Category: Libertarian

Libertarianism is not keen to watch Rome burn.

I’ve long admired Balloon Juice because of John Cole’s insightful, considered analysis. He supported President Bush but was willing to change his mind when it became clear that Republicans had lost theirs. Then the Republicans became so despicable that he actively switched to endorsing Democrats. That didn’t bother me because I’ve voted that way most of my life. The change in Balloon Juice over the last six months or so, however, is closing in on unbearable. Like this, from yesterday:

At what point did the normally sane people at Hit and Run turn into the libertarian version of the Rush Limbaugh show? If I had to guess, I would have assumed they would think a bill of $400 billion in tax cuts and $400 or so billion in spending would at least be considered half good, but instead the reaction over there the past few weeks has made Malkin look restrained by comparison.

I will not be the first to defend Hit & Run because it tries to be – or is – too hip for me at times. Still, much of what I’ve read there during as the stimulus package loomed is best exemplified in this post by reason editor-in-chief Matt Welch [links in original]:

Why do people oppose the stimulus? Here are a few actual reasons: There is no strong evidence that stimuli work, and plenty of evidence that they don’t (a relevant consideration, no?). Like the deeply flawed PATRIOT Act, the deeply flawed Iraq War resolution, and the deeply flawed bank bailout, it is being rushed through the legislature in an atmosphere of pants-wetting crisis and presidential warnings of impending doom. It is filled with special interest giveaways, big-government featherbedding, and "Buy American" considerations that have about as much to do with stimulating an economy as playing violin has with putting out fires. By taking from fiscally responsible states (like South Carolina) and giving to fiscally irresponsible states (like California), it violates basic notions of fairness and creates still more moral hazard in an already hazardtastic universe. …

Basically.

Rather than explain further, Mr. Cole summarized my sentiments in a comment to his entry:

If you asked anyone who read me in 2004 and liked what they read and then read me today, they would tell you I am howling bugfuck insane now, so take that with a grain of salt.

I wouldn’t go quite that far because Mr. Cole still shows flashes of his earlier skepticism. But even if that was 100% true, his next paragraph gets to current mindset at Balloon Juice that’s difficult to read:

I mean, we all have principles we like to think we adhere to, but reality often seems to get in the way. I would love it if we could lower taxes, cut spending, and frugal our way out of this mess. I just don’t see how that is the answer.

Difficult times do not require that we stop being rational. A belief in limited government held at a time when the government is constantly expanding recklessly does not imply an unwillingness to deal with reality. If a person has a 50 pound cancerous tumor, the libertarian’s response is not to suggest she go about her day as if she doesn’t have cancer. Likewise, the solution to the government being too large is not to set the charges and implode it all at once. Americans have allowed (and encouraged) government to get so tangled up in daily life that a simple stop is not possible without disastrous consequences. Mr. Welch’s statement suggests how massive, unquestioned spending is not the answer.

That’s not to say that libertarians are perfect and have all the correct answers. Even if we have no other flaws, we often fail to suggest the map to limited government. I’m guilty of that, I’m sure, a problem I’m aware of when I blog. We all need to do better at selling the principle and how to get there.

However, the first step is to not make things worse. A $1 trillion deficit (and growing) is a very dangerous ploy. American history provides evidence of what can happen when government does and does not intervene. This is not sufficient to make a decision, but watch the way politicians are exclusively deploying fear to dismiss any need for analysis. It’s “do this or die”. They claim it doesn’t matter what we do, as long as we do something. Buying a pony for every American is something, but only the Pony Owners of America, the United Horse Food Producers, and the American Saddle Makers Association would think that’s a good idea. Unsurprisingly, that type of special interest giveaway is what we’re going to get. It’s not hysterical to call bullshit.

Capitalism versus Corporatism, or “People Don’t Invalidate Systems”

By now everyone is aware of the recent salmonella outbreak tied to peanut butter. The origin of the contaminated peanut butter is now known, and it allegedly includes some sketchy corporate behavior, as outlined in the first, non-snark-filled half of this FARK headline:

Contaminated peanut butter factory found salmonella 12 times in two years of internal tests… and still kept shipping. But don’t worry, industry will police itself

The second half takes an ideological swipe without bothering with logic used by advocates of free markets. The comments at FARK swing to both sides of the pendulum, as one expects in a fight on the Internets. But the volley conveys a critical flaw in how those who desire strong regulation (often to the point of central planning) and a marketing failure among free market advocates. The basic, paraphrased gist of the debate:

  1. FDA?
  2. People died! “Free markets” mean killing is okay!
  3. “Free market” means the company – Peanut Corporation of America – will go bankrupt.
  4. No.
  5. Yes.
  6. No!
  7. Yes!
  8. NO!
    9. YES!

Multiple arguments are in play here. The idea that free market advocates support negligent or intentional behavior that harms is uninformed silliness. The free market is about consequences. Build a good product that meets a need and customers will buy. Build a bad product that fails to meet a need or that harms and customers will refuse to buy. The idea is that incentives matter.

The ideological “free markets kill” approach ignores the spectrum of incentives, either out of disinterest or dishonesty. Selling a product that kills (in a non-predictable manner) has consequences1. This scandal will most likely bankrupt the Peanut Corporation of America through lost business and civil lawsuits, as it probably should. Executives will most likely face criminal prosecution. I can’t think of a single free market advocate who would argue that such an outcome would be unjust, if the facts are as they seem.

The essential fact is that a belief in free markets and capitalism is not a belief in corporatism. Free market advocates argue against government interference because government unfairly picks winners and losers. Regulations are often bad because they skew incentives. Want to bet Peanut Corporation of America will claim as a defense that the FDA, via authority it delegated to the Georgia Department of Agriculture, reviewed its plants and found no violations sufficient to deem this anything other than an unfortunate accident? Here, regulation builds a defense that “the government said it’s okay”. The facts appear unlikely to support that, but the excuse is viable in many cases (i.e. pharmaceutical regulation).

But subsidies skew incentives, as well. Look at ethanol subsidies and the subsequent, predictable increase in the price of corn. Subsidize behavior and you get more of it.

In the current salmonella outbreak, the FDA is incapable of policing every product produced in every factory. I do not seek to minimize any deaths, but how many deadly outbreaks2 actually occur? The costs of full regulation3, both in taxes and higher food prices, would overwhelm any marginal increase in safety. Some problems will slip through the regulatory framework. The question is ultimately why they happen, to which I think the reasonable answer is a basic justification for crime: Those involved thought they could get away with it.

This belief, a willingness to gamble that horrible outcomes will not result, is not surprising, but it arises from human psychology, not free market ideas. Again, no free market advocate is going to dismiss these deaths. There should be consequences. However, while further regulation probably could have prevented these deaths, the idea that more regulation will avoid such outcomes completely rests upon the mistaken assumption that we’ll always have the right regulations and the right regulators to implement them. We never will because humans are fallible in how we write laws, choose regulators, and enforce code.

Free market advocacy is about freeing individuals to pursue businesses and products they value, whether as seller or buyer. That also means freeing individuals from the influence of government picking A over B as the winner through regulation for reasons other than merit, as politicians and bureaucrats always will. Liberty is about freedom from harm, not freedom to harm. You don’t have to buy my product, and you’ll have recourse against me that I do not desire should I harm you. It takes a cynical outlook on individuals and liberty to miss that, I fear, but free market advocates also need to do a better job of pointing out the difference in capitalism and corporatism. We favor the former exclusively.

Update (2/13/09): Peanut Corporation of America to Liquidate.

1 Selling cigarettes may have fit this mold years ago. Today, cigarettes fail this test since we know the harms. Selling cigarettes is not the free market killing consumers.

2 Obligatory vegan statement: The majority of food-borne illness outbreaks result directly from meat, dairy, and egg production.

3 From the Washington Post article:

But Jean Halloran, director of food safety for Consumers Union, said if the government was adequately protecting the food supply, the outbreak could have been minimized or even prevented, and lives could have been saved. Major reforms in inspections and regulations are past due, she said.

“The average plant is inspected once every 10 years,” Halloran said. “This one was getting inspected a couple of times a year by Georgia, but neither they nor the FDA were taking enough enforcement action.”

Halloran’s statement exists in a vacuum of preferred outcomes, with no consideration for real costs. More Consumers Union nonsense here.

Creating a Market in Coupons for Dead Technology

For those who can’t wait to have government take over health care and make it super fantastical and free, maybe another example will demonstrate the fallacy of this idea. The ongoing stupid party surrounding the subsidization of television as a right inherent in Congressional action protecting consumers from the forced national conversion to digital television continues with a new twist: Consumers have already demanded more $40 coupons than Congress authorized.

As of this past Sunday, consumers who request a $40 coupon to help offset the cost of a converter box are being placed on a waiting list. They may not receive the coupons before Feb. 17, when full-power television stations will shut off traditional analog broadcasts and transmit only digital signals.

Members of Congress are now scrambling to find ways to allocate more money to the program.

“We saw a massive spike in coupons in the past six weeks,” said Meredith Atwell Baker, head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, an agency within the Commerce Department that runs the coupon program. She said a record 7.2 million coupons were ordered in December, while the agency was expecting roughly 4 million requests. She urged consumers to make sure at least one television set is ready for the transition, with or without a coupon.

The government guessed incorrectly in its attempt to centrally plan the American television viewing method and failed to fund nearly half the unsurprising demand. When something is “free” (i.e. offered below market value), consumers will demand the service or good more than they would at the market price. Who knew? Yet, Congress is competent to predict exactly how many doctors we need? It can accurately predict how many maternity beds we need?

“[NTA has] left us precious little time to respond,” said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass), chairman of the House Commerce subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet. “They’ve created a mess by not admitting that there was not sufficient funding until the very last minute. So now we’re looking for creative ways of solving the problem.”

Perhaps if the market could respond to a signal as clear as rising demand, the price could rise to compensate for a finite supply. Nope. Just get in line and pray enough coupons expire. Or find more money for every critical demand, since every demand is critical. Somewhere.

It’s clear that Congress doesn’t understand the inevitable, arbitrary rationing that results when artificial demand intersects with finite supply. But health care will be different. Somehow.

———-

Want to know why I’m not a big fan of consumer advocacy groups?

“NTIA is going to stop processing coupons precisely at the time when people need them the most,” said Joel Kelsey, policy analyst for Consumers Union. “Whatever Congress decides to do, it needs to be done as soon as possible to help people through this complicated transition,” he said.

When people need them most. Congress is throwing money around recklessly, with a potential $1,000,000,000,000 deficit for the fiscal year, and we’re discussing television as a need worthy of public subsidy. There is no way to advocate for that, unless the system is broken.

Female Rights Violations or Human Rights Violations?

Last Sunday, The Washington Post published a story about female genital mutilation in Kurdistan. The story is disturbing, as one should expect when dealing with FGM. The pictures – particularly number seven – show the violence involved. I’m going to let most of the story speak for itself, but I have a few comments on the larger topic.

…. In at least one Kurdish territory, 95 percent of women have undergone the practice, which human rights groups call female genital mutilation.

Any regular reader will know that I use the term “female genital mutilation”. Rarely will I use any other, and then it’s likely to be diminished only to “female genital cutting” if I reference a voluntary action an adult undertakes on her body. But many people incorrectly get caught up in the terms and miss the issue highlighted in the last sentence of that excerpt. Human rights are at stake. It’s critical to describe our world as accurately as possible, but it is more important to prevent further violations. To the extent that focusing on terminology helps, let’s focus on terminology. But where it prevents us from addressing the correct issue, we need to let it rest.

When I write about male circumcision, I generally prefer to label it “male genital mutilation”, its more accurate term. However, I don’t use that when I think it will distract from the core message. Being semantically correct helps move the discussion closer to the solution, but being stuck on semantics is stupid if I’m not connecting on the human rights issue.

The Kurdish region’s minister of human rights, Yousif Mohammad Aziz, said he didn’t think the issue required action by parliament. “Not every small problem in the community has to have a law dealing with it,” he said.

This brings up the prominent argument too many libertarians deploy. (Read through the comments on the story at Hit & Run.) Notice the use of an adjective to dismiss the need to protect each individual. This is a common tactic among libertarians and non-libertarians alike. The speaker means to convert the subjective into an objective based solely on the his or her opinion. “Small” problem to whom? Clearly not the 7-year-old now-mutilated girl described in the article, Sheelan Anwar Omer.

But she became more animated when asked whether it was worth it to have the operation so her friends and neighbors would be comfortable eating food she prepared. “I would do anything not to have this pain, even if meant they would not eat from my hands,” she rasped slowly.

“I just wish that I could be the way I was before the procedure,” she said.

The issue is individual rights. All tastes and preferences are subjective, a core lesson a libertarian must understand. It is not enough to suggest that parents are acting in what they believe to be their child’s best interests. Objective standards exist for evaluating parental behavior. The article describes an elderly (mutilated) women describing how genital mutilation makes a woman “spiritually clean so that others can eat the meals she prepares.” Our ability to reason suggests that’s ridiculous. In the unlikely event that it’s true, it is subjective. Each individual should decide for herself.

The struggle against all genital mutilation, female and male, is primarily about the violation of forced cutting where no medical need exists for the victim’s genitals. That’s a basic human rights concept. It transcends nationality, culture, gender, and degree of harm. Either we defend the principle or we don’t. A selective defense based on nationality, culture, gender, or degree of harm is also a selective endorsement of the underlying violation.

———-

From the article, a complication in the flawed “FGM is always perpetrated by men on women” argument:

… The circumcision is performed by women on women, and men are usually not involved in the procedure. In the case of Sheelan, her mother informed her father that she was going to have the circumcision performed, but otherwise, he played no role.

The article stated that one of the reasons it’s performed is to control the female’s sexuality. Of course. Arguing as I have in the past that FGM is not always performed for this reason is not a denial that control is the dominant excuse in most cases. I merely highlight this fact from the article because the issue is more complicated than what too many anti-FGM activists argue.

———-

From the blog entry at Hit & Run:

As readers of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s memoir, Infidel, can attest, among the most disturbing elements of such practices are the explicit urge to violently control female sexuality (even when the act is mostly symbolic, that’s the function it performs) and the way it is enforced by other women. (Read Reason’s interview with Hirsi Ali here). Say what you will about widespread male circumcision in the West (and elsewhere, for that matter), but it is not performed as a ritual of punishment defined to rigidify unequal standing in sexual, cultural, economic, and political matters.

I’m only arguing here against the violation of cutting a healthy individual without that individual’s consent, not the physical damage caused or the excuses used to justify the violation. The violation is a universal principle. In that context, the argument in that paragraph – particularly its last sentence – is problematic factually and ethically, the latter being embraced with the myopic, haphazard application of individual rights too many libertarians use. (The entry’s author, Nick Gillespie, doesn’t exhibit that flaw here, in my opinion. But it is pervasive in the comments.)

Circumcision in America has been a tool to rigidify unequal standing in sexual matters, in males and females. (We could debate the other matters, but that’s unnecessary here.) The surgery gained its acceptance in America – for male and female children – in the late 19th century as a tool to prevent masturbation. Regardless of how unsuccessful that’s been, that is its origin, both medically and theologically. The lingering effect from that is essential to understanding the complete issue.

Then there are the parents who circumcise their sons because mom prefers circumcised partners. Would we accept fathers forcing breast implants on their daughters because dad likes large breasts? The revulsion at the mere hint is obvious. The conclusion with respect to male circumcision is also obvious.

There is little comparison in the degree of inequality typically imposed by male and female genital mutilation. I readily concede the point. But both involve placing the individual’s desires below that of another who has physical power over him or her. That is the flaw, the violation of a universal human right.

For reference, Ms. Hirsi Ali states in this documentary that male circumcision is genital mutilation. Again, I’m not equating the typical degree of mutilation. They are different. But the core issue is the violation. That is the same. It’s possible to focus on FGM without minimizing MGM.

Quote(s) of the Day

Thanksgiving was my last entry? Let me rectify that with two quotes from reading the Internets today. First, from Rogier van Bakel on free speech.

Denying others the rights and protections you demand for yourself is the zenith of arrogance.

That’s an excellent, condensed way of stating it. You already know another discussion where I apply that sentiment, in various ways.

Next, from David Henderson writing on a 1999 quote by Ben Bernanke on government response to economic crisis:

You don’t get output to be higher by making it lower.

The desire to Do Something is strong, particularly among politicians. Unless the crisis is “the house is on fire” urgent, everyone should suppress this desire vigorously until after arriving at a considered plan. Unlike what Congress, the President, and the President-elect are doing.

Hey, it’s a new topic!

The SEC charged billionaire Mark Cuban with insider trading. He denies the charges. I despise the inevitable schadenfreude. (Read the comments at the link. We’re a nation of envious, success-hating malcontents.)

I have no idea whether or not Mr. Cuban did what the government alleges. Maybe he did, or maybe the conspiracy theories about political payback are true. The latter is too transparent to pass my skepticism, but I never underestimate government’s ability to be nakedly vindictive. If it’s the former I do not care because I think insider trading should be legal. I wrote a paper for my business school ethics class making that case. I’m an unrepentant libertarian at my core.

The gist of my support rested on the idea that, if markets are efficient, then more information is better than less information. I don’t want to pretend that markets are efficient in the short-term; they’re not. But they’re less inefficient than anything else in the short-term. In the long-term, I trust markets completely. (Your time horizon may vary.)

Nor do I wish to pretend that the information resulting from insider trading is easy to get at or evident to everyone because there’s never going to be information equality. That’s okay. Hard work to gather information – and the mind to organize and filter that information – deserves a reward.

Consider the opposite of what the government argues. If an investor is ready to pull the trigger on a stock purchase but uncovers bad news, she’ll refrain from the purchase. She’s used the information to her advantage. Is that unethical? I don’t believe it is, nor can I imagine anyone suggesting otherwise. However, the facts alleged by the government in cases like that now pending against Mr. Cuban suggest an entirely different ethical code to avoid a loss on a possession than a potential acquisition.

I’ve over-simplified in my hypothetical. There’s far more intricacy than I understand. Conceded. But the case for insider trading laws partially rests on a suspension of self-interest, of self-sacrifice for the benefit of others without regard for how self-interested behavior may benefit others. That is not rational.

Low Nutritional Value Politics

Last week I saw both of these Tom Toles editorial cartoons, but never together.

Toles_11052008.gif

And:

Toles_11072008.gif

The second cartoon, from Friday, is much more effective because it’s correct. The first cartoon, from Tuesday, is full of sentimentality but devoid of truth. (To be fair, we moved closer to truth, although not as much as everyone believes.) The success of California’s Proposition 8 demonstrated that “All men are created equal” isn’t fully realized yet. Maybe it will never be. And there are many issues where our society falls short of the ideal. Denying those because we want some warm, fuzzy feelings for a day is unproductive.

Libertarians diagnose with open eyes.

David Z at …no third solution has a smart post today, titled If You Subsidize It…, about moral hazard in the context of Hurricane Katrina. He concludes:

…we can’t content ourselves to argue, “A free market would’ve built better levees!” when the reality is that a free market might never have built any levees in the first place.

This is exactly right. Maybe participants in a free market would build there. No one else is competent to judge another’s preference. Perhaps he really does like the ocean view in California that much more than the risk of wildfires (or earthquakes). And he’s willing to bear the costs. That’s his own rational, if not objective, decision-making.

This is part of my core knowledge that a limited government is the maximum – not some theoretical, unworkable minimum – to which we should strive. One complaint I see lodged against libertarians is that we don’t have ideas on how to run things instead, that we only offer complaints about what’s wrong. Of course. It’s entirely true, and the explanation against that attack is so obvious in the argument that to defend it is to elevate the oblivious to an unearned legitimacy.

I’ll make an attempt anyway. We can judge from facts that something does or, with government, doesn’t work. We make that judgment. We also realized that the answer isn’t necessarily to complete a task better. Perhaps the answer is, as David suggests, to not do the task. Individuals operating in their own self-interest are far likelier to discover that than the collective need to Do Something that mingles diligently with a world devoid of accountability for mistakes. No thing can ever be wrong, it is merely not yet achieved. People who invest their own time and money are much less prone to such silly observations about their own infallibility.

So, when I complain about single-payer health care, for example, I’m not saying I know what the solution is. I don’t. I know that I understand basic economics. I know I don’t know anything about operating a health insurance plan. Economics tells me one option, the Free Pony Plan, isn’t feasible. But I trust that there are smart people who understand economics and operating health insurance plans. They see the possibility of profit deriving from their knowledge and effort, so they seek to achieve the goal. There will be bumps regardless of the activity because we haven’t found perfect humans, but what we want will eventually happen. Injecting government only changes and removes natural incentives by replacing them with those inspired by nothing stronger than a hope for happy feelings. And run by non-perfect humans.

I endorse skepticism.

I’m a huge fan of Penn Jillette. He’s consistently libertarian, as evidenced by his Showtime! series, Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. Also, his Vegas show with Teller is entertaining. So I read with interest this recent interview he did with reason about the presidential election.

reason: You were critical of the old newsletters that were revealed during the primaries, but on balance was Ron Paul good for libertarians?

Jillette: The basic underlying premise of that question I disagree with. I believe in individual rights so much that I don’t like any sort of “what’s good for the cause”-type question. A little while ago I was at skeptics, atheists conference and a question like that came up. How do we best win people over? As soon as we ask that question, we’re pigs. We have to leave open possibility that other side is right. Even as we call them assholes!

A lot of people listened to Ron Paul and a lot rang true to them. A lot of what he said, I agreed with. But my job professionally, my job as human, my job as an American citizen is not to do what I can to further the libertarian cause. If Obama came out and said “when I’m elected I’d make government as small as I can” I’d really get behind him. I’m not trying to get Libertarians elected. I’m even uncomfortable telling people who to vote for.

I heard Jillette say good things about Ron Paul on the Howard Stern Show too long after Paul’s past racist associations became clear, which I felt was unfortunate. But, yeah, it’s about the ideas. It always will be. I’m interested in liberty first, process second. That comes through here, and it’s the takeaway point.

For example, does this arugment make sense under any skepticism?

And here we see a fundamental difference between the progressive worldview and the conservative worldview. Progressives believe in a robust safety net for everyone. It’s very possible, as we’re seeing, that you’ll experience financial hard times for reasons that have nothing to do with you. A lot of the people doing unskilled service work in the Lehman Brothers office may lose their jobs as a result of this unwinding even though they didn’t do anything wrong. And that sort of thing happens all the time — people get laid off because adverse things happen to the companies they work for. Or people are struck by other kinds of misfortune — they get hit by buses, hurricanes destroy their houses, all kinds of stuff. Misfortune strikes ordinary people, and not just billionaires. And in the case of ordinary people, just as in the case of billionaires, you can offer improve social welfare by helping people out when they wind up in trouble.

But conservatives don’t believe in that kind of safety net for regular people — just for the billionaires. Guaranteed health care? Forget it. Guaranteed retirement income? No way. Just let the market work, and when it stops working the executives will be okay and the rest of us will, oh, something or other.

This is a bit out of date (mid-September), but the flaw is timeless. First, an overwhelming number of Democrats voted for the bailout plan. Do they not count as progressives? Does the claimed need to Do Something outweigh the obvious welfare for the billionaires?

But note how this kind of statement is a nasty simplification that could be rebutted if the accuser – in this case, Matt Yglesias – replaced his assumption with a question directed at the target of his attacks. I’m including myself in his definition of conservative, even though I identify as a libertarian. The comparison is close enough because what he’s attacking is the idea that government shouldn’t be providing X service (i.e. safety net). That’s not what he’s saying, of course. Instead, it’s a veiled “you hate poor/unlucky people because you don’t support my solution”. Any worldview condensed to such inanity is a sad commentary on the believer.

I support a reasonable safety net for the truly incompetent. I’m even willing to consider temporary safety nets for such cases as layoffs, hurricanes¹, or whatever. However, those are questions of how to effectively resolve the problems with minimal interference (i.e. taxation, regulations). I don’t think widespread government-provided safety nets are the universal solution. We can agree that not having mass numbers of people living in the streets is worth achieving. It does not flow from there to the implication that those who disagree on how to achieve the goal are selfish degenerates who want babies to die in the streets.

Stretched back to the context of Penn Jillette’s statement above, I can vote for the Libertarian Party candidate, but I’m not saying I think the Libertarian Party is the only, or best, way to achieve liberty. Like he said, if Obama stands up tomorrow and proposes a policy that enhances liberty, I will support it. It’s the principle, not the policy. All of politics is the same idea.

¹ It’s not too much to expect, in return, for the government to stop incentivizing stupid, risky behavior. This applies more to building homes in flood plains, I suppose, but it’s applicability to hurricanes is almost the same. Also, financial risks. Don’t encourage bad luck and then expect me to pay those who embraced it.

I voted (on Saturday).

Since I commute a reasonable distance to/from work, I took advantage of early voting on Saturday. I waited in line approximately 75 minutes, which was very close to my limit, given the choices before me. It helped that the sun filled the evening sky and the temperature hadn’t dropped. I had one point of indecision going in, although I had a strong inclination how I planned to vote. Without further buildup:

President: Bob Barr (Libertarian)

Senate: William Redpath (Libertarian)

House: Myself (libertarian)

I realized several years ago that I could never vote for Sen. McCain. I voted for him in the 2000 Republican primary, a vote I stand behind because I think President John McCain circa 2000 would’ve been better than President George W. Bush. I even advocated for a Kerry/McCain ticket in 2004. (I no longer stand behind that opinion.) But I’ve lost all respect for John McCain because I’ve finally seen the politician rather than the marketing campaign. Acknowledging his military career and sacrifice does not require me to assume those equal competent civilian leadership skills. So, he was never under consideration.

I considered Sen. Obama after initially rejecting any possibility of that. I might’ve been able to cast a vote for him if he hadn’t shifted from bad economics to insane economics as he sought to wrap up the nomination. Maybe he’ll cast that idiocy aside. I’m not confident of that.

In recent months I considered voting for Sen. Obama as a vote against the probable Supreme Court nominations from a President McCain. With the choice of Gov. Palin as his running mate, McCain forfeited any benefit of the doubt about his calm, reasoned approach to judicial nominations. As the polls suggested the race was still close, I thought I might have to vote Obama against my preference.

In finally deciding, I disregarded any consideration of polls, although I’m aware of them. Sen. Obama’s recent pandering on all matters of the economy made a vote for him impossible. I fear he actually believes the insanity he’s spewing. Civil liberties matter, but economic liberties matter, too. I can’t endorse a race from one brink to another.

My vote for Barr does not imply that I support him. Okay, so it does imply that. I considered that and decided the benefit offset that problem.

I do not think Barr is a libertarian. After reading this reason interview with Barr, I’m convinced he’s learned the language. I perceived his answers to be forced. He knows what to say and when, but he doesn’t necessarily believe them. Maybe that his personality interfering. Maybe he is a libertarian. It doesn’t matter because he won’t win. I voted to signal “libertarian” and to encourage continued ballot access. (The matching funds, I could do without.)

For Senate I couldn’t endorse former Gov. Jim Gilmore. He’s a rabid social conservative. Also, as evidenced by his nonsensical “abolition” of property taxes on automobiles, he has no sense of responsible or limited government. If I care about reducing taxation, I’m not fooled that you shift taxation from counties to the state.

I couldn’t vote for former Gov. Mark Warner, either. Either he’s pandering in matching Democratic nonsense on economics or he really believes his policy proposals. I find the latter hard to believe since he built a large business. Regardless, I don’t want to find out. And I’m not voting to increase the Democratic majority in the Senate.

When I began researching this year’s election, I realized Virginia had a Libertarian running for the Senate. I expected to be disappointed and perhaps embarrassed. (Think Michael Badnarik.) Then I read through William Redpath’s campaign site. Anyone who repeatedly references the Cato Institute probably has the right idea. Redpath has no chance of winning, of course, so it’s a no-risk vote in that sense. But anyone willing to push for the Flat Tax and not wrap it around social conservatism (i.e. Steve Forbes) receives the benefit of the doubt. I made this choice readily.

For the House (Virginia’s 11th District) the same logic applies for the Democrat (Gerry Connolly) and Republican (Keith Fimian), although the only third party candidate represented the Independent Green party. No thanks to that. Here I almost voted Republican to push for an offset of Democratic gains. But Mr. Fimian’s campaign site offered only the vaguest rhetoric, with no actual governing principles. Since even a useless blowhard like outgoing Rep. Tom Davis could hold the 11th District for more than a decade, I decided against a vote for any future incumbent¹. So I voted for myself as a write-in candidate. Keep your fingers crossed on my chances.

There are no ballot initiatives or bonds to vote on this year, so that’s it. I would’ve voted “no” to any bonds or taxes, “no” to any further theft of rights, and “yes” to any further protection or expansion of rights.

Further election thoughts at A Stitch in Haste, Postive Liberty, no third solution, and Freespace.

¹ If I should win the 11th District, this logic does not apply to future incumbents. Naturally.