The frivolity with which so many respondents treat their vote -- particularly in an election more fraught than most with moral issues -- speaks very poorly for their characters. Won't be wasting my time with Reason magazine in the near future. I have more respect for a Eugene Volokh who votes Bush, for considered reasons, than I do for a jerk who takes pride in not voting.

How fair is it to call this a representative sample of libertarians? It includes a couple of standup comics and B-list actors, a few foreigners, and several people too stoned to remember who they voted for four years ago.

That question, by the way, is not intended to be rhetorical.

1) The sample is unrepresentative. 2) Not everyone asked is actually a self-identified libertarian, which accounts for the Lincoln love. 3) Considering the odds of a single vote's making a difference and the alternatives available, it's perfectly reasonable not to vote. 4) How is it that the decision to never vote is necessarily ill-considered?

The most interesting thing I found in a pretty blah article was that Andrew Sullivan is not a citizen and, thus, can not vote.

Having grown weary and now just plain annoyed by his 100% anti Bush agenda all the time, it amazes me that elections in a country where he cannot vote affect him so much.

Elections are for citizens of a country, Mr. Sullivan. Either A) become a citizen so you can vote (like my mother did) or B) kindly allow us Americans to elect our own President.

This makes me view him like those annoying Guardian readers...

After reading Thomas DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln," I was convinced that Lincoln was neither great nor libertarian.

And as far as people not voting, I can think of a number of good reasons:

1. None of the candidates share your beliefs in any meaningful way.
2. You don't approve of the system of democracy
3. You've made an economic value decision that the benefit from voting does not outweigh the (albeit) minor cost of registering and driving down to the voting booth.

Certainly you can argue the virtues of any of these points. But to say that "not voting" inherently speaks badly of their character? They made a choice based on the costs and benefits associated with them. As long as it harms no one else (and there's definitely a case to be made that voting for Kerry or Bush DOES enable them to harm lots of people) then they've done nothing wrong.

Considering the odds of a single vote's making a difference and the alternatives available, it's perfectly reasonable not to vote.

Yeah, well, some 40-50 % of the people seem to regularly come to that very conclusion...

My vote is with Anderson and Zathras. ;-)

So, Dan, when are you going to reveal your vote? Isn't it about time?

If you are still undecided, you might want to consider reading an opinion piece by former Senator Cook (R-Kentucky from 1968-1975), linked via Andrew Sullivan's web site:

http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/editorials/2004/10/20/oped-marlow1020-8060.html

I have been, and will continue to be, a Republican. But when we as a party send the wrong person to the White House, then it is our responsibility to send him home if our nation suffers as a result of his actions.

...

I hope you all have noticed the Bush administration's style in the campaign so far. All negative, trashing Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John Edwards and Democrats in general. Not once have they said what they have done right, what they have done wrong or what they have not done at all.

...

I will take John Kerry for four years to put our country on the right path.

That last sentence makes a potentially persuasive point for Republicans who can't stand Bush, but aren't that happy about Kerry either: Bush needs to go, and then the Republicans can nominate someone sensible again in 2008. Then we can talk about Kerry's record, and I, for one, will be more than happy to consider a reasonable Republican alternative. But right now Bush has to go.

Brian Moore: If those 40+ % who don't vote could get their act together and agree on someone sensible instead, then they would win the election.

Of course, they can't and they won't, they just like to keep complaining about how bad politicians in general are.

Dundare -
I agree that the Guardian readers campaign was politically stupid, in that it was obvious that those letters would not their intended effect of turning voters away from Bush. But the idea that seems to underly your post, about how there is some potential problem with people who don't have the right to vote expressing their opinion about who others should vote for, has no grounding that I can imagine.

Well gw you've certainly made the point that 'W' is controversial, even among Republicans. Of course he is. He reversed a long-standing decision in American foreign policy to bend over and take it from the islamists. Those who believed in that policy are mad as hell, Dems and Reps alike.

Fortunately, it appears that most Americans agree with Bush that the "bend over and take it" strategy has shot its wad and it's time to go do a little "rearranging" of the global septic tanks that generate anti-American Jihad. Showing that the "paper tiger" really does have teeth has a _salutary_ influence on the global figures who matter most in this war -- our enemies.

That's a wacky opinion, Dundare. Non-citizens may well have a stake in the country, and valid reasons to want one candidate or another elected. Why shouldn't they make their voices heard?

Should we refrain from criticizing Putin because we aren't Russian citizens?

Is every Republican an outstanding citizen? Would you believe someone just because they are a Democrat? The world is full of freaks of every political stripe.

Vote on principle. Consider liberty and vote for Michael Badnarik.

Whats with libertarian leaners ever voting for Dukakis? Or Kerry for that matter? It seems bizarre. Except for the war, abortion and gay rights, I can't think of a single issue on which Dems are more libertarian. Labor, trade, healthcare, education, guns, the courts and the Constitution are all losers for Democrats. They want to spend more and regulate more than Republicans on every issue.
Dems are failing miserably on free speech even. Which was the party to put up zero opposition to McCain Feingold? Which party supports government regulation to silence its critics at Foxnews and Sinclair? Which party's favorite justices are more restrictive on 1st amendment issues?

As far as the war goes, I can see principled libertarian opposition to it, but the only grounds really being that we are spending too much money on it. There was no draft. That people are being forced to pay for a war they oppose is no different than any other government program.

The divided government argument is a big loser, the moderate Republicans will fold as soon as the media makes them defend their opposition to whatever the latest popular gov. program is Kerry is promoting, just as they did in the 96 budget battles, and they don't hold nearly as strong of a hand as they did then.

I've come to the conclusion that a lot "libertarians" are really just contrarians who don't really believe or think about what libertarianism is about. Its more of a cultural label they can wear and pretend to be above the dirty political game.

Come on you so-called libertarians, take a cue from the two best libertarian spokesmen out there: Instapundit and Volokh. The Repubs are a long way from anywhere close to ideal, but the Dems are so much worse than the Republicans, especially with Kerry, that I don't see how a principled libertarian can favor Kerry when he is worse on labor, spending, taxes, regulation, his SC picks, trade, environment, etc.

I think its an irrational cultural repulsion to Bush more than a thought out conclusion that Kerry is more libertarian.

That last sentence makes a potentially persuasive point for Republicans who can't stand Bush, but aren't that happy about Kerry either: Bush needs to go, and then the Republicans can nominate someone sensible again in 2008. Then we can talk about Kerry's record, and I, for one, will be more than happy to consider a reasonable Republican alternative. But right now Bush has to go.

Hopefully the GOP leadership will learn, among many other things, that "compassion" doesn't work, that giveaways to foreign powers and the cheap labor lobby tend to enrage the base, and that the phrase "President Bush" should be avoided at any cost.

I agree that the Guardian readers campaign was politically stupid

A satire of the letters might be funny, except it would have trouble being more funny than the one that read something like, "you stupid Americans have outraged the world thanks to your stupid Texan president" or words to that effect.

Showing that the "paper tiger" really does have teeth has a _salutary_ influence on the global figures who matter most in this war -- our enemies.

Unfortunately, Bush might have made us weaker rather than stronger. Yes, invading Iraq showed that we're willing to preemptively invade, and it might put pressure on S.A. or do other things.

However, at this point in time, what military force or political will or international support or credibility would we have for another preemptive strike? Perhaps we should have shown our strength by concentrating on Afghanistan as well as overt and covert operations.

As far as the war goes, I can see principled libertarian opposition to it, but the only grounds really being that we are spending too much money on it. -- Reg

The only grounds? How about the 1,000+ soldiers who died and the thousands who are maimed? Their liberty is now somewhat constrained. Yes they signed up -- but to defend America, not some Wilsonian fantasy.

Add to them the fact that the Iraq war makes a draft much more likely, since our army is now stuck to the tar baby. Then there's the potential for blowback, the $70 billion a year (which is not insignificant), the deception which was necessary to get us in... I can think of quite a few libertarian objections, but perhaps the best was summed up by James Madison:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . . .

Something to think about.

I'll be voting for Michael Badnarik. He has impressed me more and more each time I get a chance to see him debate. Perhaps my sample isn't that great since he is usually responding to the ridiculousness of David Cobb of the Green Party, but nonetheless I like his charisma and his views aren't so bad either.

I punched Bush in 2000. Wasn't at all familiar with anyone else other than Bush and Gore. Gore on the campaign trail kindled a new found passion for the character of Clinton. Every glimpse of Gore raised the question of how Democrats in the primary liked him over Bradley. Bradley was more down to earth for me. I actually wondered what would have happenned to Gore had he never been selected as Clinton's VP. As he lost his own state in 2000 he might have well have been tossed out of office sooner. The best part about Gore losing was the development of Grizzly Gore, full beard, hibernation weight, and an attitude of careless defeat. I liked him for all of one year. The one year where I had seen as little of him as possible.

I agree with Senator Cook, cited by gw. If you voted for Bush in 2000 then you retain the responsibility of removing him if he has not done as promised. The problem with this perspective is the facts of the 2001-2004 presidential term. The timeline of events should have changed everyone's perspective and demands of a Bush presidency. If it did not then there are serious questions that should be addressed before the discussion of 2000 promises to 2004 re-election bid concerns are addressed.

In all, I would be more likely to vote for Bush in November if my state, Illinois, were a closer race. But Badnarik has really given me a new chance to seriously consider the Libertarian party. However, he did not win the party primaries yet still locked up the nomination at the LB convention. That doesn't bode well on the election prospects for Badnarik. I have to work him on the abortion issue though. At least he sees the faults in Roe in the larger picture of the consumption of state power by federal courts.

Carl: Just to repeat the words. Madison said.

No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare

In what year did he say that? At which stage in the historiography of logistics? There's better Madison out there waiting to be dusted off to attack a war of choice such as Iraq. After all, it was Madison that sought the first chance of exercising American power in wars of choice.

Lonewacko asked However, at this point in time, what military force or political will or international support or credibility would we have for another preemptive strike?

Is one necessary? The point established is that your time as a leader, whether it be real(Iraq) or not(Taliban, not Al Qaida running Afghanistan), if you're not in line you might as well kiss your power good bye. We've expressed an interest in Iraq and Afghanistan to support the populations by practising nation building. Have we tried the "blow the shit out of you" track? No, but it's in the CD changer.

Let's ask Libya.

"Let's ask Libya."

If you believe that, you're as naive as the Bush administration is hoping you are.

Libya's capitulation has been in the works since shortly after the Lockerbie Pan Am flight 103 was blown up by Libya-sponsored terrorists, resulting in crippling economic/arms embargoes. Don't forget Reagan's Libya airstrikes ordered after the Berlin disco bombing in 1986.

As weapons inspectors confirmed after Libya opened access to its weapons programs, it was found that its nuclear program was far more primative than the most pessimistic estimates presumed. Sanctions are a bitch and a lot more effective than republicans give them credit for -- we learned this with Iraq.

Negotiations with Libya in lifting sanctions had been ongoing since the late 1990s with the Clinton administration. Bush in his desperation to tie one success, any success, to the Iraq quagmire apparently decided that offering one of the most shrewd and enduring terrorist sponsoring dictators -- one responsible for the murder of 189 Americans on Pan Am 103 -- a deal that he could not turn down, was the politically correct thing to do.

Moammar Qaddafi not only got a great deal, so did the Bush administration. Qaddafi, one of the most despised pariahs in all the world, is now suddenly seen as a man who has suddenly seen the error of his ways! Qaddafi has now seen his diplomatic stock soar, visiting Britain and shaking Tony Blair's hand. His weapons programs being primitive and pretty much dilapidated, were easy to turn over in exchange for fast removal of sanctions and the promised investment in Libya by American oil firms who have been long salivating over the prospects of developing Libya's fields but unable to do so thanks to those annoying sanctions.

Recall those photo ops of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam when he was our buddy in opposing Iran, despite us knowing he gassed the Kurds and was a brutal dictator? When now we're doing the same thing with Colonel Qaddafi. Pretty fucking disgusting and the height of cynicism by the Bush administration. This is a confessed murderer of 189 Americans.

Apparently Bush would like us to believe Colonel Qaddafi has had a change of heart and become a man of peace and reason. Do we take him at his word that he no longer supports terrorist organizations? Well he has lots of oil, so of course we do! After all, Libya has bought the forgiveness of the 189 Americans through paid reparations right?

If Bush wasn't such a transparent coward and half as principled as he pretends to be, he'd demand democratic reforms and Qaddafi brought to trial to answer for his crimes. But then that wouldn't be any way to treat a new business partner would it?

Dan, pretty much any president is going to be far from the libertarian ideal, but there's certainly plenty for a libertarian to admire in Lincoln. He preserved the United States (and submitted to an election during wartime), demonstrating to the world that government by the people is not doomed to failure. He brought about the freedom of America's slaves, stripping away one of the great hypocrisies in this country's ideals of personal liberty. Set against these accomplishments, I can understand why a reasonable libertarian (is there such a thing? kidding) might be inclined to cut him some slack on those suspensions of habeas corpus.

Can average Bush supporters actually be less educated than average Kerry supporters on foreign affairs, entertain misguided perceptions regarding their country's leadership, and be wholly unaware of facts on the ground as compared to what they actually believe, mistakenly so?

Apparently so as PIPA has discovered:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html#1

That's what happens when you wear rose-colored glasses, live in a bubble, and consume only the news sources that reinforce your current beliefs.

As a centrist, I'd rather have the informed triumph over the uninformed when it comes to selecting my country's leadership.

Forget No Child Left Behind. How about No Bushie Left Behind? Well, then George would just underfund it.

3 or 4 of the "libertarians" polled said they'd vote Bush because only he really understands the war on terror.

How that belief can survive contact with the facts is anyone's guess, but if anyone with that belief is reading this and would like to make the experiment, try this Washington Post article. DISCLAIMER: Not my fault if your brain explodes.

The article is so long and so rich that I can't excerpt it here; try my blog if you want my good-parts version. But you should really read the whole thing.

(Bonus: who thinks that fighting terrorism is like fighting organized crime? Is it that sissy liberal John Kerry? Or is it ... Bush's own terrorism advisor? Read the article to find out!)

Okay, sorry, Blogger's messing up my link. In the unlikely event that anyone wants the blog link, this one's right. I think. Just go read the Post article!

I'm afraid Independent Centrist is spot on with regards to Libya. It's one of those issues that's apparently too complicated to communicate to the vast majority of voters, so even the Kerry campagin seems to have ceded the point to Bush, even though it's just another Bush campaign distortion to claim that Libya's actions had anything to do with the Iraq war.

See "The Iraq War did not Force Gadaffi's Hand", published in the Financial Times and written by Martin S. Indyk from the Brookings Institute. Here is a link:

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm

Indyk makes it clear that Libya had already offered to give up its WMD programs in 1999, and that this action was essentially pending a resolution of the flight 103 compensation question.

Brian Moore: If those 40+ % who don't vote could get their act together and agree on someone sensible instead, then they would win the election.

That assumes that those people have anything at all resembling common cause. My definition covered Neo-nazis, communists, anarchists, libertarians, right-wing militia types, eco-nazis, religious fundamentalists, in addition to the middle-of-the-road people who are just sick of the system. These people aren't likely to agree on a candidate. Just because all of these people don't vote doesn't mean they're likely to agree on someone to vote for if they did.

Of course, they can't and they won't, they just like to keep complaining about how bad politicians in general are.

And what's wrong with that? It's certainly the truth, and I can definitely sympathize with the view that voting for a R/D helps legitimize their stupid policies.

I put up a table on my site which breaks down who is getting what percent of the vote based on the Reason survey. Click my name to take a look...

V. Postrel is the only writer for Reason that
makes sense on an on-going basis.

I was surprised that the founder-editor of
Wired will be voting for President Bush.

Dan, pretty much any president is going to be far from the libertarian ideal, but there's certainly plenty for a libertarian to admire in Lincoln. He preserved the United States (and submitted to an election during wartime), demonstrating to the world that government by the people is not doomed to failure. He brought about the freedom of America's slaves, stripping away one of the great hypocrisies in this country's ideals of personal liberty. Set against these accomplishments, I can understand why a reasonable libertarian (is there such a thing? kidding) might be inclined to cut him some slack on those suspensions of habeas corpus.

Wow -- I definitely recommend "The Real Lincoln" to you. :) Lincoln was the least libertarian president in our history. Throughout his entire career, he espoused a system of centralization that is completely and totally antithetical to libertarianism. It was know as the Clay system and it preached massive central (executive system power), massive subsidized and federally funded projects as well as subsidies and basically bribes for businessman cronies. This was just the explicitly stated part! It gets even worse after the Civil War starts.

Slavery was only a part of the Civil War. Lincoln was never on a crusade to stop slavery. If he had, I would have loved him. But he was trying to maintain central power. He was a president who had been elected without a single southern electoral vote. He had zero reason to pay attention to a full half of the country -- and so therefore his policies in regard to many other issues than slavery (tariffs, taxes, subsidies) were incredibly damaging to the south.

His explicit goal was to bring the south to heel even before the Civil War began. He stated: "If I could restore the Union without freeing a single slave I would." He is on record as using an extremely racist term for blacks as well as stating that blacks were inherently inferior to whites, and that their proper place was below whites (if not total slavery, albeit) in the social system.

Lincoln's attitudes have a great deal in common with modern white supremacists -- maybe more than the abolitionists of the day. The Emancipation Proclamation (he himself admitted it) was just a military tool against the South. It did not even free slaves in Union territories. Think of that. Surely, if Lincoln hated slavery as much as he did, he would have freed them on the first day of the Civil War -- but instead he left them with fewer rights than Southern slaves.

The slaves of 1861 deserved people who stood up for their rights (like the abolitionists heros) -- but they got Lincoln, who would have sold them all up (or down, in this case) the river for the 'Union'. Surely 600,000 casualties were not necessary to abolish slavery -- since dozens of other nations have done it without that many casualties COMBINED.

The Civil War itself (as a war against secession, which everyone of the day agreed was its goal) violated the primary tenets of the United States -- that it was a voluntary association of states. The right of secession had been explicitly and implicitly upheld in many cases up until 1860. Certainly it was considered an unfavorable thing to have to secede, but it was accepted that states had that right, and that they needed to be cajoled and persuaded to not secede rather than force at the point of a gun. Lincoln violated this principle.

During the Civil War, habeas corpus was only the first casualty. Freedom of the press, freedom to bear arms, freedom to not have soldiers billeted in your homes, and many others were violated. Anti-Republican/Lincoln presses were shut down and their editors imprisoned. Anti-Republican/Lincoln legislatures were shut down and their members imprisoned. Thousands of men were drafted against their will and when they rioted against it, were shot dead by Federal troops (the background setting for "Gangs of New York").

A policy of total war was employed against states and civilians (Sherman in Georgia) that Lincoln never admitted were even a different country. Lincoln has gone down in history as the only president to use the active military to suppress a rebellion by exterminating the populations of rebel towns, and conducting "scorched earth" against his own citizens. This is what Stalin did. Not the "greatest president ever."

These are just his affronts to civil liberties and basic human rights. His errors as a wartime president were embarassing as well. He tried to micromanage the war and his incompetent generals, and as a result, the first two years were nearly total disaster for the North. Remember, the triumph against Lee was against his only barely failed attempt to capture Washington DC itself! Any Civil War historian can tell you of the quality of the men Lincoln put in charge. The only reason the North ended up winning was through a brutal campaign of razing southern cities, burning southern land, and classic attrition. His wartime talents leave quite a bit to be desired.

Lincoln did more damage to the idea of a free country, de-centralized and checks/balanced power and the libertarian ideal than any other president. (With perhaps the exception of FDR) Given the whitewashing of Lincoln and FDR by our history books, one can only wonder at how Bush will be regarded 50 years from now. He'll probably have a bigger statue. :P

Sorry for the tirade, any time I hear the words "libertarian" and "Lincoln" put in the same sentence it gets my hackles up. :) I can't think of two things more diametrically opposed.

He preserved the United States (and submitted to an election during wartime),

An election in which half the country wasn't allowed to vote. :)

The truest words ever spoken (despite the speaker's other obvious faults) during Lincoln's presidency were:

Sic semper tyrannis

Brian Moore has convinced me: Lincoln was a great president because he WASN'T a libertarian.

(Don't buy the "micromanaged his generals," btw; Lincoln held them accountable, which generals always label "micromanagement." You know, the way we need to micromanage the Bush administration.)

"I was surprised that the founder-editor of
Wired will be voting for President Bush."

Really? And I thought Wired's editorials over the past year were only slightly less partisan than Investor's Business Daily or National Review. Silly me.

gw and Independent Centrist: Check again on Libya taking responsibility for the downing of Pan Am flight 103. The money may be there, but the public responsiblity? Qadaffi still denies that Libyan agents had anything to do with it. Among his other ramblings are the CIA's creation of the AIDS virus and Israel supporting the puppet government of Saudi Arabia.

I'll guess Independent Centrist is Eric Alterman's gamer disguise.

Suppose we consider two types of libertarians. The first is a deontological libertarian, who views prohibitions on non-coercion as absolute. The second is a consequentialist libertarian, who believes that right action is that action which minimizes the quantity and severity of coercion.

The first is arguably the more ideologically pure. Empirically, they seem more likely to be big-L Libertarians, more pacifistic, etc. These control the Libertarian party, and are part of the reason why the Libertarian party is (mostly rightly) viewed as a party of moonbats. Nonetheless, those moonbats will be getting my vote this year.

The second type is more ideologically compromised (pragmatic). Empirically, they seem more likely to be small-l libertarians, more likely to vote for a major party candidate, etc.

There's no room for Lincolnism or Wilsonianism (which isn't that just Wilsonism?) in the first type. The second type might say something like:
"War is an evil. But by fighting the Civil War, moderately infringing on the rights of many, we are preventing incredibly severe infringements on the rights of the few."
I believe that Lincoln, for all his numerous faults, did more to expand freedom in the U.S. via the Civil War (and the Civil War Amendments) than any other president. Yes, he gave us greater centralization (which isn't necessarily anti-freedom), and the income tax and industrial policy (which are), but compared to freeing the slaves and making race-based policies unconstitutional, those are small costs.

If one were to consider minimizing the coercion of all humans, rather than just U.S. citizens, you could make an argument for the current Iraq policy. A harder argument, to be sure. But how to count the incredible oppression of the 25 million Iraqis vs. a mild-moderate increase in oppression of the U.S. citizens?