I wrote this post almost a week ago; before I learned that Dr. Ron Paul was dropping out of the Republican primary race for the Presidency. It didn’t matter to me at the time whether or not he would be dropping out. As I mentioned, I planned to write him in. However, I have learned some things since then. Namely, write-in votes aren’t even counted in some states unless the candidate registers as a write-in candidate, which Dr. Paul has stated that he will not do. Ron Paul, himself, has even counseled his supporters to not write him in here: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=34. So I return to my post title: How does one vote for LIBERTY these days? Here are my choices as I see them:
- Write-in Ron Paul anyway.
- Vote for Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party Candidate.
- Vote for Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party Candidate.
- Not vote at all.
1. Writing in Ron Paul has one major thing going for it. I know that Dr. Paul would make an excellent president…in fact, I believe out of the choices we’ve been given, Ron Paul would make the MOST excellent president. This ideological certainty is tainted, however. A write-in vote for Ron Paul will not be counted. My goal was to do my part to hear Ron Paul’s name read aloud during election coverage, preferably with a tone of incredulity. (“How the heck did HE get so many votes??”) But that won’t happen with a write-in vote. I wanted McCain to KNOW that he might have gotten more votes if only he stood for small government, lower taxes, and LIBERTY! But a write-in will only deny McCain votes. As someone on the Ron Paul blog said, a write-in for Ron Paul will only give us a result like 34% Obama, 22% McCain, etc. They will in no way be able to claim a mandate from the people, but it doesn’t matter. One of them will win the electoral votes necessary to gain the Presidency, and they will think they have a mandate. No matter the benefits of this option, however, I can’t help thinking that I’m not making the statement that I want to make.
2. Bob Barr is the Libertarian candidate for the Presidency. This would be a no-brainer, but he IS a former Republican. He voted FOR the Patriot Act. He voted FOR the Iraq War. He voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. Finally, he was a huge proponent of the War on Drugs. All of this was while he was a Republican Senator, sure, but it’s his voting record. It cannot be ignored. Granted, he’s reformed now. He’s more of a rank-and-file Libertarian these days. But who’s to say that he won’t get into office and realize there’s a lot more money to be made as a Republican again? I’m not saying that he’ll sell out for sure, but it’s a fear I have when voting for him. He has publicly come out against his former positions, and has lobbied tirelessly for freedom in recent years.
Now, I recognize that there are a couple positions which my readership, such as it is, will not have normally linked to me. Lately, I have begun thinking about traditionally conservative social issues, and realize that I disagree with most of my conservative brethren…specifically those in the church. You can’t legislate morality, people. Morality is something that comes from a changed heart, and a changed heart is not the goal of politics. Preaching the gospel is not the goal of politics. Government and religion ought to be separate. I can see being against abortion. Abortion is murder, and murder is (and ought to be) illegal. But these other issues do not measurably or quantifiably harm others, so how can we justify legislating it? Marriage is between a man and a woman, yes. Homosexuality is a sin, yes. But on what basis does the Federal Government have the right to get involved? On what basis can the government say anything one way or another on marriage? Where does the Constitution cover marriage? (There is a proposed Constitutional Amendment being discussed in the House and Senate that would define marriage at the Federal level, but how is this a good thing? Up until now, it’s been up to the States, and civil marriage has ALWAYS been covered by State Law.) Drugs are probably not a good idea, but neither is alcoholism…neither is beating yourself in the head with a hammer. There are no laws concerning these two things, and there ought not be. The War on Drugs is costly, and has not reduced their usage. If society is so immoral and needs to be changed (and it does) is that the role of the government? NO! It is the role of churches to be outspoken. We can not and should not set up some sort of pseudo-theocracy. There are many in the church who would disagree with me, and I’m sure I’ve not thought everything through, but right now, I’m leaning to the side of liberty. From what I’ve seen, the Constiution leaned that way. The Founding Fathers leaned that way. You think homosexuality is something invented in the last 50 years? The Founding Fathers knew what homosexuality was. They left the definition of marriage up to the States. The Federal Government has no business regulating much of what it already does. Why give it more power? Liberty is the vote I want to cast. Is Bob Barr the choice for Liberty? I don’t know.
3. Given what I outlined above, I am leery of voting for Chuck Baldwin. I like that he campaigned for Ron Paul, but the Constitution Party advocates a Christian-based form of government, which is a pseudo-theocracy. I do not and will not ever support this. The Constitutional party claims that gambling is evil. I disagree with them. I don’t LIKE gambling, personally, but I see no problem with someone entertaining themselves with cards or craps. After all, I’ve spent plenty of money on video games. There’s a form of entertainment with no chance of making back some money. It could be argued that gambling is a form of entertainment with a slim chance of paying off. But my point with gambling is that I don’t think it ought to be outlawed. I don’t think the government has the right to say what I do with my money. I don’t know that I can vote for Baldwin for this reason alone. (They want the Federal Government to legislate far more than they really ought to, and they want them to for purely moral reasons.) We are not, and we ought not be, a theocracy. So I don’t know whether I can vote for him, given that he represents a party that appears to want to create a man-invented version of the Jewish Civil Government. As my friend Ryan told me last night,”didn’t Jesus say, ‘My kingdom is not of this world’?”
As I said above…if I felt things were immoral, then I would say it is the job of the church to preach the gospel. It is not the job of the government to legislate morality. What is the church doing to combat evils like homosexuality? Not enough, if all they’re trying to do is legislate it. Making it illegal for gays to marry is not going to result in winning souls to Christ, people!!! Preach the Gospel to all, but don’t think that if only it were illegal for someone to marry someone of the same gender, your job would be easier. Preach the Word of God, and when the Lord converts them, they will hate the sin.
4. I could just not vote. This would effectively be the same as option #1, since writing in Ron Paul’s name would not be counted anyway. However, voting is a duty of every eligible American citizen. We’re not voting directly for the President, no, but we are voting to determine where the electoral votes of our state will go. (Ostensibly. As I understand it, many states do not even require their electoral representatives to vote any certain way…I need to look at this.) I don’t think I can, in good conscience, not vote.
I don’t like Barr’s voting history, but can a person change? I know I have in the last year or so. Given how hard he’s worked to reverse decisions he once had a part in making, I think I may be voting for Barr, though I’m by no means final on this. Regardless of how I vote, I will be taking my vote away from McCain and the Republicans. I’m doing this because they have left their original platform of small government and low taxes. I’m doing this because they are tyrannical and don’t desire our freedom. Land of the free, remember?
GREAT post. Looks like you’ve officially become a libertarian, wot? =D I’m in the same conundrum as far as voting in this depressing election. I think I’m leaning in the same direction you are (voting for Barr), but I just can’t make up my mind. There are so many pros and cons of all four of the options you listed. Argh.
On a slightly related note, I just ordered Ron Paul’s new book (“The Revolution”), and it arrived yesterday. I’m on the third chapter, and so far, it is very readable and TERRIFIC. Should be required reading for any and all Americans who care about our nation’s future, as far as I’m concerned.
Good post! I’m not at all sure who I’m going to vote for. . . I’m considering not voting for any of the presidential candidates, since that’s the closest there is to “none of the above.”
You’re going to love looking into the electoral college. That system was shaky enough from the beginning, and it’s just straight-up fraudulent at this point as far as I’m concerned. Our whole voting system is disgraceful.
And on a note somewhat related to your post and to Jenna’s comment, I quite like Naomi Wolf’s (liberal as she may be) article regarding the ten steps to fascism. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment/print . Some of it is perhaps a bit stretched, and some’s a bit outdated, but there’s still an unsettlingly large number of things that are perfectly applicable.
I can tell ya who I’m voting for. RICK ASTLY! Why? Cause he’s never gunna give me up, never gunna let me down…
<_<
Ok, So I’m not voting for Rick Astly. Barr seems to be a good choice. Sure his voting record is a bit sketchy, but why would he switch from Republican to Libertarian if he didn’t have a true change of heart? I mean, I seriously doubt that he’s going to win, too many people are going to vote for Obama.
Well, given that my original goal was to have a Libertarian-leaning candidate get mentioned on the network election coverage, I’m definitely leaning toward Barr. His voting record was spotty, but unlike many politicians who outwardly repent of their decisions, but don’t *DO* anything about it, Barr seems to have really “seen the light”.
We don’t know what he’ll do in office, but then again, we KNOW what our 2-party choices will do.
As you said, Mithi, he’s not going to win. And apart from the fact that electoral representatives don’t have to vote for the majority vote-receiver in their state, California’s 55 electoral votes are going to Obama, so it really doesn’t matter who you vote for. Living with yourself, and voting to send a message to the GOP is all you really have. Not voting, or voting for no candidate at all isn’t doing much. I’ve thought about it, and not voting isn’t an option for me. I want my vote to be seen to be NOT Republican. Not that it’ll do anything…
Seriously, having my first choice ripped from me is really bumming me out. lol
I have no idea at this point, ill think more about it when i can.
Off to work now, don’t need this sadness making my day any harder :(
The idea that the Constitution Party wants to implement a theocracy is a lie born out of ignorance. We want the same kind of government our fore fathers had. A republic led by moral men and women. Corrupt men are only loyal to their own interests and not accountable to anyone. They make poor leaders for the country as has been demonstrated over and over.
People seem to think we will make them go to church or do something else that might be good for them. We don’t intend to make people do any such thing. For a good idea on our idea of the kind of men we want in office and the effects of immoral men in office see David Barton’s “Keys to good Government”. He also explains the doctrine of “Separation of Church and State” and how it came about. Very few people including some lawyers know that it is not found in the Constitution. Very few lawyers have ever read the Constitution and if you want to know what the Constitution Party wants read the Constitution its all there.
I know that the separation of church and state as a concept is not technically found in the Constitution, just as the doctrine of the Trinity is not technically found (stated as such) in the Word of God. However, I still think it’s a good idea.
What I see the Constitution Party wanting (and don’t get me wrong…I agree with a lot of what they stand for) is to impose a specific set of moral values upon a group of people.
I don’t feel that it’s the government’s job to impose morals. That is the realm of churches. If you say you want a government based upon the principles in the Word of God, what you’re saying is that you want a government based upon Christianity. You’re right…it’s not a theocracy. It’s worse. It’s a theocracy without Theos. It’s more of a religiocrasy, which is worse, in my opinion.
I think the government needs to stay out of moral issues. Let the churches be the voice of morality. Let them preach the Gospel. The Lord will convert His people, and they will begin to hate their sin. What America needs is not a Bible-based government, but a revival of changed hearts. Legislating morality isn’t going to change hearts. Only the preaching of the Gospel will do that. Only the preaching of the gospel will convince men of their own sin. And it’s DEFINITELY not the realm of the government to preach the Gospel.
If the Constitution Party doesn’t want to make people do what’s good for them, why does the party platform include a ban on gambling, government-enforced marriage requirements, and support for the states to control what people can and cannot put in their own bodies? What about the support for intense regulation of “obscene” speech, and isn’t that rather a slippery slope to get on? Who controls the definition of obscene and how is regulating speech in that way not a very dangerous thing?
I like a lot of what the Constitution Party says–taxes, sovereignty, foreign policy, and so on–, but the ideals of liberty are not equally protected throughout the party platform. What the platform seems to indicate is that the Constitution Party stands for the protection and enforcement of everything conservatives find morally upright, and regulation and restriction and punishment of everything that runs contrary to our sense of morality, regardless of whether the government has any right to interfere in that area.
Are you saying that we shouldn’t have laws against Rape, or incest, etc? Those are legislated moral laws. Or are you saying that our fore fathers had it all wrong and we are finally evolving into the perfect government where everyone is a law unto themselves with no accountability? The very reason we have laws that set a moral standard is to protect the innocent in our society.
Whether you are religious or not there should be a thought running through your mind that tells you right from wrong, and I will bet you could almost recite the 10 commandments from this inward voice without having read the 10 commandments. Yet some men need legal boundaries to protect the rest of us.
Separation of Church and State was first mentioned by Thomas Jefferson who was expounding the need to keep the Government from mandating one state religion such as England had done. Man should be free to worship his God or his BMW or whatever he wanted in his own way without Government interference. It’s far too late to worry about legislating morality it has already been done.
One last comment: We are not a democracy we are a Republic. For those who don’t know the difference a democracy rules by majority vote. The common good of the group sets the standard for the individual. A Republic protects the rights of the individual against the mob rule. Our fore fathers were brilliant men who fashioned our government out of experience learned through tyranny. They were good moral men mostly Christian. In fact you will find an interesting study by looking at the Constitutions of the first 13 states. You don’t have to read the whole thing. Just read the openings and you will see these were Godly men. We need men like them today. Not to legislate morality, but to govern us by moral principles.
First off, Rick, thank you for visiting my blog. I didn’t thank you properly in my first response, and I meant to. I apologize.
My statement about legislating morality was perhaps too broad. My main point is that we ought not attempt to legislate Christian morality, or assume that it’s the government’s job to do something that causes no measurable or quantifiable harm to another human being.
You mention rape or incest. Perhaps you could have just as easily mentioned murder. Of course there should be laws against such behavior. It’s easy to see how such behaviors harm others. But it’s a far cry from that to saying that gambling should be banned, which is a position of the Constitution party. Or that alcohol should not be sold near schools and churches. Why not? I should be able to buy alcohol when and where I want. Should people sell alcohol to minors? That’s another discussion, but even if you assume the answer to that is no, why not sell near churches?
If I want to enjoy myself by gambling, I should be able to. If I want to buy beer at a store near my house, and I live near a school, I should be able to. Pornography is not good…but on what grounds does the Constitution Party seek to ban it? I find pornography morally reprehensible, but apart from what it says in the Bible, I find no basis for telling people that they ought not be able to procure it for themselves.
I DO, however, find that churches ought to seek to preach to the lost. They ought to seek to win souls for Christ. When a man is converted, and the Word of God is rightly preached to him, he begins to hate his sin. He will then work to eliminate pornography in his own life. He will then seek to become more like Christ. Then this stuff becomes a non-issue.
I don’t see, however, that the government has any right to seek to ban these things. Abortion, yes. Abortion is murder…simple enough. But not gambling…not pornography….not strict zoning regarding alcohol. No matter how morally reprehensible we as individuals may find things, the Constitution party also says they stand for the rights of the individual. Those rights appear to go away when it comes to what the Christian feels is wrong, regardless of whether that individual is a Christian or not.
BTW, if you’re the same Richard D. Hake that is running for U.S. Congress, and ran for Attorney General in 2004, both in Oregon, very cool!
I have taken the liberty to cut & paste from the Constitution Party Platform our planks on Gambling and Pornography. I hope this isn’t too difficult to read as I can’t use bold or underlining to separate my quotes from my comments. So please, follow the quotes carefully. There are only two sections quoted each followed by comments.
“Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of national legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.”
If you read the above quote carefully you will not see a ban on gambling, but rather a ban on government promotion and funding of gambling.
“Pornography
We declare that pornography is not protected speech.”
Again, we are not calling for a ban on Pornography. We are declaring that it should not be protected.
I am sure you will agree that there are many degrees of pornography. It’s a very subjective area. Some would call Playboy an art form as it is very mild compared to underground child porn. So the degree of involvement and interpretation would have a lot to do with the level of protection if any.
I am the Richard D. Hake running for Congress so I feel compelled to give you my stand on the so called victimless crimes of prostitution and pornography. First let me start by saying my subjective stand comes from being a police officer and having street level experience with these so called victimless crimes.
Studies have been done which conclude that pornography leads to deeper involvement in criminal activity. Prostitution is often a forced buisness arrangement between a girl often a young runaway with no where turn and a pimp or john. This is kind of a slave master relationship where the master provides drugs, food & shelter and doesn’t physically beat his slave up if she gives him all of her earnings. These relationship often end in the death of the girl who is quickly replaced by another. The prostitute often is the main star in porn films and pictures.
There are some great rescue efforts going on by groups like Project Rescue and others helping to get these kids out of that life, but it’s dangerous for the girls and the rescue folks.
So while the Constitution parties stand is mild mine is not. I would like to see communities voting on what kind of porn they allow in their city limits, and I would like to see Prostitution vigerously prosecuted.
One last thing you mention zoning. To my knowledge we are all against zoning of any kind. If alcohol or porn is restricted from a school proximity it should be the community vote that creates it. Not some government agency.
BTW in my county we can’t have a Bible Study, Prayer Meeting, or Church in our private residence without a permit.
My apologies for what I said previously about gambling. I was mistaken. . . . I would actually tend to agree with the Constitution Party’s platform regarding gambling (though I don’t believe it’s always harmful).
“Again, we are not calling for a ban on Pornography. We are declaring that it should not be protected.”
As far as the government is concerned, this is essentially the same thing. It’s roughly akin to saying that “Well, we’re not actually calling for a ban on guns, we’re just saying the right to own them shouldn’t be protected.” Instructing government to cease protection of any right–in the case of pornography, freedom of speech or expression regardless of the quality of that speech or expression–is, to all effects, the same thing as a ban. How would one even begin to go about instituting a “lack of protection” that would be different in any meaningful way from a ban?
“Studies have been done which conclude that pornography leads to deeper involvement in criminal activity.”
Yes, and alcohol often leads violence–that doesn’t mean we should ban alcohol because some users may commit crimes.
“Prostitution is often a forced buisness arrangement between a girl often a young runaway with no where turn and a pimp or john.”
Of course, all use of force in business transactions should be punished. But, again, this doesn’t mean that all business should be punished because some business transactions involve the threat of force.
“These relationship often end in the death of the girl who is quickly replaced by another.”
This is tragic, and no one wants this violence to continue. But this system of violence is caused not by prostitution, but by the prohibition of prostitution. When you create a class of people who cannot turn to the police without risking imprisonment, you perpetuate victimization of that class of people. In this case, the ones being victimized are prostitutes: if they’re beaten by their pimp or by a john, who can they turn to? No one. If they go to the police, they’re going to get into trouble themselves. The violence continues because of the laws we demand to relieve our self-righteous sense of moral outrage.
If we actually care about the violence and care about those involved in the trade, the solution is legalization and protection of those who were previously victimized. Prohibition never fixes anything, because it always leaves control in the hands of the criminal and the violent. We’ve seen it with alcohol, we’ve seen it with drugs, and as you pointed out, we’ve seen it with prostitution.
“If alcohol or porn is restricted from a school proximity it should be the community vote that creates it. Not some government agency.”
I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t think mob rule is the solution. I don’t have the authority to tell my neighbor where he may and may not sell alcohol; ergo, I may not delegate such a task to the government. Unless my neighbor’s commercial enterprises cause me direct and measurable (“measurable” being key) harm, I have no right to compel him to cease those enterprises.
Community vote isn’t any different from the actions of a government that is elected by community vote. Preventing this sort of tyranny of the majority is one of the primary reasons we have the Constitution in the first place.
“The very reason we have laws that set a moral standard is to protect the innocent in our society.”
That’s not a valid reason for law. Innocence is not measurable, and so we may not have laws which exist only to protect “innocence,” just as we may not have laws which exist only to make sure a specific group of people aren’t offended.
“It’s far too late to worry about legislating morality it has already been done.”
I don’t really think that’s a good reason to continue.
I think we agree on the victimless crime argument as there are so many levels of involvement that one may be tolerated and yet a deeper level of the same crime maybe vigerously prosecuted.
As to communties voting on what they want in their neighborhood I disagree. If someone knowingly buys property in the landing pattern of an airport and then complains about the noise it makes about as much sense as the person who buys coffee at McDonalds and complains because it’s hot.
The solution is simple. If you want to start a porn buisness like Castle and the community says we don’t want that type of business then build it outside the city limits.
Anyway I have a feeling I am overstaying my welcome on this question. Thank you for the warm welcome, and the tactful dialog. Some times people can get downright rude if I don’t agree with them. I will check back from time to time.
Sir, you are more than welcome here. I thank YOU for the dialogue, and if you have more to add, then please feel free to add it.
I would have commented last night in place of Ryan, but I was holding a beer tasting with some family in my home and had to play host. :) An enjoyable evening spent with family always takes precedence.
Anyway, Mr. Hake, thank you for your insightful comments, and I wish you well in your race. I think we can both agree that the current 2-party system is not working, and will be a bear to overcome. Libertarian or Constitution Party…either would be light-years beyond what we’re currently stuck with.
Thank you again, and God bless.
Thank you, and one last comment about partys: I believe Thomas Jefferson was correct in his mistrust of political partys. I would be in total favor of eliminating partys altogether.
The vote question could be simply answered by which candidate is best for the country, and then vote for him or her.
To make a system near perfect I would add open primarys to narrow the field for the General elections to some reasonable number like the top 3 or 4.
BTW the beer tasting sounded like fun.
Amen to that, Mr. Hake.
I’ll be posting the results to the beer tasting. It was definitely not what I expected. :) I’m almost embarrassed.