About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Libertarian Saturday
Author: TriSec    Date: 04/26/2008 11:16:56

Good Morning!

I trust the sun is finding our traveling contingent well this morn....flip off the White House for me today if you get a chance...

I'm off to BALOO training this morning at scout camp. "BAsic Leadership Outdoor Orientation". Yeah, I know it seems silly for a 20-year veteran, but Council says I have to have the piece of paper in order to lead an outing...

In any case, let's see what's going on around here today.


We in America have a love/hate relationship with our third parties. While it's great to have extra voices in the debate, when push comes to shove, nobody votes for them because it's seen as a "wasted vote". But what if we actually voted on principle, instead of our lifelong habits? I was raised a Democrat by a liberal college administrator here in the Northeast, so I have a genetic predisposition to vote for the "Big D". Somewhere south of me is a preacher's son who has always voted "R" since he turned 18. But do we just do this by rote, or can we break the cycle and truly make a difference?


Brian Holtz has posted an interesting observation at a website called "knowing humans".
Let's explore the infamous "Wasted Vote Syndrome". For a vote to be "wasted", it has to be cast in vain, without furthering the purpose for which it was cast. So what are the reasons for which people vote? Why do they even vote at all?

This is a surprisingly difficult question -- difficult enough that economists call it the "Paradox of Voting" (or Downs Paradox, after the seminal 1957 paper by Anthony Downs). They observe that the cost of voting is relatively high compared to its objective benefit to the voter. To vote you have to invest up to an hour of your precious time -- analyze your choices, travel to a polling place, stand in a line or two, enter your choices, and travel back. (Voting by mail only changes the time calculation a little.) Your payoff from voting has to be discounted by the probability that your vote will tip the outcome of the election. Even if you expect the outcome of an election to have a big effect on your life, the odds that your vote will change that outcome are usually vanishingly small. When you do the math, you see that the net expected personal benefit to you from adding your vote to your candidate's total is far less than the cost of the gas it takes to get to the polls -- or even the cost of the stamp to mail your ballot.

The standard explanation, then, is that voting yields some kind of psychological benefit, apart from any coldly calculated material return on the effort invested. One component of that psychological benefit is surely the basic primate need to line up with the winning side. For most of the millions of years of hominid evolutionary history, lining up with the winning faction in the tribe was often potentially a matter of life or death. Even today we're usually under social pressure not to keep our voting preference a secret. Humans have enjoyed the secret ballot for only a few centuries, and that's not nearly long enough for us to shake the feeling that we better back somebody with a decent chance of actually taking over our tribe.

The largest component of voting's psychological benefit, however, has optimistically been posited to be that voters derive "expressive" utility from voting -- they like to feel that they've stood up for their beliefs and principles. If this is indeed the reason for which you vote, then the truly "wasted" vote is the vote that doesn't accurately express your beliefs. A vote for one of the two incumbent parties is a vote that says "Take me for granted; I think you're doing a fine job, and keep up the good work." If that's not the message you want to send, then your vote is in fact "wasted" -- even if the candidate you vote for wins. That's why we Libertarians say: the only wasted vote is the one that doesn't express your principles.

Continued...


Speaking of which, checking in on the race for the (Libertarian) nomination, we see another interesting name out there. Mike Gravel (D-AK) recently joined the Libertarians, and now former congressman Bob Barr (R-GA) is giving the party a hard look.
Last issue we reported that renowned anti-war Senator Mike Gravel had joined the Libertarian Party and is seeking that party's presidential nomination.

Now the LP is in the extraordinary position of having two nationally-prominent former members of Congress interested in that race.

Former U.S. Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia has launched an exploratory committee to gauge public support for a Libertarian Party presidential race.

In doing so, Barr faces a race with roughly a dozen other announced or interested contenders -- among them, Liberator Online columnist Mary Ruwart.

Barr was in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003, where he served as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, as Vice-Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, and as a member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Since leaving Congress, Barr has gained a reputation as one of the nation's leading advocates of citizens' right to privacy and other Bill of Rights liberties. He has also worked hard to awaken conservatives and liberals to the increasing threats to U.S. civil liberties, by speaking and writing in numerous forums.

Barr serves as a board member for the National Rifle Association, and has worked with the American Conservative Union, the America Civil Liberties Union, the Marijuana Policy Project, and other civil liberties groups, cutting across party and ideological lines.

Barr joined the Libertarian Party two years ago, and has served on the LP's National Committee. Barr's Web site says, "Bob Barr chose to join the Libertarian Party because at this time in our nation's history, it is essential to join and work with a party that is 100 percent committed to protecting liberty."

Barr's Web site gives some of his key issues. Chief among them: a non-interventionist foreign policy; slashing "out of control" government spending; "maximizing individual liberty and restoring the Constitution;" and securing the borders from security threats and illegal immigration.

A survey commissioned by the Bob Barr Exploratory Committee found that seven percent of likely U.S. voters already say they would vote for Barr.

* Please note: In writing about Barr and Gravel we do not mean to slight other worthy and qualified persons seeking the LP presidential nomination. Our interest in these campaigns is that they show the increasing attraction of libertarian ideas to nationally prominent figures, opinion shapers, and officeholders like Gravel and Barr.

Also please note, the Advocates is not connected with the LP, and does not endorse candidates.

The LP has roughly a dozen presidential candidates. You can learn more about them at these sites:
http://www.lp.org/libertydecides/
http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm



We'll wrap up today with our long-running feature, "Why aren't YOU a Libertarian", featuring the wit and wisdom of presidential candidate Dr. Mary Ruwart.
QUESTION: How would a libertarian society prevent rich people and corporations from influencing the decisions of politicians, judges, and police in their favor?

MY SHORT ANSWER: The only sure way to prevent the rich from buying unfair government influence is to stop allowing government to use physical force against peaceful people. Whenever government is allowed to favor one group over another, the rich will always win, since they can "buy" more favors, overtly or covertly, than the poor.

For example, when Bell Telephone's patents ran out, it lobbied local governments to give a monopoly to a single telephone provider. At that point in time, Bell had only 50% of the telephone business, but it was the single biggest company. The smaller firms provided service that was less extensive, but also less expensive. Many people chose this option after Bell's patents ran out.

By making local governments choose a single telephone provider, Bell eliminated its competition. Bell used its deep pockets to lobby government officials to stop other telephone providers -- at gunpoint, if necessary -- from giving service to willing customers. Eventually Bell, which became AT&T, lost its long distance monopoly -- and costs to consumers plummeted.

The cable TV industry has also gained local monopolies. Although no service provider is quite as large as Bell (AT&T) used to be, consumers pay more for cable TV than they need to, because competition has been eliminated by government decree.

Big government makes the rich become richer, at the expense of the poor. Consequently, the more socialist the government, the wider the income gap between these two groups. Lady Liberty, not Big Brother, is the true champion of the "little guy."
.

Ah, and I can't resist a parting shot. Zero Tolerance continues on, as the War on Markers goes full swing!

Have fun in DC today, everyone!


 

15 comments (Latest Comment: 04/27/2008 02:17:31 by TriSec)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati