Lions Of Liberty Roundtable: Election 2012!

{Editor's Note: This is the debut of the Lions Of Liberty Roundtable, a new feature where we will pick a relevant topic of the day and hash it out via email for all the world to see.   If you have any suggestions for future roundtable topics, just drop me an email.}Marc:Well gentlemen, now that the Holiest of Holy American Holidays, the much ballyhooed "Election Day" is quickly approaching, I'm sure I'm not the only one who's starting to hear the question "So who are you going to vote for?".  Of course this common question begins with the presumption that you will actually vote. Not to do so would be the act of a heathen! Voting seems to be the most holy act of pilgrimage one can make in the American Religion, and to many not voting is akin to a sin.As a libertarian I certainly don't see voting as some sort of duty; to not participate in the apparatus of the State should be the right of any sovereign man. At the same time, I find it perfectly acceptable for one to use the systems that the State has put in place if it's to one's benefit.  If a prisoner in a gulag get the opportunity to choose a new warden, and Warden A will give them 50 lashes per week while Warden B will give them only 20 lashes per week, nobody would blame the prisoner for choosing Warden B.  And of course this act in no way means that the prisoner even agrees that he should be held in the gulag in the first place. He is simply acting in his own self-interest.  By the same token, if a libertarian goes to the voting booth to vote for lower taxes for himself, this too is in his own self-interest and in no way implies that he agrees with the premise he should be taxed in the first place.So is it in the self-interest of libertarians to vote this year? And if so, for whom? Are you so disgusted with the actions of the Romney campaign at the RNC that you'd consider voting for Obama as a protest? Does anyone think that, as bad as Romney is, the prospects of another Obama term are so terrible that rolling the dice with the weather vane Romney might still be a better option? Or is it best to vote for a 3rd party? Many libertarians will vote for Gary Johnson, some may even opt for Constitution Candidate Virgil Goode, and while I doubt many libertarians would see Green Party candidate Jill Stein as a palatable alternative, she at least has a strong anti-war and pro civil liberties stance.  Or do you stand by the most staunchly libertarian candidate in the history of American politics, stick to principle and write in Ron Paul? Or perhaps the ultimate "protest vote", staying home and opting out of voting completely?I haven't fully made up my mind yet, but I'm generally leaning in 1 of 2 directions. What better way to help sort it out than in the debut of the Lions of Liberty Roundtable! So, what do you gentlemen think?Domenic:A Presidential vote seems like a waste of time.  I am sure that my saying that would shock my proud grandfather who literally bled for the country a few times.   Adornments honoring his service to the nation find their way to his grave more often than the relatively spoiled progeny he left behind (i.e. me). So growing up as a kid with a grandparent whose stories were more harrowing than even fictional authors can craft these days, voting has always seemed like a small tribute I could pay for preserving the lifestyle to which he and so many like him had given a significant part of their lives.  But despite this sentiment voting for the executive figurehead just doesn't seem all that important.  In many ways, I have found it to be quite the opposite since casting a cautious vote for the "lesser" of two evils four years ago.I think people would do well to remember past the current and last election cycle.  I can see how younger first or second time voters could get a little thrill out of feeling like they are doing something important and representative of autonomous government, but if you have been through a few more cycles it may be time to grow up.  The "significant" difference between the two "road maps" for the country the two party duopoly has laid out for us are as different as my four-week old baby's bowel movements.  Sure some of them are less pungent and messy, but the diaper is still full of shit.This year and most in my short politically aware existence, the supposed dividing line between these "starkly contrasted" visions for the country is who will be taxed more?  The Democratic nominee presents himself as a working class super hero who will stick it to those fat cats that are pillaging the American Dream.  The Republicans promise tax breaks to so-called job creators and kinda-sorta-maybe down the road wasteful spending cuts as their nebulous plan to fix us up for the "FUTURE."  Fiscal policy in the terms discussed by our two choices is as smokescreen of an issue as the fake abortion debate.  Tax breaks to the one percent didn't cause the financial panic and tax breaks for the rest wont fix the fundamental flaws in the world's financial scheme.  Even if they did, remember a President's role (or at least what his role should be according to that artifact everyone claims to honor and uphold).  Taxes aren't in the job description.  Regardless of who taxes who, one thing is certain; the national treasury hole will become exponentially deeper than its already hilariously irresponsible $16 trillion level under both puppet's "plans."  Nothing of substance is addressed in a Presidential election because it is not an exercise of substance.  Electing a President is a fancier, more socially acceptable version of American Idol especially given the never-ending media cycle of today's world.Throngs of people will google Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, read a few lines from Wikipedia and walk into an election booth proud as a peacock for what they think they are doing for their country.  I find that silly.  I am not a fan of restricting anyone's voting right as that would be a direct contradiction to what I champion (liberty) but that doesn't mean I have to be a fan of casual people electing the ever more powerful puppet masters.  Paying attention to a week of tabloid news coverage and watching a debate or two isn't sufficient enough ammo to call yourself an educated voter.  It is by all means your right, but it is also mine to find it absurd.But anyway, I think the question was what to do this November?  Hell, at least take the day off I guess.Marc:A day off sure sounds good to me! You've certainly summed up something most of us probably agree on: there is little if any difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.  It baffles me when I see people arguing with so much passion for one over the other.  It's a good indicator of how effective the marketing campaign of the two-party duopoly along with its complicit media has been.  They have convinced the great majority of the American electorate that not only are there only two choices that are even worthy of consideration of a vote, but that those two choices are vastly different!What about any of the third party candidates? Do any of you like Gary Johnson? What about Virgil Goode? Is there any point in casting a "protest" vote for one of these candidates?Brian:Sadly, casting "protest" votes just doesn't work due to the way the system is set up. Half the time candidates don't even make it onto the ballots and to coordinate disgruntled voters to actually go to the polls to make a statement that may or may not be reported by the mainstream media seems like a huge undertaking.In the years I've been campaigning for Ron Paul, going door to door, it seems that people default to the position of voting for a candidate that they think might win so their vote "matters." Never mind that no one vote actually does matter, since it comes down to the Electoral College anyway, but time and time again I have heard that people will NOT vote for a candidate that can't win. And a protest vote is exactly that: casting a vote for a candidate that you know can't win. Only the most passionate and involved people will put any effort into writing in a candidate or actually researching a new candidate once their initial choice has been eliminated. The rest will default to one of the two doppelgängers so they can feel like they had some impact in the process of selecting the next President.As you said, the political marketing machines have convinced people that these two are hugely different, and many people will opt to cast a vote for Romney instead of casting a vote for Johnson to try to send the GOP a message about the way the party is headed. If for no other reason, they will do this because they feel that they can't waste a vote protesting that might allow Obama to stay in office.Marc:Well, sounds like that's another vote for staying at home on Election Day to me.  Brian makes some great points about the futility of a "protest vote". It seems that the end result, regardless of whether one votes for Obama, Romney or any sort of "protest" third party, we will still receive the exact same thing at the end of the day.Do any of you plan to go to the polls to vote for other things such as say , local liberty candidates, or for or against certain measures that may be on your local ballots? Or will you forego the process all together? What say you, Odie?John:Four years ago Election Day came and went without a trip to the polls for this guy.  The similarities between the two candidates are even more blatantly evident than the last Presidential beauty contest.  Voting for President this year, for reasons that the three of you have already explained, is a hopeless endeavor.  You would have to do a significant amount of research, much more than the casual voter would tolerate, to find actual disagreements between the duopoly’s candidates.  Both endorse endless war, monetary inflation, government intervention into private industry, enhancing the police state, executive orders, indefinite detention and so much more.  The only major difference is their skin color!  And that's certainly not a reason to vote.Most libertarians, and definitely anarcho-capitalists, would agree we are not going to vote our way into becoming a free society.  We have to change the hearts and minds of the people first via education, so individuals understand the positives a free society presents, as opposed to a centrally planned society like we have today.  If it’s your prerogative, deciding to get involved with politics by way of campaigning, donating, or even running as a liberty candidate could help to expedite the process by elevating the liberty message into the mainstream.  Of course, Ron Paul is the prime example of a politician using the political stage to advance the ideals of liberty.  He hasn’t achieved extensive political success by traditional measures during his tenure in Congress, but he has attracted more people to libertarian philosophy than perhaps anyone in history.So depending on where you live it might be worthwhile to take a trip to the polls to support a local liberty candidate or even cast a vote for Gary Johnson or Virgil Goode if it helps you sleep at night.  In order to find local liberty candidates in your area to support, visit libertycandidates.com.  Unfortunately, in the city of Pittsburgh where I live, there are no liberty candidates or ballot measures worth voting for or against.  This year it looks like I’ll be staying home as well.Marc:I have to say I was a bit surprised that all of my fellow compatriots here have all basically reached the same conclusion that there simply isn't a reason to actually go vote this year.  This is an issue I've bounced around in my mind a bit, but I've essentially reached the same conclusion.I did consider Gary Johnson, and while I've already discussed why his libertarian credentials leave something to be desired, he's certainly the best candidate overall. His record as Governor of New Mexico is pretty good, as he was known as "Governor Veto" for vetoing so many bills while in office.  He supports bringing the troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries, and is strongly opposed to the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA.  But ultimately as we've discussed, any vote for a third party is indeed nothing more than a "protest" vote.  I have soured so much on politics in the past decade, that if I am going to "support" somebody it is going to be because they are excellent communicators of the philosophy of liberty.  And I simply don't see that in Gary Johnson.  So while I wish him well, he doesn't inspire me to start making phone calls or writing blogs touting his merits.  I certainly understand reasons others might.Having ruled out voting for the "lesser of two evils" or even for a third party "protest" vote, I find myself left with only two real choices that allow me to remain philosophically consistent.  One is to go to the polls and write in Ron Paul. This was the tact I took in 2008.  And while it felt good to write Ron Paul's name on that ballot, like Odie said the only thing it really accomplished was helping me sleep better at night.  No, like all of you I've decided to register my protest vote this year in the most efficient and consistent way I can think of  - withdrawing my consent from the system all together and not voting.I promise our readers we did not coordinate this ahead of time. I did think at least one or two of my colleagues would have taken some interest in Gary Johnson or a Ron Paul write-in.  But I think this last year or so of blogging and scrutinizing every aspect of the political process has left us all with a similar feeling.  The process of choosing our "leaders" is not an election as much as a selection, and we sure aren't the ones doing the selecting.  Why even support such a flawed process filled with inconsistent candidates?From Bush in 2000 to Libertarian Michael Badnarik in 2004 to a Ron Paul write-in in 2008, my voting record has drifted more and more away from the "accepted" choices every year.  The next logical step in this process is to simply out of voting all together.There will be many who decry this idea, and claim that if we don't vote it means we don't care.  I challenge anyone who thinks that to spend some time perusing this blog before telling any of us that we don't care! There will be those that claim that my decision to not vote will "change nothing". And to those I ask this question:What will your vote change?I hope you've all enjoyed this first edition of the Lions of Liberty Roundtable!  We'd love to hear some feedback, which you can deliver to us in a variety of social media such as Facebook , Twitter or Google +, or in the comments section below.Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!