Should Ron Paul Voters, Libertarians Choose McCain?
John McCain's campaign knows it can't afford to have many disgruntled Ron Paul supporters either sit home or instead vote for Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. Those voters could be the difference in tight western states such as Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. Right-wing radio-talk-show host Glenn Beck, for example, has said he just can't bring himself to pull the lever for McCain. Libertarians have a host of problems with McCain. Some are against the Iraq war. Others view his climate change policy as the biggest government power grab since the New Deal. With all that in mind, I asked investment strategist (and friend of this blog) Donald Luskin, a Ron Paul guy who is now advising Team McCain, why libertarians should vote for McCain. Here is what he E-mailed me:
It's a question of game theory, and whether you consider yourself a passive player or an active player in the game. As a passive player, that is, a mere voter, it probably doesn't matter what you do. Unless there is a perfect tie without you, your vote is irrelevant. If you are a passive player who wants to make a "statement," then you should cast your symbolic vote for Barr or Paul (unless the statement you want to make is that you think that Obama is so bad, you will vote for an imperfectly libertarian McCain, in which case McCain's very imperfections add power to your symbolic snub of Obama).
As an active player, that is, someone who hopes to influence what the candidate's policies will be, you want to exert that influence over a candidate who has a chance of winning. Why waste your input on someone with no chance? Further, as an active player, you want to give advice to someone who needs it. Paul doesn't need my advice. He's already a libertarian. But maybe I can nudge McCain a little in that direction.
Well, that's his take. Any libertarians or Ron Paul voters out there who see things differently? Please comment below!
Tags: presidential election 2008 | Ron Paul | John McCain
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (207) | Print
Reader Comments
Response to "Freedom of NC"
By now enough people have pointed out how ridiculous Luskin's original argument was, so I don't need to say anything more on it. Instead, I am replying to a post I noticed which contains a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and the notion of a right.
Freedom of NC wrote:
"I see my previous comment was removed.
I guess someone here has the same respect for the First Ammendment to the US Constitution as John McCain does; NONE.
If the First Ammendment is'nt good enough for you, we (us lovers of liberty) might just start going down the list and move on to the Second one.
Sic Semper Tyrannis!!"
Freedom of speech and the First Amendment mean you cannot be arrested or prosecuted simply for what you say or express. They do not mean, however, that you can force a privately owned website to display anything you say (or force a privately owned website to do anything). Regardless of the content of your original post, the owner of this website was well within his rights to delete it. You may think he is being unfair, but this is his website to run as he sees fit, not yours.
I believe one of the reasons individual rights are given no respect today is that people misunderstand the notion of a right and claim to have "rights" which inherently infringe on the rights of others. Some claim they have a "right" to fresh air, meaning the owner of a restaurant or bar should not be allowed to decide whether he allows his patrons to smoke in his own establishment. Others claim that their "right" to retirement (at the expense of others) justifies forcing everyone into a Social Security system which is soon to be bankrupt. Still others claim their "right" to a "drug-free America" justifies arresting responsible adults for what they do in the privacy of their own homes. In your case, you implied that your "right" to post on someone else's website (which you mistakenly associated with the First Amendment) means the owner of this website should not be allowed to decide what he allows on his own site.
The first step toward small, honest government is to recognize what a true right is. Fortunately, we need not look any further than the Declaration of Independence for the foundation of true rights: "...that among these [inalienable rights] are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." These rights do not give anyone the "right" to violate the rights of anyone else, so no true right can require a concession or an action by someone else.
(Though this isn't the purpose of my post, I am going back and forth between writing in Ron Paul, and sacrificing my principles a bit to vote for Barr. I fully believe McCain is the worst candidate in the race and would take Obama over him in a heartbeat, though I certainly won't vote for either of them. As for Chuck Baldwin, he opposes "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" because it shows too much acceptance of gays by allowing them in the military to begin with. I know a sign of dangerous theocracy when I see it.)
McCain - More Successful at "Boiling Frogs"
I can’t understand why more people can’t see it. McCain is the Frog Boiler!
What do I mean? There is an old allegory about how to boil a frog. It is said that if you drop a frog into a pot of boiling water it will immediately jump out.
But if you drop a frog in water that is slightly warm and turn up the heat gradually then the frog just sits there and lets itself be boiled alive, without attempting to jump out of the pot, without even knowing that it is indeed being boiled alive.
This allegory has been applied again, and again regarding the American people’s reaction to liberalism/socialism. And it is pretty clear who is who if you apply this allegory to this year’s election.
So let’s vote for the candidate who will make the frog jump out of the pot so we can have a true conservative in 2012. Otherwise we will all get gradually boiled alive.
After all it took Carter to get us Reagan.
advertisement
