Radley Balko and Tyler Cowen both explain why they won’t be voting for Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. Balko:
I’m sorry, but I’m just not convinced that either Badnarik or the LP speaking on behalf of libertarianism to a national audience with limited exposure to the ideology would ultimately be good for libertarianism, the philosophy.
This is a guy who gives seminars advocating that the federal income tax is optional, who refuses to use zip codes, who says he’d blow up the UN building “after giving occupants a week to vacate,” who has equated FDR to Hitler, and who suggested we chain convicted felons to their beds until their muscles atrophy.
It gets worse. For more, check here and here.
I’ll gladly cast my ballot with the LP when the LP offers a candidate who isn’t an embarassment to libertarianism.
Cowen:
Nonetheless I must offer p = 0 when I ponder the chance that I vote for Badnarik. If I don’t like a picture, I’m not going to hang it on my wall. I gladly supported Ed Clark in 1980, let’s hope that the LP once again puts up a serious candidate.
1 comment:
Interested to hear what you would like to see in a “serious candidate” from the Libertarian Party. You’re certainly not alone in feeling that the LP is somewhat of a lost cause as long as it pretends it can field candidates running on a platform that only a diehard Objectivist would have the faintest interest in. There are a lot of us within the LP who agree and probably many more who left.
So what’s your conclusion? Do we hope against all history that government will start to to be reigned in by the Republicans and Democrats? Or do we try to build a third party that takes seriously the idea of addressing real voter concerns with policies informed by the libertarian outlook?
David Beers
The New Libertarian blog