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.
I love cats!
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?
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.
“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.
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.
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 into the system as a bad thing. Shouldn’t we encourage people to not pay? I also question the assumption that an illegal immigrant as such is necessarily a welfare leech. If anything, these people function more independantly from the state than most.
The aggressor is the person using the system which is stealing from me as well as the system that performs the theft. It’s no different than me hiring someone to steal from a neighbor for my own benefit. They are using the State to steal money from me to buy food, clothing, education, health care, etc. I’m fine with them coming here and working and trying to have a better life but don’t suck off of me. But that goes for everyone not just immigrants. If their intent is to come up here to work and use our welfare system then in my opinion they have become an aggressor against me and everyone else. They are hiring the State to steal from me and you for their benefit. And again, get rid of welfare for them and everyone else and I don’t give a crap. So long as I’m being robbed at gun point I don’t think I should have to support allowing more people in so they can further plunder me.
It is very different because noone “hires” the state. No immigrant is actually aggressing against you by merely moving here. The act of moving here and buying a home isn’t a rights violation. Using your exact same line of argumentation, one could argue that if I call the cops to pursue someone who raped my wife, I am stealing from everyone else since this is funded through taxation. Or that by driving on the public roads I am stealing from everyone. Nevermind the fact that the theft is done by the state and that as an average person existing in this society I have no choice in the matter and am not truly voluntarily patronizing anyone.
Again, this language is deceptive because noone actually “hires” the state for anything. The state imposes its services upon everyone. Noone “hires” the state. Everyone is essentially forced to consume the state’s services in one way or another. All an illegal immigrant is doing is crossing unowned land and then buying a home from a willing seller. This in and of itself doesn’t violate anyone else’s rights.
Everyone, both legal citezens and illegal immigrants, have no choice but to make use of things such as the public roads. It is disingenous to speak as if we are voluntarily patronizing the state for these services. We have no choice but to use them. We are the victims, and so are the immigrants who also have no choice but to make use of some of these services.
I reject the assumption that this is the actual intent of most immigrants.
Your proposed solution is to rob more people at gun point to fund your immigration bureaucracy and the police state apparatus necessary to try to control immigration, which of course violates rights in and of itself. You are not in a morally superior position here. You’re proposing rights violations as a solution to rights violations and intervention as a solution to intervention.
This whole thing is a nothing but a silly interventionist crackdown on “free riders”, or at least alleged “free riders”.
It is blatantly obvious that immigration control violates both rights and the necessary conditions of a free market. It cannot be reconciled with free association and property rights. It belongs in the dustbin of paleoconservative huffpuffery, not serious libertarian thought.