and C do not want. Congressman B as one that A and C do not want. And Congressman C wants no new programs. (Let's say he's Ron Paul. :) )

Put to a vote, program A and B would both fail, 2 to 1. However, let's say that Congressmen A and B get together, and agree to support each other's programs. A vote is taken, and now two programs which did not have popular support, have now become law.

Think this is a hypothetical? Think again. The REAL ID act failed in a Senate vote time and time again. Everytime it was proposed, it got voted down. However, just a couple months ago, it was attached as a rider to an extremely popular bill...funding troops in Iraq, I think...which was passed. Now, and act that could not stand on its own has become law.

Did the voters want that? Were they asked? Nope.

Yet, you would say that they are "just trying to give voters what they want".... The evidence suggests otherwise.

Voters like Rammage need to make sure the Republicans they vote for know why they got his vote, and how they will lose it.

Lose it...to who? The whole point of debate here is that voting LP is "like staying home". Most Rs are not gointg to vote for Ds...and most can be cowered into voting for the Rs anyway, out of fear for the alternative.

If you've ever taken any seminars on campaigning (which I have taken more than a few), a campaign manager will classify all voters into one of 4 categories...1) People who don't vote, 2) People who will vote for your opponent, no matter what (his "base"), 3) People who will vote for you no matter what (your "base")....These first three categories should be ignored..ie. don't waste money, time, or breath on them...and 4) the middle voters who may sway one way or the other.

The point being...voters like Rammage can tell elected GOPers about why they voted for them all they want...but unless there is an alternative to vote for...(and not just someone to run against them in the primary)...then why should they listen to him? They are going to spend their energies going for the middle, rather than catering to him, and he won't go anywhere because he has already made up his mind that there are no other choices. The politician, in this case, is exploiting his lack of fortitude.

Also, you say that Ron Paul is not a good example because he is not very effective. But is he less effective than Harry Browne?

It depends... Admittedly, Harry Browne is the reason I am a Libertarian today. (Him, and Frederic Bastiat, that is....) Had I not heard Harry Browne speak and explain libertarianism, I might still be the Democrat that I grew up as...(My family is democrat...I grew up in Western NY which is heavily Polish, Catholic, and Blue Collar.) So...has Harry made a difference? I think so. Probably in a different way than Ron Paul...but he's made an impact.

If consumers want specific changes, they will get them.

But the only way a business knows is by doing the market research...ie. finding out where consumer spending patterns lie. Ds and Rs monitor voting patterns, and use that when they are campaign, re-districting, and many other things.

So how could so many people not want government to be so huge, yet it grows by leaps and bounds each year?

You hit the nail on the head with this one, but it is still a market force. What I mean is, most people would not give up government funding for their favorite programs, even if it meant the elimination of their most hated programs. Politicians know that, and that is how they get away with the log rolling you refer to. Voters may say they don't want bigger government, but when push comes to shove, they do. They oppose it right up to their pet projects being jeopardized. Just ask Rammage about DoD and NASA - how's that smaller government plan going for ya, Ram?
So politicians give voters their pet projects, their lip service, and their spin. That's what voters want, and it's what they get.

They are going to spend their energies going for the middle, rather than catering to him, and he won't go anywhere because he has already made up his mind that there are no other choices.

Absolutely. When I said that he needs to make sure the GOP knows why they got his vote, and how they will lose it, I am assuming he is a swing voter, or is willing to pretend to be one in order to be heard. But I'm not sure either of those is actually true for him. They are for me, but I don't know about Ram.

You hit the nail on the head with this one, but it is still a market force.

I'm sorry, but I really think you are misconstruing the term "market force". In a market, one is able to demand goods and services only in direct proportion to the amount one has produced. In politics, the only factor determining what can acquire is how numerous or well-organized (or both) ones special interest group is. I get where your going, but I don't think labeling it a "market force" is accurate.

What I mean is, most people would not give up government funding for their favorite programs, even if it meant the elimination of their most hated programs.

Well, another way to look at it is that the benefits derived from any government program are very narrowly focused...while the costs are spread out over so many people. Hence the phrase, privatized benefits, socialized costs.

If I make a billion dollars a year from a government subsidy, but the cost to you is only 1 dollar a year...who has more incentive to respond? Do you really have an interest in spending time, money, and energy to lobby washington, if the net benefit to you is only $1? Yet, because my benefit is so large, I am going to make damn sure the gravy train keeps rolling. I will hire lobbyists, public relations firms, and advertising agencies to come up with strong arguments in favor of the program...(those groups then become self-interested in the the continuation of the progra....)

That's why I like Harry Browne's 2000 campaign slogan, called "The Great Libertarian Offer"....Would you give up your favorite federal program if it meant you never had to pay income tax again?

For me...it really turned on a lot of light bulbs upstairs...

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:

Remember This Information? YesNo

Comments: