Got Wolves?


An environmental outfit named the Center for Biological Diversity has filed a lawsuit endeavoring to prevent the national administration from removing gray wolves from the endangered species list. It goes farther. It insists that a “comprehensive recovery plan” be provided for “gray wolves nationwide.” The group notes that “wolves are still missing from more than 90 percent of their historic range in the lower 48 states, and the Endangered Species Act, and common sense[!] tell us we can't ignore that loss. We’re doing all we can to make sure Trump officials fulfill their obligation to restore wolves in key habitats across the country.”

Well. According to Wikipedia, which is not always the arbiter of truth but in this case seems likely (to apply the words of Margo Channing, used in a slightly different context) to be as trustworthy as the World Almanac, there are 50 or 60 thousand wolves in Canada, six or seven thousand in Alaska, and insignificant numbers in other parts of the United States. I think wolves are pretty cool — until you run into one — but this is no endangered species. It is one of many species that environmentalists have singled out, not for preservation, but for universalization.

The “historic range” of the gray wolf is pretty much all of non-tropical North America. The reason why it isn’t roaming free in Cincinnati is mainly that it is a predator on other animals, chiefly the animals that humans use for food. The gray wolf is anathema to farmers and stockmen, and if they find a wolf, they will kill it, law or no law.

They have more common sense than the citizens of a wealthy San Francisco suburb who kept discovering that they had a coyote problem when little kids saw the animal(s) stalking their pets. When the remains of a deer were discovered on the grade-school playground, the doting parents almost unanimously came out in favor of . . . Guess what? Protecting their kids? No. They came out in favor of letting predators continue their predations. Why? “Because the coyotes were here before we were.” A friend reports that similar comments were made when a rattlesnake was discovered in a resort near Santa Cruz, and the mother of a small child came at it with a shovel. “Don’t kill it!” the chorus shouted. “We’re on its land!”

If Ayn Rand was ever right about self-sacrifice being vicious, this is the time. More vicious, intellectually, is the idea that someone or something has a right to be “recovered” back to the place where it used to live. Buffalos do not have the right to camp out on the streets of Indianapolis. Grizzlies do not have the right to eat dead mammals on the beach at Santa Monica. Even I . . . I am Scotch-Irish (mainly), but I do not have a right to be restored to my historic range in the western isles of Europe. My current home sits squarely in the historic range of multitudes of rodents, snakes, insects, and weeds, and I am fully within my rights to keep them from recovering it.

If you think otherwise, you don’t know how to think. If you demand that other people pay for your recovery projects, you don’t know how to live.

* * *

For other discussions of “extinction” and “endangerment” of species, see: “They Shoot Owls, Don’t They?”, “The Hoot-Out at the OK Corral,” “The Great Butterfly Diaspora,” and “Lies, damned lies, and the dodo” (p. 11–12).

Share This

The Two Socialisms


When I was in college, the selling point of socialism, communism, revolutionary activism, all of that, was something called “participatory democracy.” That’s what the mighty SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) stood for. That’s what the neo-Marxists stood for. That’s what all the “community organizers” stood for. The idea, endlessly reiterated, was that “decisions must be made by the people affected by those decisions.” No one talked about Medicare for all, or government-funded preschools, or government-mandated revisions of the environment. The idea was that centralized “state capitalism” was wrong, not primarily because it was inefficient, or even inequitable in its effects, but because its decisions were not “democratic.” They had not been made by the people affected by them. If it was inequitable or “slow” (i.e., inefficient), that was why.

Now we are witnessing an immense revival of “socialism,” led by Democratic Party opportunists and hacks. And it is all about laws that need to be made to increase the power of the centralized state. It is about giving professional politicians sole power over healthcare, housing, education, transportation, employment, qualifications for voting, and the possibility of self-defense — and all this without the tiniest hint that anyone except the Philosopher Kings who compose the Democratic Majority in the House of Representatives should be consulted. Participation? What’s that?

American “socialism” has shifted, in our time, from a demotic and “participatory” style to a rule-from-the-top dogmatism.

I have to be honest. I am a foe of “participatory democracy.” I do not believe it is optimal, in any sense, to give power over the individual’s existence to whoever happens to be a coworker, a fellow student, or just a guy who happens to turn up at a meeting. I find myself unable to decide whether a regime of little Red Guards is more repellent than a regime of Bernie Sanders bureaucrats arrayed, rank on rank and cube on cube, to decide what the width of my bathroom door should be.

But I think it’s worthy of notice that American “socialism” has shifted, in our time, from a demotic and “participatory” style to a rule-from-the-top dogmatism, constantly twisting in response to the whims of the politicians but always determined to enforce those whims.

I wonder whether any of the socialists have noticed this. Perhaps they are as ignorant of their own traditions as they are of economics or sociology, or respect for anyone except themselves.

Share This

Should Libertarians Run for President?


Who would be the ideal Libertarian presidential candidate for 2020? Does he (or she) exist? Will we get anyone like this person, or will it be business as usual?

We’ll find out soon enough.

One of the reasons we keep getting candidates many of us don’t want is that we can’t all agree on what the Libertarian Party nominee ought to do. Should he educate the public about what libertarians believe? Should he play the spoiler and trip up big-government Republicans? Would it be best for him to rack up the biggest possible numbers on election day? Or should he really, honest-to-gosh try to win the election?

Power is the only language the political universe understands. Spoiler power is all we can expect, at present, to have.

I think we can all agree that we want a country where the Libertarian choice would prevail. But we’re not terribly close to having it. In the meantime, I fail to see where “swinging for the fence” is going to get us.

Even if we dislike political necessity, because it goes against our convictions, we must understand it if we are to increase our influence. The only way our candidates can educate the public is by getting coverage in the media. To achieve this, we must make the media sit up and take notice. We do that by creating a disturbance in their universe.

A spoiler can have that effect. If candidates seriously threaten to take votes away from the media’s anointed contenders, they begin to attract attention. The threatened party will, sooner than later, begin to court potential spoiler votes.

Power is the only language the political universe understands. Spoiler power is all we can expect, at present, to have. We need to quit apologizing for this potential and embrace it instead.

We can all agree that we want a country where the Libertarian choice would prevail. But we’re not terribly close to having it.

The candidacy of Ron Paul demonstrated that a Republican can run as a spoiler and exert considerable influence on the public. If a Libertarian Party candidate could grab a share of the vote only as large as Paul’s, he or she would be in an excellent position to educate — as Rep. Paul has.

Candidates who want to be taken seriously won’t come out and admit they don’t expect to win all the marbles. But if they truly believe they will win as Libertarians, then they’ve lost whatever marbles they ever had. They’re better off simply stating — if they want to enjoy the success possible for them — what will be the truth: that they offer an alternative to Republican or Democratic options. In other words, to move the cumbersome machinery of the election to a different place.

Voters want to believe that casting their ballot will have some effect. If they know a candidate isn’t going to win the election, they at least hope to influence its outcome as strongly as possible. Libertarian ideas are popular with many people who don’t consider themselves libertarians. A candidate who stops pandering to established interests and stands for our values has a good chance of siphoning away a contender’s votes. The greater effect that has on the outcome of the election, the more likely Republican (and to a far lesser degree, Democratic) candidates may be to adopt pro-liberty positions.

Candidates who want to be taken seriously won’t come out and admit they don’t expect to win all the marbles. But if they truly believe they will win as Libertarians, then they’ve lost whatever marbles they ever had.

The next president who is in any shape or form libertarian will be a Republican. Again, we’re perfectly free to dislike this. That doesn’t change the fact that if one of our own is elected, it will be from the GOP ticket. The threat of voting for spoiler Libertarian Party candidates can provide the leverage to move a Rand Paul or a Justin Amash into winning the GOP nomination. Once nominated, in the general election that person would stand an excellent chance.

We’re not going to love everything about a Republican candidate. I have serious issues with Paul because I suspect he’s something of a closet social conservative. But though he says things rightwing culture warriors like, thus far his record shows him to be reliably libertarian. I’m not overly worried that, if he were elected president, he would turn into Jerry Falwell.

Money spent on the presidential race could instead be used to fund down-ballot races, especially locally, where LP candidates have a real shot at winning.

Donald Trump is nobody’s idea of a libertarian. The few bones he’s thrown us were certainly not motivated by any fear that a more liberty-loving challenger would defeat him in the 2020 primary. But if one does indeed run next time, we need to look long and hard at the possibility of registering Republican long enough to vote for him or her in the primary.

Libertarians should run for president only if they can change the outcome of the race. That’s the only way they’ll be noticed by the media, which is the only way they can educate the public. Any other candidacy for the highest office in the land is a waste of time. The money spent could instead be used to fund down-ballot races, especially locally, where LP candidates have a real shot at winning.

I have no idea, yet, whom I’ll vote for next year. But I will only vote for the Libertarian option if I feel that he or she is serious about being a presence in the election. I owe no one my vote, and I won’t be taken for granted. I want my vote to count. That will only happen if the candidate I vote for counts, too.

Share This

Maybe We’re Not Paranoid Enough


Andrew McCabe, former deputy director of the FBI and former interim director of the FBI, has produced a book about his bitter experiences with Donald Trump and is now puffing that book in interviews. In an interview with CBS he recalled his (hysterical) reaction to the firing of the egregious James Comey, director of the FBI, whose career of government-enabled arrogance Trump finally ended.

McCabe said that he, McCabe, immediately decided to instigate a high-profile probe of the president’s alleged obstruction of justice in firing Comey and of Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia. He decided, in addition, to institutionalize these probes so firmly that they could never be stopped without additional charges of obstructing justice.

McCabe also said that he discussed with his boss, deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, the latter’s plan to enlist cabinet members to consider taking Trump out by means of the 25th Amendment, and that this project was seriously considered.

From McCabe’s point of view, Trump’s offenses, besides firing the FBI director, included daring to criticize the FBI’s activities (imagine that!):

The president had been speaking in a derogatory way about our investigative efforts for weeks, describing it as a witch hunt, publicly undermining the effort of the investigation.

Intolerable, is it not, that Trump should have spoken in such a way about investigations of himself?

McCabe himself was subsequently fired for lying and leaking, and his accounts of other people’s actions have been denied by some of them. He has tried to soften the impact of a few of his statements. That having been said, we can assume that his first account of his own doings, which he delivered with self-righteous braggadocio, can be given credence. He bragged about trying to stage a coup d’etat — exactly the kind of thing that supposedly paranoid libertarians have always suspected that “intelligence” agencies are able and willing to do. This is something even worse than the soft coups that such agencies have chronically staged, leaking or merely letting it be known that they possessed damaging information against public figures whom they distrust. A good example is J. Edgar Hoover’s stranglehold on Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, and his threats against Martin Luther King.

Whatever libertarians think of President Trump — and there is a wide range of opinion — they should receive McCabe’s revelations as a sign that their paranoia was fully justified, and as a warning about what will happen if libertarians ever do predominate, or look as if they may soon predominate, in government.

Picture it. Murray Rothbard Jones, senator from Idaho, is thought to be the likely nominee of the Republican Party. Jones is an antagonist of government surveillance and of what he calls “our institutionalized system of prying, snitching, and intimidation.” He has attacked and ridiculed the “process violations” that the FBI uses to send people it dislikes — such as Martha Stewart(!) — to jail. He has vowed that if he becomes president, one of his first objectives will be a “full house cleaning at the FBI.”

What do you think will happen to Murray Rothbard Jones?

Here’s what. As soon as Jones shows any chance of winning, the FBI will covertly investigate him for collusion with corporations that seek the repeal of antitrust and other trade-restrictive legislation. Is he not in favor of such repeal? And has he not taken contributions from corporate executives? So investigate; you’re likely to find something — on anybody. And of course you can leak it.

Meanwhile, the CIA will covertly investigate Jones for collusion with foreign countries. Is he not in favor of reducing tariffs? And has he not traveled to foreign countries and conferred with their leaders?

Information will be stockpiled, doctored, invented, and divulged. The FBI and CIA will collaborate in sponsoring stories about Jones’s nights in a Beijing luxury hotel, where he paid prostitutes to piss on him in a bed where Huma Abedin once slept. This purported information will be assiduously leaked by the same people who will proceed to vouch for its value. Investigation will follow investigation, paralyzing the Jones regime — as mobs roam the country, denouncing all Jones supporters as racists and sexists (after all, doesn’t Jones want to end racial and gender preferences?).

Well, this is more or less what happened to Trump. Now comes the part about the 25th Amendment.

What more proof do you want that Jones is unfit to discharge the duties of his office than his insane ideas about reducing military expenditures, ending American interference in foreign countries, and (gasp!) stopping the government’s subsidies to schools? The one thing lacking might be skepticism about the usefulness of the FBI and CIA, but now we know he’s crazy in that way too. If Jones survives, it will be a miracle. If he accomplishes any part of his program, it will be an apocalypse.

So, speaking of apocalyptic thought: libertarians should not imagine that their only enemies are demagogic pols, social scientists with incomplete educations, and the people standing behind the counter at the DMV. They’re just some of the hosts arrayed against us. The others are the guys in expensive suits whom St. Paul pictured as “powers” in “high places,” and “the rulers of the darkness of this world.”

Share This

Raising the Mob


I don’t know whether Virginia Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax committed rape, as he has been accused of doing, and I’m certainly in no position to decide. Yet the idea of involving the country at large in such decisions is the premise behind virtually all the publicity given to the matter, and to many other matters of recent note.

Before this era of what is laughingly known as our national discourse, it would have been inconceivable for official statements to be issued about something like this by such ephemeral citizens as bit players in Hollywood and (alleged) nightclub comedians. I don’t recall that even Cary Grant or Rosalind Russell considered it their business to render judicial determinations on the sex affairs of Virginia politicians. But in the case of Mr. Fairfax, and innumerable others, judgments, pro or con, now fly into the public air space within moments of an accusation.

How did this happen? It isn’t just because ignorant people think they’re important (they’ve always done so), or have Twitter accounts.

State officials are the leaders of this mob, as they have been the leaders of so many mobs during the past few years.

Until now, I’ve generally pictured mobs as composed of private individuals who have at least momentarily lost their minds. Individuals’ penchant for forming mobs is a matter of human psychology that libertarians need to think about much more than we ordinarily do (which is not at all). But now the libertarian view of the state as the ultimate foe is getting some renewed support — because who has been leading most of the recent mobs? Who was it that immediately, right off the bat, without taking a second to weigh the evidence, with no investigation or possibility of investigation, started yelling for the conviction of Mr. Fairfax (and countless others) in the court of public opinion?

It was state officials, legislators of this republic. They are the leaders of this mob, as they have been the leaders of so many mobs during the past few years.

The state has other powers besides legislation and the enforcement of legislation. It has the power to destroy the sense of fairness and self-restraint on which any decent society is based. It’s not enough for the modern state — bloated, ignorant, and indiscriminately cruel — to pass ridiculous and indecent laws. Now it is raising mobs to destroy the very idea of decency.

Share This

Fools and Their Folly


Ralph Northam, governor of Virginia —perhaps soon-to-be ex-governor of Virginia — is a fool. On that we can all agree.

But until a few days ago, he was not a fool.

He was not a fool when he was running for governor and some of his followers ran an ad suggesting that his opponent was a violent racist, an ad that he first defended, while implicitly disavowing, and then disavowed, while implicitly defending. A few associates of his opponent’s party remember that, but nobody really cares.

Someone finally publicized what must have been known to many, a page from Northam’s med-school yearbook showing a man in blackface and a Klansman drinking happily together

And he was not a fool when, on January 30 of this year, he commented on a bill advanced by his party in the legislature that seemed to allow abortions during normal-term birth, with the option of infanticide, by saying:

So in this particular example if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

Conservatives pounced on this saying, asserting that Northam was a baby killer, although it was easier to show that his comments about “exactly what would happen” were more like the maunderings of a fool than any declaration of specific intent. But few people called him a fool.

Then, in early February, someone finally publicized what must have been known to many, a page from Northam’s med-school yearbook glorifying alcoholic beverages and illustrating their glory by showing a man in blackface and a Klansman drinking happily from their cans of (presumably) brew. That’s exactly what you want in your med-school yearbook, right? If you do, you’re a fool.

Northam then proceeded to prove, and overprove, that you cannot part a fool from his folly. He confessed that he was one of the men in the picture, though he didn’t say which one, and apologized for the harmful effects of what he had done. A day later he decided that he was not one of the men in the picture and had, in fact, nothing to do with the picture — although, he added, he had once done a blackface imitation of Michael Jackson’s moonwalk routine. It is said that Northam’s wife had to prevent him from showing the press that he could still do the moonwalk.

The root cause of racism and all its ridiculous symbols and tokens is folly, mindlessness, sheer stupidity.,

Instantaneously, cries arose from every quarter, including Northam’s own party, that he must resign forthwith. There were even cries, from outside his party, against the allegedly culpable inaction of his lieutenant governor, an African-American who, perhaps, did not wish to be seen staging a coup d’etat. Northam was now everything vile and vicious, and the whole nation appeared to agree.

But the root of this vileness was not identified. The root cause of racism and all its ridiculous symbols and tokens — symbols and tokens that may sometimes exist without any particularly racist thought, or any thought at all — is folly, mindlessness, sheer stupidity, the conviction that you are thinking when you’re not, the conviction that you can get through the world without any mental activity, and that nobody else will notice.

Apparently, the odds on doing so are pretty good, because Northam did get through 59 years in this world without anyone noticing what a dope he is. It’s only the “racism” that was finally observed. And I suppose that this is the way the republic needs to continue, because where could political leaders be found if every fool were identified as such, and driven from public office?

Share This

Sugar and Spice


When I was a child, our neighbors had a little girl who would stand outside and scream her lungs out. One day I went over to see if she needed help. She stopped screaming long enough to grin at me, then went right back to it. She was doing it just for the fun of it.

That was a frightening peek into feminine psychology. “Some little girls just like to scream,” my mother told me. “It makes them feel important when people come running.”

They’re screaming because they love to. Apparently, it makes them feel alive.

Many little girls do love a good scream. Whenever there’s a birthday party, or any other gathering of female children, you can hear them for blocks. Their philosophy must be “I scream, therefore I am.”

That seems to be what the professional “progressive” feminists are doing. They’re screaming because they love to. Apparently, it makes them feel alive. They like to make people come running.

I grew up thinking I was a feminist. I don’t think I ever left feminism, but feminism has certainly left me. I don’t even pretend to understand it anymore.

When did making people feel sorry for us replace earning respect? And how can other people’s pity help us to respect ourselves?

I don’t think I ever left feminism, but feminism has certainly left me.

Those on the feminist Left thinks that men have been mean to them. They want to make them sorry. But when your sense of well-being depends on eliciting any particular response from someone else, that does nothing to make you more respectable. All it makes you is codependent — which is something feminists commonly claim that they don’t want to be.

As the cancellation of a recent Women’s March shows, progressive feminists are now competing with one another to hear who can scream the loudest. The screaming never stops.

The Women’s March rally was canceled, it appears, simply because too many of its prospective participants were white. No one is arguing that some are more female than others (though that issue is indeed raised in the transgender-inclusion debate). The “whiteness” issue centers on race: the skin color of those who would be marching.

Much has been made of sisterly loyalty, especially in connection with the #MeToo Movement. But what’s most notable in this kerfuffle over “whiteness” in feminism is not loyalty — the fruit of which is cooperation — but competition. In their attempt to determine who should or should not speak for women, left-feminists are at one another’s throats.

Scream too often, and most people will simply tune you out.

It was famously said, by no less a light than Jesus himself, that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” By blundering into the tall weeds of whiteness, left-feminists are doing their cause no favors. As happens continually in the progressive aggrievement Olympics, the social justice troops are too busy shooting at each other to take aim against any common enemy. Or, to return to my original analogy, the scream’s the thing. And the objective appears to be simply attracting attention.

They’re not even doing a very good job of that, especially not concerning particular problems. Scream too often, and most people will simply tune you out. Our neighbors didn’t waste too much time rushing to the aid of our own little screamer. She could have been torn apart by wild dogs and no one would have noticed.

I hold out no hope for “believe every woman, no matter who the accuser may be.” In the #MeToo Movement, sooner or later the troops are going to turn their guns against other women. The Fair Sex suffers from a deficit in mutual loyalty. Women are just as prone to aiming at one another as they are to pointing the guns of their indignation at men.

Many women need to figure out what real self-respect means, and how it may be won.

It may well be asked if men don’t have the same tendencies. I think in general, they display more of a solid front. Much of their success in keeping the upper hand over women for so many centuries can be attributed, it seems to me, to their confidence that women will compete with one another.

Men are a long way from being the source of all our problems. Many women need to figure out what real self-respect means, and how it may be won. And when we hear some women screaming their lungs out, we need to demand an intelligent answer to the question of what the hell they’re screaming about.

Share This

Maurice Chevalier’s America


The government shutdown — to what shall I compare it? How about the song that Maurice Chevalier sings in Gigi? Too old to suffer the pangs of love, Chevalier rejoices that from now on there will be

No morning-after surprise,
No self-delusion
That when you're telling those lies
She isn't wise.

America appears to have penetrated those lies about life being unlivable without the federal government. So the affair is over; the government is “shut” — and behold! We eat; we drink; we are even merry.

They are not glad they’re not young anymore; they are angry that they’re not young anymore.

All of us, that is, except politicians still suffering from the delusion that when they’re telling their lies, particularly their lies about their own indispensability, America isn’t wise. Well, she is. But I don’t hear Nancy Pelosi singing, “How lovely to sit here in the shade,” or feeling relieved by the failure of her romance with the voters. Not for her is

The longing to end the stale affair
Until you find out — she doesn't care!

The idea that “she,” America, fundamentally does not care must be grievous, intolerable, even unthinkable to people like Pelosi. Far from feeling grateful that they can go about their business, or even enjoy, like Chevalier, a breakfast “in the shade” — with singing, and a little dance — they clamor to be readmitted to a fraught and failed relationship. They are not glad they’re not young anymore; they are angry that they’re not young anymore. To cite the singer once again: “Poor boys! Poor girls!”

Share This

Presidents Will Be Presidents


With the passing of former President George H.W. Bush, we’ve heard a multitude of eulogies. Though the media often savaged him when he was president, calling him a wimp and claiming he was out of touch with ordinary Americans, he is now being held up, by his associates and many in the media, as a man of sterling character. And they consider it rude if we disagree.

Particularly after they’ve left office, presidents are reassessed in a kinder light than they merit. It’s great if they were nice to their family, fraternity brothers, or fellow politicians, but what about the people whose lives their administrations affected? Our view of them is often different. How come they do us like they do?

Not only us, but people in other countries. Sometimes especially people in other countries. Do those on the receiving end of bombing raids or drone strikes regard the president who ordered them as a stand-up guy?

It’s great if they were nice to their family, fraternity brothers, or fellow politicians, but what about the people whose lives their administrations affected?

One of the things I most appreciate about libertarian principle is its bedrock-level moral soundness. We don’t believe in hitting people or taking their things. We do believe in behaving ourselves, instead of telling others how to behave, and, whenever possible, in simply minding our own business. This makes those rare libertarians in public life stand-up guys and gals. It also gives the rest of us a reliable yardstick by which to measure them.

By our yardstick, George H.W. Bush was a pretty typical president. He stuck his nose in everybody else’s business. Not content to regulate the lives of those in his own country, or to raise our taxes (after promising he wouldn’t), Bush 41 also wanted to run the show in other countries. From his “New World Order,” no one was exempt. On a person-to-person level, there were plenty of people to whom he wasn’t very nice.

We libertarians are loath to accept the opinions of those for whom political power is the only consideration. What can we do to help change the way elected officials are evaluated? We can tell the truth about who does what to whom. We can call what our elected officials do exactly what it is.

George H.W. Bush was a pretty typical president. He stuck his nose in everybody else’s business.

All presidents in recent memory have ordered military hits on people in other countries. They have dealt death to innocent civilians. If we did that to other human beings, we’d be locked up and possibly even executed. No matter how wonderful someone may be, when that person runs for president, we can reliably predict that if victorious in the election, he or she will become a murderer. By the law binding on the rest of us, the one who orders the hit is guilty of the crime.

I mean to draw a distinction, here, between the sort of killing that defends lives and the sort that results from a war in which we are the aggressors. I’m also letting off the hook people who take the lives of those attempting to take theirs. Nor would I begrudge the right to self-defense to anyone — in or out of uniform.

Libertarians want our presidents (and Congress) to stop killing people who aren’t trying to kill us. We tell the truth about the crimes they commit. For the sake of winning elections, should we do otherwise? If we don’t tell the truth, who will?

No matter how wonderful someone may be, when that person runs for president, we can reliably predict that if victorious in the election, he or she will become a murderer.

Crimes against humanity continue to be committed in our name, and on our dime. We can do little about this except to vote against it. I joined the Libertarian Party because active participation in the party is, I believe, one of the most important ways my voice can be heard. And I’m totally willing to be rude about it. Fake decency and fake civility are vastly worse than fake news.

Share This

Is My Vote Wasted?


The purpose of this Reflection is not to argue for or against any specific position but merely to articulate and clarify various arguments. The issue is simple: if I vote for the Libertarian Party candidate, is my vote wasted?

Here are 25 responses to that question.

(1) If I vote Libertarian and the Republican candidate loses to the Democrat then my vote was indeed wasted and could have made a difference if cast for the Republican.

(2) But virtually no elections are decided by exactly one vote, so my vote was wasted either way.

(3) But if everyone who voted Libertarian had voted Republican, or Democratic, that could have made a difference.

(4) But I am only responsible for myself individually, not for the entire "libertarian voting bloc," so I shouldn't think like a collectivist.

(5) But that is a realistic way to think.

(6) One vote almost never decides an election, so shouldn’t I vote for the best candidate with the purest principles, as a personal statement?

(7) But voter turnout rates are low, so every vote counts, if only as a measure of opinion. In fact a lot of effort and money goes into getting every last voter available.

(8) Wouldn’t it be most idealistic to cast a vote that could make a real difference for real people? Which means . . .

(A) voting for a candidate who can win; or

(B) voting for a Libertarian, because this will force the GOP closer to libertarianism, because it will need to try to get our votes.

(9) If everyone like me voted for the LP, then couldn’t the LP win?

(10) The LP fundamentally does not care about winning elections, but the GOP does, so how can the LP win anything?

(11) Aren’t Republican candidates better that Libertarians, because they really enact laws? And aren’t most Republicans sympathetic to libertarianism, anyway?

(12) But aren’t Republicans really no better than Democrats? They support big government when it suits them; they are conservatives, not libertarians, so a vote for the GOP is a wasted vote.

(13) If I cast a vote for anyone, am I not giving my consent to and endorsing the big government state and its taxes, wars, regulations, plans for gun control, etc.?

(14) Won’t the big government machine steamroll on, regardless of whether I cast a vote? So I might as well try to vote for a politician who will fight to slow it down.

(15) It costs practically nothing to vote, and the marginal impact I might have is wasted if I don't.

(16) But actually going to the polls and taking an hour off from work to cast a vote is too much trouble, relative to how little my own vote matters.

(17) Politics is a dirty business, so I don't want to get involved by voting.

(18) Politics is a dirty business, and the only way to clean it up is for people like me to get involved. So I have to vote. Even if my vote is wasted today, it starts the process of moving toward a tomorrow when my vote will not be wasted.

(19) If a Republican runs against a Democrat, and the Libertarian gets 4% of the vote and the Republican loses by 2% and I voted Libertarian and the Democrats achieve world domination, then I am to blame.

(20) But if the other 96% had voted with me, then the Libertarian would have won, so they are to blame. And if the Republican candidate had been very libertarian-leaning he would have taken half the LP vote anyway, so he is to blame.

(21) My vote is my own; it belongs to me. So I owe no duty to do anything other than vote my conscience and my values, which are Libertarian.

(22) Libertarian Party candidates often disagree with voters on important issues, such as abortion or immigration or privatization. If I vote along Libertarian Party lines, I may be voting for individuals who differ substantially from me or the party, or both.

(23) As a member of the American experiment in democracy, initiated by Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, and other brave men, I owe a duty to my nation to act as a member of the body politic, which includes a duty to research the candidates and cast a vote that is intelligently designed to do the most good for the country by maximizing support for the most electable candidate who would also be competent, sane, and reasonable in his policies, which most often means the Republican candidate.

(24) The real war in American politics is between Democrats and Republicans, so any vote outside that system is a wasted vote.

(25) The establishment sells the idea that it is a two-party system, but if the public became aware of the nation's third largest political party the system would become a three-party competition and the LP could realistically go from 4% to 30% of the vote. The reason we don't get votes is because nobody knows who we are and what we stand for, not because voters don't like us.

* * *

I leave my readers with a question: which of these positions do you agree or disagree with, and why?

Share This
Syndicate content

© Copyright 2019 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.

Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.