[Phred]

There are a lot of people posting in this forum who self-identify as Libertarians. Some of the old hands here who are US citizens have probably even voted for the Libertarian candidate in previous presidential elections. They may want to take this prominent Libertarian's advice:

Mitt Romney is the only sane choice for Libertarians
By Wayne Allyn Root
Published November 05, 2012


As a former Libertarian presidential contender, the 2008 Libertarian vice presidential nominee, the former chairman of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee, and the man called "Mr. Libertarian" by media across this country, you might be surprised to find I’m supporting Republican Mitt Romney for president. Yes, this Las Vegan has gone “all in” for Mitt. Why? Because Mitt Romney is the only sane choice for Libertarians.

It’s simple. Libertarians believe in less government; lower taxes; cutting rules, regulations and mandates to get government out of the way of small business; reining in out-of-control government agencies like the EPA; auditing the Fed; and balancing the budget. Sound familiar?

So do Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Certainly a little less than Libertarians, including me, would like. But, I’ll take incremental progress over no progress. Mitt Romney is a step in the right direction.

Barack Obama is a thousand miles in the wrong direction -- a direction that leads to the bankruptcy of our children and grandchildren and the destruction of the American Dream. A vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for Obama and his disastrous road that leads to the end of America (as we know it).

The Obama you’ve seen for the last four years is nothing like the radical man who will be unleashed for the next four. The first Obama term was just a small taste of things to come. Without having to answer to voters again, Obama will be his REAL radical self. Without restraint, Obama will ignore Congress, and govern by Executive Order. These radical Executive Orders from "Obama unleashed" will change America forever.

Don’t believe me? Are you aware Obama issued almost 1,000 executive orders in his first term? That’s more than all other presidents in history combined (and still counting). In a second term Obama will render Congress meaningless.

In 8 years Bush added $3 trillion in debt and created 20,000 new government rules and regulations.

Disgraceful.

In protest, I left the GOP in 2007. Then along came Obama. He has added $5 trillion in debt and 60,000 new rules and regulations…in only 3 ½ years.
Unimaginable.

In a second term, with no voters to answer to, Obama will be free to wreck the American economy just as he was taught by a slew of radical, Marxist, American hating mentors -- Barack Obama Sr., Frank Marshall, Saul Alinsky, Professors Cloward & Piven, Bill Ayers, and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. These aren’t liberals. They are publicly avowed radicals and communists.

In Obama's second term I believe he will unleash economic Armageddon -- the total collapse of the U.S. economy and our financial system.

Today, the real unemployment is in the 15% range. By 2016, we will look back with envy at "the good old days." You think $5 trillion in new debt is bad? Wait until ObamaCare kicks in, adding trillions in new taxes and spending that will double the national debt.

Europe has been following Obama’s plan for decades -- big government, big unions, big spending, big taxes, big pensions, big entitlements, free health care, too many government employees, out-of-control pensions, and unlimited spending on green energy. The result? Economic disaster on a grand scale. Greece, Italy, and Spain are enduring a tragedy few can comprehend. France is next. Someday we will read about this in history books.

America, under Obama, is following the exact same path.

Hopefully I’ve got your attention.

This election is NOT about Libertarian versus non-Libertarian. This election is about capitalism versus Big Brother socialism. Mitt Romney is far from perfect, but at least he believes in capitalism. At least he won't denigrate and discourage business owners. Be thankful for little things.

I’m not just a Libertarian. First and foremost, I'm a capitalist evangelist. I'm proud to be a small businessman.

Economic issues are the whole ballgame at this point. We need to get our fiscal house in order first. Without an economy, without jobs, it’s impossible to deal with all our other problems. Mitt understands, as President Calvin Coolidge once said, “The business of America is business.” That’s why electing Mitt Romney is so important.

This election is our LAST STAND to save America. Mitt understands that Obama’s rhetoric, constant threats against business, union favoritism, IRS intimidation, 60,000 new rules and regulations, stimulus to nowhere, never-ending unemployment and food stamps, the added taxes and regulations of ObamaCare, and the attempt to ban oil drilling and regulate the coal industry out of existence, have collectively ground the U.S. economy to a halt. We will not survive four more years of Obama as CEO of this economy.

The U.S. economy is a large, diverse, failing company in desperate need of a turnaround. At this moment in history America needs a CEO with a track record of extraordinary success, job creation, and specifically- experience turning around failing companies. That person is Mitt Romney.

As Clint Eastwood said, "We own this nation." It's time to take it back. The future of America and our children depends on it. Their quality of life is hanging in the balance. Our back is to the wall. Obama’s defeat is that important to our economy, our freedoms, our children’s future, and ultimately, the very survival of our country.

It’s time for a coalition of Republicans, conservatives, Tea Party activists, Libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, small business owners, financial first responders (investors and business owners willing to risk our financial lives to create jobs), patriots, and common sense middle-class Americans to join together and support Mitt Romney now.

That is why I’m voting for Mitt Romney. That is why I urge all Libertarians, and Ron Paul supporters, to swallow hard, put our differences aside, and support Mitt Romney.

Vote as if your life…your business…your children’s future depends on it. Because it does.

Selah.


Phred

[Soixante-Retard]

Wayne Allen Root is what I'd call a vulgar libertarian. Him and Bob Barr. Fuck him, frankly.

[Pants-of-dog]

Obviously, the libertarian quoted is not concerned with social issues, only economic ones.

What do you call a "libertarian" who only supports economic libertarian views and not social ones? Other than "a conservative"?

[SolarCross]

There are other choices beside the romneybot and obombem. Both suck the banker's shriveled winkles and are willing bitches for the military industrial complex. If you are libertarian you could vote for the libertarian party! Yes there is one. Corporate media is trying hard to hide it from you but it exists nonetheless.

[Rei Murasame]

I actually did follow the "selah" instruction and contemplated it all before commenting on it.

Basically my view of what has happened here is this:

Wayne Allyn Root, in making the statements he's made, supporting Romney over Obama, it means that he values the economic freedom more than he supports his own alleged classical liberal social agenda.

By this I mean that his fear of expropriation by a Barack Obama who actually has no intention of expropriating him anyway, is so deeply held, that he is willing to align himself with the sort of people who want to ban pornography and have made numerous statements that indicate that they oppose the decision-making autonomy of women and that they oppose the ability of individual states to author legislation that enables homosexual unions.

At every turn, when the Republican party and their leaders have been offered a chance - by the media - to opine on what they'd like to do to people if they were part of a hypothetical and imaginary sexuality and reproduction panel, not a single one of them has actually said, "I don't care, they can do it if they need to". Instead, they start role-playing a though they are on a hospital's front desk services, or chairing a rape panel, or standing in a magistrate's office behind a table.

The fact that they can so easily slide into that sort of fantasy time and time again, and that they think it really is their business to micromanage these issues, and that they have shown an interest in raising legislation to do so, should scare libertarian leaders if they actually believe anything that they claim to believe.

But they clearly don't believe any of it. To serve capital and defend themselves from the threat of even a slight bit of expropriation, they are willing to sequester themselves among the men of the cloth from the bronze-age and sell out every single social liberty they have if necessary.

Whether that's a 'right' or 'wrong' thing for them to do, is not my call to make, but what we can be sure of is that is shows where their real interests lie, and many an article and paper could be written on how and why libertarianism came to be a reactionary force in American politics.

And what a politically damaging revelation they are making to everyone, after trying for the past 12 years to cosy up to those potential supporters who were interested in being socially empowered and 'free' during the Presidency of George W. Bush where there was a real concern among many people about their social freedoms, and then maintaining that line through the first 4 years of the Presidency of Barack H. Obama, only to now throw their game by taking off the mask to pimp for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

People are going to probably bring that up, after the election which Barack Obama will win anyway. People will recall that when the pressure - an absolutely tiny pressure given that Obama is a capitalist anyway - was on, libertarians did not hold the line, and that they instead broke and scattered to hide behind Mitt Romney's trouser-leg.

Also, I predicted this would happen a while ago, so I'm also patting myself on the back now. A good knowledge of UK history and an ability to compare it to American history, allowed me to forecast this behaviour, so it actually doesn't even surprise me now that it's unfolding. Libertarians in the USA are simply replaying the same trajectory that 'classical' liberalism in the UK took exactly 100 years ago.

[Joe Liberty]

Wayne Allen Root is what I'd call a vulgar libertarian. Him and Bob Barr. Fuck him, frankly.

Agreed. For one thing, I don't appreciate anybody, let alone a libertarian, telling me what the "only sane" option is. I can easily call it insane to continue to allow the same two parties their monopoly on power, no matter how "likable" their candidates might be.

[Rei Murasame]

I should add, I do respect Soixante-Retard's and Joe Liberty's and Taxizen's choice to steadfastly hold their line. I disagree with your ideology, but I'm impressed that you are not seduced by the allure of two-party ballot-box games.

[mikema63]

I had a minor altercation with my mother about her belief that I was wasting my vote.

[Joe Liberty]

I had a minor altercation with my mother about her belief that I was wasting my vote.

Man, that canard drives me nuts! It's exactly the opposite: if you're voting in a horse race, or voting against someone, that's when you're wasting your vote. I refuse to believe that people have fought and died for the right to vote just so I could use it be on the winning side or play gamesmanship, rather than casting it for someone I truly want to elect.

[Soixante-Retard]

I should add, I do respect Soixante-Retard's and Joe Liberty's and Taxizen's choice to steadfastly hold their line. I disagree with your ideology, but I'm impressed that you are not seduced by the allure of two-party ballot-box games.

As am I with you.

I had a minor altercation with my mother about her belief that I was wasting my vote.

I though GJ said it best when he said "Wasting your vote is voting for someone you don't believe in!"

[Happyhippo]

There are other choices beside the romneybot and obombem. Both suck the banker's shriveled winkles and are willing bitches for the military industrial complex. If you are libertarian you could vote for the libertarian party! Yes there is one. Corporate media is trying hard to hide it from you but it exists nonetheless.

The problem with the Libertarian Party is that it consists of people like Root. People making every excuse possible for the powers of capital and seem to only see government as an instrument for the evil poor to take away wealth from honest capitalists. Granted, LP has cleaned out some of the douchebags, but it`s still infested with people who have so little faith in the common man it`s downright sickening.

You can see the same thing in Root`s opinion piece, nowhere does he raise any criticism against bailouts, the military-industrial complex etc etc. It`s just a splendid apologetic piece for the big business/government coalition, but I guess he is just unable to see that government interference can sometimes lead to wealth being distributed upwards.

Rothbard warned about some of the dangers of becoming too closely aligned with the conservatives, and I think he would turn in his grave to see how fucked up a lot of these "libertarians" have become after decades of exposure to conservative hogwash.

I`m in complete agreement with Soixante and Joe Liberty (for once:)), fuck Root.

[Phred]

There are other choices beside the romneybot and obombem.

No, there aren't. Either one or the other will occupy the Oval Office for the next four years. Root is sharp enough to recognize this and to cast his vote as a way of taking strategic action rather than as a way of simply expressing himself. He realizes there are plenty of other avenues for such expression, but only one opportunity every four years to act.

If you are libertarian you could vote for the libertarian party!

Yet Gary Johnson will not win the election. This is obvious to any rational person. Since the Libertarian candidate has no chance in hell of winning, the next best option is to elect the one least inimical to the principles Libertarians profess to hold important. As Root explains, that is clearly Mitt Romney.

Wayne Allyn Root, in making the statements he's made, supporting Romney over Obama, it means that he values the economic freedom more than he supports his own alleged classical liberal social agenda.

As he reminds us, you can't get everything you want. He merely points out that with Obama, you get less than with Romney.

I can easily call it insane to continue to allow the same two parties their monopoly on power, no matter how "likable" their candidates might be.

Voting for the Libertarian candidate in this election will have exactly zero effect on the two party system in the US. It will continue until enough Americans want to support a Constitutional amendment to change their government over to some variant of the parliamentary model. Randy Barnett has an excellent little essay about that. It's well worth reading.

I refuse to believe that people have fought and died for the right to vote just so I could use it be on the winning side or play gamesmanship, rather than casting it for someone I truly want to elect.

You are of course perfectly free to throw away your vote in a futile gesture, as long as you realize that by doing so you are likely increasing the odds of the candidate most opposed to the principles you hold dear being put in a position to do something about it (always assuming you are voting in a state that isn't deep deep blue or deep deep red). Obama has done nothing to further principles important to Libertarians, but he and his lackeys have certainly done their level best to violate a whole bunch of those principles. And - with Obama unrestrained by any need to pander to the electorate - if you thought his first four years were bad in that regard, you ain't seen nothing yet.

I may get around to posting Randy Barnett's entire essay in a separate thread. But if I don't get around to it, it's well worth a read. Barnett is a very sharp cookie. Here's an excerpt. You'll have to click the link to read the rest.

Unlike a parliamentary system in which governments are formed by coalitions of large and small parties, our electoral system is a first-past-the-post, winner-take-all one in which a winning presidential candidate just needs to get more than 50% of the vote. This means each contending "major" party is itself a coalition that needs to assemble enough diverse voting groups within it to get to 51%. Hence the need to appeal to the so-called moderates and independents rather than the more "extreme" elements within.

To the extent that a third party is successful, it will drain votes from the coalition party to which it is closest and help elect the coalition party that is further removed from its interests. The Libertarian Party's effort will, if effective, attract more libertarian voters away from the candidate who is marginally less hostile to liberty, and help hand the election to the candidate who is more hostile to liberty.

Fortunately, because this drawback is so obvious, the Libertarian Party's presidential vote has remained minuscule. (It was about 0.4% in 2008, though it could cost Mitt Romney the electoral votes of New Hampshire this time around). Most libertarian voters resist the party's call, even when, as this year, it has nominated a good man like Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico.

Most resist because Libertarians on the whole tend to be rational and logical people. That's the main reason they're attracted to Libertarian principles in the first place.




Phred

[Joe Liberty]

No, there aren't. Either one or the other will occupy the Oval Office for the next four years.

That's very true. The system is rigged in favor of the two-party system. Root is saying I should capitulate my principles and endorse this rigged system with my vote. I refuse.

Since the Libertarian candidate has no chance in hell of winning, the next best option is to elect the one least inimical to the principles Libertarians profess to hold important.

Sure, if one is concerned with picking a winner instead of voting one's conscience, or standing in principle. In fact that's one of the things that draws me to libertarianism, the importance of principle. What Root is doing is urging libertarians to abandon one of the primary things that sets us apart from Reps and Dems.

Voting for the Libertarian candidate in this election will have exactly zero effect on the two party system in the US.

I don't believe that. I think some of them see the vast number of "independent" votes and realize that they're doing something wrong.

And even if what you say is true, I guarantee that a vote for the Republican or Democrat won't have any effect on it. So at least my conscience will be clean.

You are of course perfectly free to throw away your vote in a futile gesture, as long as you realize that by doing so you are likely increasing the odds of the candidate most opposed to the principles you hold dear being put in a position to do something about it (always assuming you are voting in a state that isn't deep deep blue or deep deep red).

That's your perspective I guess. I think it's a load of two-party-system propaganda. If Indiana is carried by Obama by a single vote, then you can bitch at me. Until then, my vote doesn't matter one way or the other no matter to whom it goes, and as long as I don't endorse one of the "major" candidates, I cannot be honestly accused of supporting or helping either one of them.

[Rei Murasame]

As he reminds us, you can't get everything you want. He merely points out that with Obama, you get less than with Romney.

He only manages to reach this conclusion by putting forward the bizarre idea that Barack Obama is at a position somewhere between Harold Wilson and Vladimir Lenin, so that he can ignore everything that Mitt Romney plans to do as being 'the lesser evil'.

In actual fact, Barack Obama is slightly to the left of Ronald Reagan. Which is also where Mitt Romney is. Just Romney manages to be there while promising to declare war against more of the social liberties that Libertarians claim to care about.

But even that aside, the fact that he is calling for anyone to vote for a mainstream candidate at all, is just shameful, in my opinion.

[Happyhippo]

He only manages to reach this conclusion by putting forward the bizarre idea that Barack Obama is at a position somewhere between Harold Wilson and Vladimir Lenin, so that he can ignore everything that Mitt Romney plans to do as being 'the lesser evil'.

In actual fact, Barack Obama is slightly to the left of Ronald Reagan. Which is also where Mitt Romney is. Just Romney manages to be there while promising to declare war against more of the social liberties that Libertarians claim to care about.

But even that aside, the fact that he is calling for anyone to vote for a mainstream candidate at all, is just shameful, in my opinion.

Isn`t it beautiful when right- and left-libertarians agree with a fascist on something? I totally agree with you, and can`t for the life of me see how Romney is more libertarian than Obama or vice versa. But I don`t view Phred as a libertarian either.

The fact that mikema, Joe and Soixante don`t listen to (Taxizen too, of course, but he, like me, is not going to be able to vote) W.A.R. is encouraging.

[Phred]

That's very true. The system is rigged in favor of the two-party system. Root is saying I should capitulate my principles and endorse this rigged system with my vote.

Not at all. Root is saying that since the current reality is what it is, to act otherwise is irrational. Randy Barnett agrees, and goes into a bit more detail about it. Your vote doesn't "endorse" a two party system, but even if it did (which it doesn't), that system won't ever be changed by voting third party. Every four years for decades now, third party advocates of various stripes have been making this false argument. And nothing changes. Ever. Because the way to change it is not by expressing your frustration in a futile gesture at the ballot box once every four years (by that time it is much too late), but in primaries and by agitating for a Constitutional amendment which would change the political structure of Congress into something resembling one of the many variants of parliamentary systems.

Sure, if one is concerned with picking a winner...

It is not about "picking a winner", though! Why do you all have such a hard time grasping this? If I just wanted the satisfaction of being on the winning side, then according to the pollsters I should vote Obama. Do you see me advocating that you vote for Obama? Nope.

It's not about "picking winners", it's about keeping people who have proven themselves unmistakably by their every action to be antithetical to Libertarian principles as far from the levers of power as possible. The best way to accomplish this is to elect Libertarians. But when even Libertarians who have run for Vice President recognize there is no chance of Gary Johnson gaining the White House this year, you have to settle for someone who opposes fewer of those principles than the other guy.

What Root is doing is urging libertarians to abandon one of the primary things that sets us apart from Reps and Dems.

Actually, no he isn't. He's urging Libertarians to utilize the one attribute that sets them apart more from the voters who can be gulled by emotion and a sharply creased trouser leg - their reason. Reason tells us that if you can't achieve perfection, then achieving the next closest thing to it beats the furthest thing from it.

I don't believe that.

That's the problem.

I think some of them see the vast number of "independent" votes and realize that they're doing something wrong.

LOL. What "vast" number of third party votes have their been in the last two decades? I'm curious... when all the dust settles, what percentage of the national vote do you think Johnson will garner?

And even if what you say is true, I guarantee that a vote for the Republican or Democrat won't have any effect on it.

Of course it won't. Read Barnett's article.

If Indiana is carried by Obama by a single vote, then you can bitch at me.

I'll hold you to that. Indiana, huh? For what it's worth, I was desperately hoping Daniels would choose to run for the Republican candidacy. I would have much preferred him to Romney.


Phred

[Joe Liberty]

Not at all. Root is saying that since the current reality is what it is, to act otherwise is irrational.

What's irrational is casting my vote for someone I don't want to elect. Anything else is rationalization and yes, capitulation.

Your vote doesn't "endorse" a two party system,

How does it not? I'm participating in the farce. Participation = endorsement.

but even if it did (which it doesn't), that system won't ever be changed by voting third party.

I see no other way to peacefully influence things.

...agitating for a Constitutional amendment which would change the political structure of Congress into something resembling one of the many variants of parliamentary systems.

I see voting third party as one way to influence primaries. The more people vote third party, the more the message of dissatisfaction is sent.

I happen to agree with you about some kind of parliamentary system.

Reason tells us that if you can't achieve perfection, then achieving the next closest thing to it beats the furthest thing from it.

But you've achieved nothing if you support the status quo, even if the status quo is a bit less status quo-ier. Nobody looks at the votes for Romney and says, "well these over here are staunch Republicans, but those over there are reluctant libertarian votes who just didn't like Obama". They all look like 100% enthusiastic endorsement of every plank of the Republican Party platform. A vote for a Republican is in no way, shape, nor form a message that Republicans need to change anything. Quite the opposite. Meanwhile, every vote for a third party says, "those people aren't happy with either major party. How do we win them over?"

Indiana, huh? For what it's worth, I was desperately hoping Daniels would choose to run for the Republican candidacy. I would have much preferred him to Romney.

Same here. Still wouldn't have voted for him though.

[Eran]

Here is how I think about this.

To first approximation, my vote is completely meaningless. The probability that it will actually make a difference is indistinguishable from zero. In the American context, the majority of Americans live in states in which there is no contention. Why should they even bother voting?

With one vote being meaningless, consider the value of larger blocks of votes. Obviously, if I could control enough votes, I could swing the elections. But what about an intermediate situation? What if I could control 10,000 votes? That's not enough to swing elections, but might be enough to register in election statistics.

Now ask yourself how will 10,000 votes make most difference - being cast for the lesser of two major evils, or for a minor party? Clearly, the answer is the latter. In the 2012 elections, the LP had absolutely no chance of winning. However, by appearing to be as popular as possible, the power of the LP is likely to grow. The more people vote for it, the more seriously it will be taken by voters, doners and the media.

Thus to the extent that I would vote, I would cast my vote for a small party most in line with my ideals, making a tiny contribution to its perceived popularity.

[Elect G-Max]

I agree with Root's assessment that Romney's first term would have been much less disastrous than Obama's second. Where we disagree is that he's not considering the long-term consequences. Electing Mittens would have sent the wrong message to the GOP. It would have told them that they can win elections by nominating lying neo-con sacks of crap, as long as they're still the lesser of two evils.

A victory for Mittens in '12 would have meant that he'd be up for re-election in '16, whereas Romney's defeat in '12 has paved the way for a Ron Paul victory in '16. Mittens needed to be defeated in order to shake the GOP into getting its shit together.

Also, the R&R ticket was pretty much a wet dream come true for the big banks who have owned this country since 1913. Romney's campaign was funded by everyone who profited from the continued existence of the Federal reserve, and Ryan masterminded the '07 bank bailouts. No sane libertarian could vote for that.

[Lightman]

A victory for Mittens in '12 would have meant that he'd be up for re-election in '16, whereas Romney's defeat in '12 has paved the way for a Ron Paul victory in '16.

Repeat slowly after me. Ron Paul is never going to be the nominee of the Republican Party. Besides the obvious political reasons, he will be 81 in 2016. That is older than Reagan was when he left office.