Subscribe via RSS Feed

Synthesis!

[ 24 ] November 5, 2012 | Robert Farley

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.

Comments (24)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Visitor says:
    November 5, 2012 at 11:46 pm

    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.

    Reply
  2. Xof says:
    November 6, 2012 at 12:01 am

    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.

    Reply
    • FMguru says:
      November 6, 2012 at 12:14 am

      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.

      Reply
      • tt says:
        November 6, 2012 at 1:20 am

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

        Reply
      • Uncle Kvetch says:
        November 6, 2012 at 9:49 am

        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.

        Reply
        • mpowell says:
          November 6, 2012 at 10:37 am

          Well, and that those issues would force them to concede that they maybe should be voting for Democrats. Remember, lower taxes is the key here!

          Reply
  3. Jerry Vinokurov says:
    November 6, 2012 at 12:09 am

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

    Reply
    • LosGatosCA says:
      November 6, 2012 at 1:01 am

      I think he’s most concerned with the ‘liberty’ of his money.

      But even on that score he’s undoubtedly mistaken, since a 3% higher tax rate for the 1% on an economy that is growing faster than the UK is still more net income after tax than the current tax rate on an economy growing at the UK austerity rate.

      And austerity is simply the paradox of thrift repackaged and renamed by ignoramuses.

      Reply
      • Uncle Kvetch says:
        November 6, 2012 at 9:46 am

        I think he’s most concerned with the ‘liberty’ of his money.

        Hundred dollar bills are people, my friends!

        Reply
      • Uncle Ebeneezer says:
        November 6, 2012 at 11:38 am

        It’s only the freedom of the market that matters. Marriage equality, reproductive choice etc., are fine and dandy, but we can’t take our eye off the evil EPA!!1!

        Reply
    • Joe says:
      November 6, 2012 at 9:54 am

      Concur but half clap for his work in support of Angela Raich.

      Reply
  4. JRoth says:
    November 6, 2012 at 12:29 am

    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.

    Reply
    • Scott Lemieux says:
      November 6, 2012 at 12:41 am

      True, although it’s also clear that he’s acting rationally to support Romney although isn’t nearly as radical.

      Reply
  5. Aaron says:
    November 6, 2012 at 12:40 am

    Did somebody mention the Libertarian Party…

    Reply
  6. bradP says:
    November 6, 2012 at 6:56 am

    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.

    Reply
    • Cody says:
      November 6, 2012 at 9:24 am

      I assume he votes on the concept of the Republican party, one with fair taxes and small government.

      That isn’t the actual Republican party. I hope a lot of people make this mistake, else they’re just voting for awful people.

      Reply
  7. rea says:
    November 6, 2012 at 8:08 am

    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.

    Reply
    • bradP says:
      November 6, 2012 at 8:56 am

      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.

      Reply
      • Malaclypse says:
        November 6, 2012 at 9:03 am

        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.

        Reply
  8. Jameson Quinn says:
    November 6, 2012 at 9:01 am

    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?

    Reply
  9. Pat says:
    November 6, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    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.

    Reply

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

    • Switch to our mobile site