Because it was so well publicized, I know that you all caught the third-party Presidential candidate debate this Memorial Day on C-SPAN. Okay, I’ll cut the crap. Since not very many of you saw the debate, and most of you are probably not even sure what the Libertarian Party is, I’m going to attempt to bring to you a few personal highlights.
Invitations to the debate were extended to all major presidential candidates, including George W., John Kerry, Ralph Nader, Michael Badnarik, and David Cobb. In attendance were Michael Badnarik, of the Libertarian Party, and David Cobb, of the Green Party. Although you may hear many of the same answers coming from the mouths of these two candidates, including a vow to make a systemic change to the way our government operates, they are fundamentally different. For example, both parties are heavily focussed on civil liberties. In a government set up by either party, gay marriage would be allowed, and so would the use of drugs. The war on drugs would be halted, and our troops would be brought home from Iraq. Conservatives, don’t stop reading here. Just because these things would be made legal, does not mean that they are condoned by a Libertarian government (although I do not think I can make the same claim for a Green government). The libertarian theory is that only you can make the best choices for your own life; furthermore, you have the right to make those choices, so long as you are not infringing upon the rights of others. If you are, then those actions necessitate government-backed consequences. The government should only be in place to protect life, liberty, and property, as put forth in the U.S. Constitution. Other functions, such as acting as a redistributor for wealth (see Taxes, Medicare, etc), are strictly unconstitutional. Problems like non-violent drug use would be treated just like any other national health issue.
Now that I’ve spoken a bit about the underlying philosophy of the Libertarians, which is hopefully enough to get you interested, let me address the issue of voting for third-party candidates in a presidential election, by paraphrasing Badnarik’s defense. Some of you might think that the libertarian philosophy is all nice and well, but voting for a third party is a wasted vote, because the average American voter is largely uneducated. Badnarik posed this scenario: If you were aboard the Titanic when it was sinking, would you be one of the first to jump aboard a life raft, or would you wait until a majority of the occupants had tested them out? Chances are you would be one of the first to get on. This is how you should vote. If you see our billowing defecit and magically inflating government as a sinking ship, then why not be one of the first to say so, and make your voice heard. Our current voting system is a system which forces you to vote against what you hate, not vote for what you like.
Both Badnarik and Cobb called for a reform of the current voting system. Instant-runoff voting (as I believe it was called) is a system whereby you rank your top three choices for President. This would help to ensure that no vote is ever wasted. Instead of voting against what you hate, you can vote for what you like, and still not have to worry about contributing to the success of something you hate. Counting the votes is easy as well: count the first place votes, and if there is a majority, you have a new President. If not, eliminate the third-lowest candidate. Count the second votes, and so-on, so-on, so-forth.
Our country has moved far from the ideas and philosophies of our founding fathers, in some directions toward social enlightenment, and in some directions away from individual liberties. The government stands between you and the free-market, and has pushed the price equilibrium much higher than it would be if it had stayed out of the way. Think about a nation without federal income tax. This would allow you to donate to the organizations you believe in, send your child to the schools you find to be the best, and ensure your own financial future much better than the government has been able to do for you.
In closing, a quote from Michael Badnarik: “Let me follow this logic. Our government has started a war on poverty, and poverty is higher now than it was 50 years ago. They’ve started a war on drugs, and there are now more drugs than there were 50 years ago, and now, they want to start a war on terrorism?”