on voting

considering all of the offered options for the november election are horrible I am considering not voting at all. I just don't see who I could possibly vote for. Does anybody even read the write ins?

Am I, by not voting, throwing away my right to vote or am I sending a signal that I am really not happy with what's going on?

What are your plans for November?

If I'm not mistaken, in most states a certain number of signatures have to be submitted and approved by the state before any write-in votes are counted for someone. I'm not sure who will receive that signal if you don't vote. Who's going to care? Especially given the low voter turnout in this country, you'd think "someone" would have taken notice by now. Then again, the statistical difference that a single vote makes in a national election is so small that the difference between voting and not voting is negligible. I don't think that I'll be voting this November.

I am really not sure what I'm going to do.  I was originally planning on voting for or writing in Ron Paul, but his move right-ward in regards to immigration make me doubtful.  My second choice was the Libertarian candidate... who turned out to be Bob Barr.  Hell no.  Nader's consistently anti-war, but he is awful in economics and won't really gain any attention with St. Obama running.

I'll probably just write in my cat Leonidas

What move rightward?  He's the only candidate with a quasi-libertarian position on immigration.  In fact, I dare say he's better on immigration than any other candidate.

My new theory is to vote for whatever third party candiate that 'steals' the Dem's vote just to irrate them.

Then they do all sorts of fun things like file 20+ harrassment lawsuits and misuse state cops to keep them out of presidential debates that they were invited to by independent media outlets and possed bona fide tickets to attend.

Good clean fun.

Or Plan A which is not to encourage them in the hopes they just go away.

I think I'll end up voting for Bob Barr just because.  If he can really get the word out he MIGHT get around 400,000 votes so one more isn't really going to change anything.  I'd rather cut off my testicles, smoke dry them and wear them as a necklace than vote for McCain or Obama.

In my opinion, you should vote for a third party--and encourage others to do likewise--because if we ever get a third party in office, it would send a dramatic message to the Republicans and Democrats that their days of running the show are over.  I can dream, can't I?

They say that third parties are "wasting your vote," but I think you are wasting you vote if you choose either the two main candidates.  Plus, with lower voter turnout, your and your friends' votes have greater weight.

wombatron:

 

I'll probably just write in my cat Leonidas

 

I love cats!

kingmonkey:

I think I'll end up voting for Bob Barr just because.  If he can really get the word out he MIGHT get around 400,000 votes so one more isn't really going to change anything.  I'd rather cut off my testicles, smoke dry them and wear them as a necklace than vote for McCain or Obama.

 

If the next President had an L after his name, even if he never did anything to advance libertarianism, it would send a message to the politicians and analysts that the forces of Liberty cannot be ignored.

Ohh, I can dream, can't I?

liberty student:

What move rightward?  He's the only candidate with a quasi-libertarian position on immigration.  In fact, I dare say he's better on immigration than any other candidate.

I think he pretty much has a paleoconservative position on immigration. And Mary Ruwart had the libertarian position on immigration. The conservative in libertarian clothing Bob Barr was nominated instead.

Brainpolice:

I think he pretty much has a paleoconservative position on immigration. And Mary Ruwart had the libertarian position on immigration. The conservative in libertarian clothing Bob Barr was nominated instead.

I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul says, even the immigration issue.  If we didn't have the welfare state we do then I would certainly take issue with "securing our borders."  But as long as we continue to give welfare to these people and take more money out of my pocket I don't have a problem with "securing our borders."

kingmonkey:

Brainpolice:

I think he pretty much has a paleoconservative position on immigration. And Mary Ruwart had the libertarian position on immigration. The conservative in libertarian clothing Bob Barr was nominated instead.

I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul says, even the immigration issue.  If we didn't have the welfare state we do then I would certainly take issue with "securing our borders."  But as long as we continue to give welfare to these people and take more money out of my pocket I don't have a problem with "securing our borders."

 

Right, the logic of interventionism. Because intervention X has created problems, we thefore must support intervention Y as a solution. Let's just ignore Mises's criticism of interventionism in this particular case.

kingmonkey:

Brainpolice:

I think he pretty much has a paleoconservative position on immigration. And Mary Ruwart had the libertarian position on immigration. The conservative in libertarian clothing Bob Barr was nominated instead.

I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul says, even the immigration issue.  If we didn't have the welfare state we do then I would certainly take issue with "securing our borders."  But as long as we continue to give welfare to these people and take more money out of my pocket I don't have a problem with "securing our borders."

 

"Securing out borders" is a very unlibertarian stance, because it tramples on the rights of freedom of association, freedom of movement, and free trade--plus it is largely part of the war on drugs, another unlibertarian proposition.  How could any libertarian support incarcerating or shooting at third-world peoples for the crime of stepping over an arbitrary line defined by the state in search of a better life?

See, ama gi? It's not all about preaching to the choir here. There's plenty of internal conflict to flesh out.

ama gi:

borders" is a very unlibertarian stance, because it tramples on the rights of freedom of association, freedom of movement, and free trade--plus it is largely part of the war on drugs, another unlibertarian proposition.  How could any libertarian support incarcerating or shooting at third-world peoples for the crime of stepping over an arbitrary line defined by the state in search of a better life?

Because right now these sons of b*tches are costing ME money every day.  I have to pay for their kids health care, food, schooling and much, much more.  They are violating my rights by sucking off of me and everyone else.  Get rid of the welfare state and my opinion will change.  Until then keep them out or at least stop giving them welfare.  It's bad enough I have to have money stolen from me every couple of weeks to pay for the losers and lazy who refuse to do for themselves that were born here.  I don't think I should have to support the entire third world too.

kingmonkey:

ama gi:

borders" is a very unlibertarian stance, because it tramples on the rights of freedom of association, freedom of movement, and free trade--plus it is largely part of the war on drugs, another unlibertarian proposition.  How could any libertarian support incarcerating or shooting at third-world peoples for the crime of stepping over an arbitrary line defined by the state in search of a better life?

Because right now these sons of b*tches are costing ME money every day.  I have to pay for their kids health care, food, schooling and much, much more.  They are violating my rights by sucking off of me and everyone else.  Get rid of the welfare state and my opinion will change.  Until then keep them out or at least stop giving them welfare.  It's bad enough I have to have money stolen from me every couple of weeks to pay for the losers and lazy who refuse to do for themselves that were born here.  I don't think I should have to support the entire third world too.

 

You do not *have* to pay for anything, let alone taxes.  I'm not saying that's easy in an way, because it isn't, let alone, not "legal". 

I respect that you're tolerating difficult circumstances, but I have to disagree with your anger and position here.

Nitroadict:

You do not *have* to pay for anything, let alone taxes.  I'm not saying that's easy in an way, because it isn't, let alone, not "legal". 

I respect that you tolerating difficult circumstances, but I have to disagree with your anger and position here.

My anger and postion isn't directed towards immigrants.  I honestly don't really care that much about them (as a side note I have several good friends that are "illegal" immigrants).  My anger is more pointed towards the welfare state I am forced to support with my hard earned dollars and to the millions of people who suck off the government tit, including the millions upon millions of "illegal" aliens.  Until the welfare state is done away with I don't see why I should tolerate more people coming here only to place further burden on me, my family and the rest of the country.  The way I see it they have become aggressors against me and everyone else who pays this extortion money because the cause us all to have to pay more each year while they pay virtually nothing into this immoral welfare system.  Not just "them" exclusively but all leeches on society whether they are born here or not.

"The way I see it they have become aggressors against me "

The aggressor is the state, not welfare recipients. It is the state taxing you, not any immigrants. If your problem is with the welfare state, than advocate abolishing the welfare state, don't advocate further interventions elsewhere (interventionism). Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to view people NOT paying int