From a Facebook friend, not a reader of the blog, this came via email.
I’m pretty sure I remember that you are a Libertarian (or had promoted Libertarian ideas at one point). I have issues with both major candidates in this year’s election and I’ve actually been pretty intrigued by Gary Johnson’s platform (or at least what I saw on his website). However, I’m getting a lot of “don’t throw your vote away”.
What’s your thought about Johnson and voting for a “3rd Party” in general?
This year, other people who are friends outside of my political/economist/blogging circle but who are vaguely aware of my libertarian leanings have asked similar questions. My thoughts:
1. In Maryland, any vote in the Presidential election is a throw-away. We live in a state that always votes Democratic.
2. Still, I plan to vote as if my vote mattered. Although I plan to vote for Gary Johnson, his libertarianism has almost nothing to do with my preference this year.
3. I am disturbed by the temperaments of both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton. Moreover, I think that a victory by either one will lead to four years of worsening bitterness in politics in this country. A Johnson Presidency has the potential to be less divisive and make me less afraid to read the day’s news.
4. One way to think about this year is that Mr. Trump is the 3rd-party candidate, in the tradition of Ross Perot and George Wallace (with a core constituency inherited from those two), who happened to capture the Republican nomination. Johnson is a more credible major-party candidate who happens to be on the ballot as a Libertarian.
5. My first choice would have been for the Republicans to run a major-party candidate, meaning someone other than Mr. Trump or Dr. Carson. Had they done so, I would probably not be voting for Gary Johnson. So I am not such a dedicated libertarian, with either a small or capital L.
6. I sometimes say that there are philosophical libertarians and there are pragmatic libertarians. Philosophical libertarians base their views on fundamental principles. Pragmatic libertarians believe only that the libertarian approach often turns out to be correct.
7. The philosophy of libertarianism is that individuals should not be coerced into making decisions. Instead, your transactions with other people should be based on voluntary consent. They should be based on peaceful persuasion and, in the case of economic transactions, on choice and competition. This philosophy sees government programs and regulation as coercive and therefore wrong in principle.
8. I put myself in the pragmatic libertarian camp. I do not make my stand against government action on principle, but I say that in practice government can be counted on to be less effective than nongovernmental processes. For example, when markets produce bad outcomes, I expect the competitive process of private entrepreneurs to do a better job of fixing things than the political process.
9. Part of the libertarian view is anti-interventionist in foreign affairs. The philosophical libertarian says that undertaking coercive acts abroad is at least as wrong as undertaking them at home. The pragmatic libertarian notes that the government that is going to intervene abroad is the same government that is inherently clumsy, stupid, and prone to producing adverse unintended consequences at home.
10. You should note that the libertarian view is antithetical to American government support for Israel. This follows from non-interventionism.
11. Moreover, I know libertarians who go beyond non-interventionism and who personally talk about Israel the way that the far left talks about it, holding Israel unilaterally responsible for the conflict with Palestinians. To me, this comes across as denying any moral agency to Palestinians, because it treats as irrelevant the past actions and current threats made by Palestinians against Jews. I believe in treating the Palestinians as having moral agency, with the power to change their situation by changing their approach. In any case, on this issue I do not agree with rigid, high and mighty libertarians.
12. Speaking of which, libertarians are temperamentally prone to being high and mighty, contemptuous of those who disagree. I very much do not wish to be associated with that temperament. I believe that nobody is 100 percent right 100 percent of the time.
Voting 2-party won’t break the 2 party system. So if you love where that got us and want where it will take us, do more of that. I can’t cry anymore.
I had seriously thought of looking into the libertarian party, liked Gary Johnson, until I heard Mitt Romney say he supported him. That’s where I draw the line. Trump you have me by the short hairs.
It is what I like to call a first hundred million mover problem.
1. Romney did not say he supports Johnson. He said he might think about it.
2. Seriously? Trump and Clinton are both manifestly unfit for the presidency, and you would not vote for two successful governors because a retired governor might also vote for them?
I think he was joking. He is saying Romney was such a terrible candidate that he might have to vote for an even worse one.
Doesn’t the pragmatic-libertarian case against foreign intervention rely on an assumption that the processes we would intervene in are more “sustainable” (in the sense of your latest book) than government processes?
That assumption would be unsupportable in the common case that we intervene in acts by another government, or in acts by an oppressive government-like faction (such as ISIS), especially if we think that a government informed by libertarian ideals — a unicorn, so to speak — would act more narrowly than one not so influenced.
I would love to see an online “Commitments Bazaar” where Rep leaning voters (whether Libertarian oriented or not) could “swap disgust” with Dem leaning voters (whether Libertarian oriented or not) by pledging not to vote for ClinTrump and vote for someone else. This way a weak form of not “wasting your vote” is “addressed”, and your vote having the potential for some impact — biggish if the net swing to Libertarian is significant, but more likely small but meaningful, if it keeps the winner’s share of vote as small as possible (popular vote). This may produce an opposition more likely to challenge a “minority” winner.
Incidentally, the worst waste of a vote is not working hard towards electing a meaningful legislative/judicial opposition to ClinTrump . I think Arnold is right that ensuring a strong opposition to Clinton is more important, since a Clinton Presidency would have face a much weaker Dem challenge in Congress and (and here I add) in the media and the Supreme Court.
How many Libertarians does it take to screw in a light bulb?*
I’ve been a Lib, I’ve run for Congress as a Lib (in CA, ’88, vs Tom Campbell & Anna Eschoo in Sili Valli); but I don’t generally trust even the mostly good people who are Libs. Too much self-interest; not quite nice and reliable enough.
The way towards getting a smaller gov’t, in practice in America, is voting for small-l libertarian/ free market Republicans, supporting more Tea Party types rather than cronyist GOPe. But the ever bigger gov’t Dems have been either worse or far far worse.
Trump plus Reps in Congress vs Clinton plus Dems in Congress — with other areas continuing: Dems in gov’t (Deep Government), Dems in media, Dems in Academia, Dems in most NGOs. The “top institutions” are almost inevitably more socialistic than supporting individualism.
The Libertarians are “the anti-organization group”. Even when they have been valuable, like on pot legalization, they haven’t been enough in front of this issue in order to claim dominant leadership on it. It’s great for them to be in debates so as to let voters know there are alternatives.
But big-L Libertarians are Philosophic, and even contemptuous of pragmatic compromise. That doesn’t quite cut it enough.
*How many? None — the free market will take care of it.
I guess when people didn’t believe me for the last 15 years that police behavior would come to a head due to CCD I wasn’t in front of the issue enough…my bad.
Btw, when Obama calls for body cams now, you develop a sardonic sense of humor to survive. That isn’t the same thing as contempt, but it is getting warmer.
Johnson and Weld are the ‘big-L’ Libertarian Party nominees. But both were Republican governors and are clearly in the ‘pragmatic libertarian’ category.
Then why are you more excited by Gary Johnson who is a small l Libertarian? For 2016, he is consistently polling 5 – 12%, has the potential to win a Mountain state, and at this point is taking a number of potential HRC supporters. (So he has Republican upside here especially if more Republicans come out and endorse. I don’t know why the Koch Brothers don’t contribute here.) Frankly, this is the year to act for the Libertarian Party and build future years.
Given I from California where HRC is going to absolutely win I thinking of voting for Gary. (And you have to admit Trump deserves to lose California.)
Moreover, I know libertarians who go beyond non-interventionism and who personally talk about Israel the way that the far left talks about it, holding Israel unilaterally responsible for the conflict with Palestinians.
Then what do you propose at this point? I believe at this point Israel and Palestine should simply accept they are a single state and move forward with their lives. Israel win never accept a two state solution and Palestinian people are never going to thrive in the current status. I feel like it is similar to England and the IRA in the 1980s.
In terms of Libertarian dislike for Israel, also remember Israel has lobbied for most of our Middle Eastern endeavors. I remember they heavily pursued us to enter Iraq 2 and spent tremendous resources to end the Iran nuclear deal. I believe they are consistently lobbying us to bomb Iran as well although I am guessing it has diminished under second term Obama.
In viewing the Iran nuclear deal after Year One, I see the worst problem of keeping Iran as hostile enemy, Saudia Arabia became the ‘Essential Ally.’ (To the point, we blamed Iraq for 9/11 when most of the participants in 9/11 come from Saudia Arabia. Heck we knew of connections to the ambassador in 2002.) So the best of the Iran nuclear deal has been it has weakened Saudia Arabia position in the oil markets and we have seen much freer markets, lower prices and less OPEC control.
Yes, it is a wasted vote, but votes regretted tend to be ones that won.
It isn’t a water vote. It almost is wasted because the 2 party system is a fail. Or it is a resounding success, depending on your perspective.
“You will waste your vote” is actually a criticism of the 2-party system. People just don’t realize.
I actually should get a medal for as non-contemptuous I am.
In a Presidential election, your vote is always thrown away, in that there is essentially zero chance it will determine the outcome. This is true whether or not you live in a battleground state. So it makes no sense to base your vote on tactical considerations.
I live in Massachusetts, which like Maryland, will go hard for Hillary. I will vote for Johnson.
My hope is that Hillary loses (I can’t really say that I want Trump to win) but that a large vote for Johnson, and the pushback that he will get from almost every respectable institution in America, will keep him from being “authoritarian.” Glenn Reynolds keeps pointing out that “the powers that be” will work against an “imperial presidency” and civil liberties violations when the perpetrators are Republicans, but largely lose interest when it’s done by non-Republicans.
My take — the impact of any individual vote on an election is imperceptively small. So small that — as many have pointed out — it’s really irrational to take the time and effort to go to the polls because of the effect you expect to have on the outcome (and that’s especially true in national elections). If you’re sick as a dog and can’t get out of bed on election day, you don’t feel the course of history has been altered by your absence. So voting is 99.99999% a ritual of shared citizenship and an expressive act. Given that, why on earth would you for a candidate that you find disgusting? Yes, either Hillary or Trump is going to win, and either way, it’s going to be bad. That’s going to happen regardless of how I vote. But I’ll certainly feel better not putting my stamp of approval on either one those idiots.
This election may be the first time that a vote for Johnson-Weld in a few small key states is not a vote wasted. Trump and Clinton poll neck-and-neck. Both have skeletons in the closet that will keep emerging. By November, they may still be close — and each with very high negatives. If Johnson-Weld win just one or two small states, that may foreclose an electoral college majority for the major party candidates. The election would go the House. They may (may) elect a non-freak.
A very practical consideration is the Supreme Court, and I’ll just note that on the Cato site, Ilya Shapiro had a post titled “Donald Trump’s Terrific List of Fabulous Judges”. Given the oversized role of the Supreme Court and the fact that 2-3 justices will likely be replaced by the next president, it is reasonable for Libertarian-leaning people to vote for Trump on that issue alone.
It’s never been about casting the winning vote – everyone knows that.
Not voting doesn’t send any particular signal.
Voting libertarian reminds the major parties that there’s a constituency up for grabs if they’d only cater to it.
To the major parties, holding your nose and voting for a major party says, “I support the nominee and am happy with the platform” not “I’m disgusted by the platform but the third party can’t win.”
Vote your conscience to communicate your policy desires. That makes Johnson an easy choice.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2598088
Is this really the guy to vote for? Am I missing something, or is he nearly incoherent?
He says that you can be socially conservative and libertarian, but there’s “this notion of don’t force it on me.” But if a Christian cake baker declines to make a cake for a gay wedding, and you can force that baker to make a choice between (a) acting in a manner abhorrent to him or (b) losing his business, .i.e., free exercise of his religion is trumped by an assertion of discrimination, what’s that but forcing it on HIM?
It is another interesting part of the debate that never took place, whether gay marriage was a net increase in liberty or not.
“I plan to vote as if my vote mattered.” Why? That is completely irrational (though of minor importance).
Ilya Shapira at Cato argues that neither Johnson or Weld are actually very Libertarian at all. “Is Johnson-Weld a Libertarian Ticket?”
Let me propose the following litmus test for principled vs pragmatic libertarians:
On the question of whether a business should be able to deny customers service on the basis of race/religion/gender, etc:
A principled libertarian would support the right of a business to deny service to certain customers independent of whether that denial ultimately leads to a market or business correction- either that business failing or other businesses emerging to serve those customers denied service.
On the other hand a pragmatic libertarian believes that the failure to serve certain customers will be corrected by the market- either equally good alternatives will emerge to meet the denied customers, or the businesses denying specific customers will fail. They are okay with businesses denying service because of this belief in a subsequent market correction. If you could guarantee them that no correction would occur and that some subset of customers would remain unserved, they would in fact be against businesses denying service to select customers.