Updated: ‘Voting on November 7, 2006’

America,Bush,IMMIGRATION,libertarianism,Politics,The State

            

Walter Block has some sensible advice for freedom lovers, which I can safely second (not a given, mind you). Do as Walter says, with one caveat: Vote for your Libertarian state representative, provided—and only if—he is not a “La-Raza Libertarian“—i.e., opposes unfettered immigration and vows to stop the bleeding on the Southwestern border to the best of his abilities and commensurate with the powers delegated to him. Moreover, his avowal to do so must exclude Genghis Bush’s Guest-Worker Program.

I stated in “America’s Open House” that, “as a proponent of states’ rights and decentralization, instantiated in the Ninth and 10th Amendments, I rarely wish to see federal solons usurp the states. Local police ought to be tasked with immigration enforcement.” While immigration officially comes under federal jurisdiction, desperate localities are indeed stepping in to protect their beleaguered constituents. Libertarians ought to welcome such usurpation, especially when it’s to protect life, liberty, and property. Is this not the flip side of Jeffersonian interposition and nullification, whereby states beat back the federal occupier by voiding unconstitutional federal laws? Here, municipalities and states enforce hitherto-unenforced laws that protect lives and livelihoods.

For the rest, over to Walter:

“I really cannot support the federal Libertarian Party. For they, too, just like Paul “Stabilizer” Krugman, want to pull troops out of Iraq, but not bring them home either; instead, send them to yet other foreign countries, where, presumably, there [sic] imperialist services are in greater need… How the principled have fallen. It is one thing for the Democrats, a la Paul “Stabilizer” Krugman to support such a policy. But for Libertarians to do so? Murray Rothbard must be spinning in his grave at the prospect, after he spent so much time and energy trying to inculcate some modicum of principle into this group.

No, I cannot in good conscience ask anyone to support the federal Libertarian Party. Not, at least, until they rescind this horrid policy. (Whenever I get a fund raising letter from them, I reply that I will contribute, but only when and if they publicly climb down from this eminently anti-libertarian viewpoint.) The state libertarian parties, still, are a different matter. In my view, the rot has not set in there to anywhere near the same degree. To the contrary, at the state LP conventions I have addressed, I have found the rank and file to be pretty sensible on all issues, certainly including foreign policy.

So, two cheers for the LP at the state level, and none for them at the federal.”

5 thoughts on “Updated: ‘Voting on November 7, 2006’

  1. james huggins

    Libertarians are lame players in the game. Some are so way out that they are impossible to accept under any circumstance. Others are brilliant and I wish I could vote for them twice. But the unhappy truth is that American voters are generally not educated enough or politcally astute enough to get past the bull feathers foisted on them by the MSM. Third parties are not an option. A vote for a Libertarian is a left-handed vote for the Democrats.

  2. Alex

    Ahh, Doc Block. That guy is crazy – and somehow strangely likeable..

    I don’t think I’ll be voting for either of the parties, though. I remember reading a piece on why one shouldn’t vote by Wendy McElroy. I don’t frequent her site, but I think it was one of the best peices I had ever read on why one shouldn’t vote. Libertarian parties are not classical liberals, and Democrats and Conservatives are really two sides of the same coin.

    It boggles my mind, really, as to how anyone can side with any Democrat or Conservative.

  3. Frank Brady

    Is it not clear that the entire American political apparatus has become utterly corrupt?

    Can anyone seriously claim that the monstrous centralized Washington government retains even a remnant of constitutional legitimacy?

    The only moral choice that remains is to refrain from participating by withholding our votes. Our continued participation confers an undeserved legitimacy on a process that is on a trajectory to enslave us all.

  4. Mikael Widmark

    In U.S. House races we should support Republican candidates consistently. Why? Because if -god forbid- Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker of the House, then it’s all over for America. She will ensure the passage of a so-called “guest” worker bill, which would mean that anyone willing to work for minimum wage would be granted permanent recidency. The election of Nancy Pelosi as House speaker could prove as ominous for America as the acceptance of the strange Greek wooden horse proved to be for Troy. Which is why you should vote Republican at least in the U.S. House races.

  5. Christopher Link

    Not voting puts you in with the derelicts and winos, electorally speaking. Not to mention that old chestnut about all evil needing is for good to do nothing.
    Why not put “None of the Above” on the ballot instead? If it ‘wins’, a new election is called – and all the losers are ineligible.
    If memory serves, we’re supposed to have the power, right?

Comments are closed.