Subscribe via RSS Feed

Synthesis!

[ 24 ] November 5, 2012 |

I would to add to Scott and Erik’s commentary by reporting that Randy Barnett understands the basic voting incentives inherent to a structural two party system.

That is all.

Share with Sociable

Comments (24)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Visitor says:

    Hm. All three of you have done some inspiring and heavy lifting. Thank you! For synthesis, though, I think this cartoon covers it for me just fine:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/31/1152150/-Handy-candidate-comparison-chart

    Plus I don’t lose my lunch after reading this link, like I almost did clicking on “Col. Mustard” earlier.

  2. Xof says:

    I’m sorry, but I thought I just read something that said that a libertarian was voting for Mitt Romney because he was disappointed with Obama’s continued prosecution of the War on Drugs.

    But I couldn’t have actually read that. No one is that crazy.

    • FMguru says:

      Libertarians are, at heart, Generic Republican Greedheads, but they find it useful to adopt a skin-deep profession of interest in civil liberties. If it wasn’t the War on Drugs it would have been the FISA Courts or OMGDRONEZ or some other shiny object that they could point to with pride before casting their votes for the white plutocrat who’ll lower their taxes.

      • tt says:

        So you’re predicting that Johnson will get zero votes?

      • Uncle Kvetch says:

        If it wasn’t the War on Drugs it would have been the FISA Courts or OMGDRONEZ or some other shiny object

        Yes…with the qualification that objects that don’t directly affect heterosexual males, like reproductive choice and marriage equality, never make the list, lacking as they do the requisite shininess.

  3. Randy Barnett may understand the voting incentives of a two-party system, but he’s clearly still having trouble with the concept of “liberty.”

  4. JRoth says:

    The relevant analogue would seem to be a Green Party member who feels obligated to vote for Obama because of his superior commitment to the liberal principle of raising the Medicare eligibility age.

    Since Barnett is a classic schmibertarian, why should anyone be impressed that he’s voting for the Republican, as all schmibertarians do?

    I would note here that one S. LeMieux makes an excellent point in comments at Robins’ place about the highly principled nature of Barnett’s libertarianism.

  5. bradP says:

    Its kinda funny. I take the relationship between libertarianism and the republican party to be a cautionary tale against throwing third party support behind a major party.

    Allying with republicans hasn’t advanced the cause of liberty or libertarianism one bit. It just made the libertarian movement more bigoted and apologetic for corporate power.

    And that’s all that a vote for Romney would do too.

    And for the life of me, I can’t understand what possible benefit a Romney presidency could provide that would outweigh the cost to one’s conscience and movement.

    I mean:

    However true this once was, in recent years Republicans have been better for liberty and Democrats have been worse.

    HOW RECENT RANDY?!!!

    Does he side with Republicans on that question because the current president is democrat? I still remember the last republican president.

  6. rea says:

    Allying with republicans hasn’t advanced the cause of liberty or libertarianism one bit. It just made the libertarian movement more bigoted and apologetic for corporate power.

    You say that, Brad, because you don’t understand libertarianism. Barnett explains:

    Republicans have been much better on free speech in recent years [e.g., Citizens United]. With respect to economic liberty, the Environmental Protection Agency has restricted land use throughout the nation and would do more if not stopped. Dodd-Frank has amped up restrictions on financial services.

    So you see, voting for Romney really is the libertarian position.

    • bradP says:

      With respect to economic liberty, the Environmental Protection Agency has restricted land use throughout the nation and would do more if not stopped. Dodd-Frank has amped up restrictions on financial services.

      Yeah. Pretty amazing that when Barnett thinks about economic liberty he thinks Dodd-Frank and the EPA, and not the violent appropriation of trillions to pay for our hyperaggressive foreign policy.

      And Randy Barnett lost any and all respect I might have had for him for his assumption that Romney and the Republicans want an actual freed market in financial services.

      • Malaclypse says:

        Pretty amazing that when Barnett thinks about economic liberty he thinks Dodd-Frank and the EPA, and not the violent appropriation of trillions to pay for our hyperaggressive foreign policy.

        Equally amazing: Loki did not escape from ropes made of his son’ intestines or hijack a ship made of dead men’ toenails, and Jörmungandr, the World Serpent, has not risen from the oceans, ushering in Ragnarok.

  7. Jameson Quinn says:

    When the game is broken, you change the game.

    Step 1: organize at the muni and state level for approval voting.

    2: pass the NPVIC, which is compatible with a state-by-state transition to approval

    2.5: begin that transition

    3: pass a right-to- vote law federally which gives citizen groups standing under the Guaranty clause

    4: third parties sue that throwing away overvotes is a violation so approval voting is mandated (not before 2.5 is underway)

    …when can we have a top- level post which mentions game theory and voting reform?

  8. Pat says:

    So… a guy who thinks Lochner was rightly decided and the activity-inactivity distinction matters for Commerce Clause purposes also believes X, and that is a good reason for your readers to believe X?

    Compelling.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.