As you may have heard, last week actor Sean Penn visited his buddy Hugo Chavez in Venezuela once again. Associated Press reported his comments on the 2012 presidential election as

“It’s never predictable what can happen in an American election, but we certainly believe at this point that it’s becoming increasingly clear to the American people that the policies of the far right are the policies of the rich, and that they are to the exclusion of the middle class and the poor, and that no society has a future on that basis.”

This is far from the most outrageous comments attributed to Sean Penn during visits to the socialist police state that is Venezuela. Furthermore, these are exactly the kind of statements conservatives and libertarians should expect to hear from Hollywood liberals during President Obama’s reelection campaign. Being unable to run on a record of great success, the president will have no choice but to turn to this divisive rhetoric to get reelected. Unless his opponent is Rick Santorum, whose rigid social conservatism will hurt him greatly in swing states like Ohio and Florida, and whose record on big spending is most outstanding when compared to his three competitors–an ex-Governor who balanced budgets, a former house speaker who oversaw a government shutdown shortly followed by nearly-balanced budgets (national debt went up during the Clinton “surpluses”), and a Texas Congressman who has never voted for an unbalanced budget or a tax increase–the President will have to actually debate the merits of his economic policy. And it is a debate he will likely lose.

Organizing for America, the Democratic National Committee under the offensive demagogue of a new chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and various mainstream media personalities have been attempting to capitalize on the greed and anger of the Occutards and have been running on a “Republicans are the party of the rich!” message–in spite of President Obama’s backing of and expansion of the bailout and stimulus policies of his predecessor George W. Bush.

No doubt at the front of Mr. Obama’s campaign will be the entertainment industry that helped him get elected in the 2008 primary and general election against seemingly impossible odds. This will include Sean Penn.

It baffles me how Sean Penn and his ilk have any credibility with the American people. I’ll admit that I even find a personal degree of disappointment in myself when I share articles on Facebook about celebrities endorsing my choice for 2012–Ron Paul. I do it because sadly enough, Americans care more about what these people think than say, what the veterans and members of the military think, or what the people out of work think, or what the successful small-to-medium sized business owners think. I don’t like the idea about taking advice from celebrities on anything. Most of them have zero understanding of individual liberty, economics or how the business sector operates, a minimal understanding of international affairs, and a hypocritical view on the fair share the 1% which they are a part of is allegedly not paying. Sean Penn is one such actor.

What I am also baffled by is that those of us on the other side of the political spectrum rarely fight back against these celebutards. We often take a “who cares what Hollywood thinks mentality”, failing to understand the power they have over influencing everything the average American says and does. Middle America doesn’t understand the lack of credibility these people have and we fail miserably to expose them for their hypocrisy. Reason is on our side, and we need to prove it, and we can do show by exposing the words of these people for their inaccuracies and logical inconsistencies. Will everyone listen? Of course not. But we don’t need every American to listen to us, we just need to get a few people at a time to wake up. Eventually, enough will do so that Hollyweird loses is significance in election cycles.

In 2010 I was working on a satirical book, entitled Mass Media Mindnumb, on what I had perceived to be the denigration of American pop culture. I have since lost interest in the subject and focused on more important things in my professional and personal life, but I kept the unfinished manuscript and sometimes reference it if I need some ammunition to fight back against Hollywood hypocrisy. My generation has proven to be the strongest victim of the cult of celebrity. I fear greatly what subsequent generations will look like as they come of age. America today faces a dichotomy. We will go down one of two roads. A road of European style socialism all the way to bankruptcy, or a restoration of the long forgotten free-market principles that made America great in the first place. There will be a generational shift that will soon show up in the political spectrum. My generation will either choose this European socialism, or adopt a libertarian-leaning conservatism. The dominionist [religious] right stands in the way of them adopting the latter, while the entertainment industry beckons them to the former.

I’ve spent enough time recently demagoguing the dominionists, so I’m gonna go after Hollywood, and I’ll start with Sean Penn.

In Mass Media Mindnumb I had written a scathing rant about Sean Penn’s hypocrisy. I’m going to release the contents of that rant in this article, while making some minor editorial revisions to reflect current events. Here is what I had written:

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

I Am Sean

Sean Penn is one of several celebrities who has made enough an ass of himself that he gets his own subsection in this chapter. You probably think he’s a good actor. Really I can’t remember him outside of any movies other than Fast Times at Ridgemont High—where he played a disruptive stoner and I Am Sam—where he played the mentally challenged title character. Both decent movies; the actor is a different story.

Deceitful, left-wing, but most importantly the ultimate hypocrite—Sean Penn routinely criticized George W. Bush for taking away civil liberties during the beginning of the war on terror, but recently came out suggesting that people lose their right to free speech!

Let me break it down for you.

In 2002, he placed a $56,000 ad in The Washington Post out of concern for the upcoming war in Iraq and the PATRIOT Act. This letter was surprisingly eloquent, making some interesting analogies. He particularly wanted Bush to reconsider invading Iraq and the expansion of his federal power, to not “[diminish U.S. citizens] through loss of civil liberties [or] dangerously heightened presidential autonomy through acts of Congress.” His criticism of Bush would soon turn into anger, going so far as to call for Bush’s impeachment.

The criticisms—well, the early ones at least–were not entirely unfair, but what completely destroys Penn’s credibility as a political voice (pay attention here) is his ultimate hypocrisy. Some time in spring 2010, Sean Penn appeared on Bill Maher’s show Real Time. On the show, Penn made comments that completely destroyed his credibility for all his criticisms of George W. Bush’s infringements on our civil liberties.

I mentioned briefly the socialist leader of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, a man who has partially usurped control of the media in his country, all but guaranteeing political insuperability. Well, Penn is chummy with this guy and doesn’t exactly like people who bash him. The mainstream media, according to Penn, constantly lies about Hugo Chavez.

In reality, the mainstream media tells a lot of lies and skews many of their stories. But portrayal of Hugo Chavez as a socialist dictator isn’t one of their misleading notions—its cold hard fact. Penn’s allegations of this as a lie aren’t what make him a hypocrite. What makes him a hypocrite is the fact that he suggested a law which would outright violate the First Amendment—both violating freedom of the press and of speech.

“Every day, this elected leader [Chavez] is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it. And this is mainstream media. There should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies.” — Sean Penn in 2010 on Real Time with Bill Maher

Excuse me? You want a bar that would send people to prison for speaking their mind? Even if they were lying about Chavez’s oppression and socialist policies, and they certainly are not, the media has a constitutionally protected freedom to say whatever they want and it is the responsibility of ‘we the people’ to do our homework and find out the truth. As a matter of fact, two of the earliest media outlets in this country were created for campaigning purposes when John Adams and Thomas Jefferson battled each other for the presidency. They each had their own outlet to demagogue each other, and it was up to the citizens to separate fact from fallacy.

If anyone is going to be locked up for false allegations by this bar that Penn wants to create, consider this scenario where the law becomes international and then subsequently be used to lock up Chavez.

According to a Feb 2006 piece from Reuters, Chavez was quoted as saying the following of then-President Bush:

“The imperialist, genocidal, fascist attitude of the U.S. president has no limits. I think Hitler would be like a suckling baby next to George W. Bush.”

Hugo Chavez compared a man who removed an oppressive dictator and kept his country safe, despite wasting lots of money and using questionable policing tactics in the process, to a man who systematically murdered 6 million Jews and invaded multiple countries not with the goal of liberating them but with the goal of ethnically cleansing and then occupying them. Under Penn’s proposed law, Chavez would be behind bars.

See what I did there, Seanny? Apparently free speech is okay for Sean Penn only if you agree with him. When George W. Bush tapped phone and email communications in an attempt to secure our country—albeit with potential to violate our 4th amendment rights—it’s oppressive and fascist; but a man who controls his country’s media to consolidate his own power is a democratically elected and transparent leader, and anyone who disagrees with that should be locked up!?

Pot-calling-the-kettle-black much? You can’t yell about someone infringing on the First Amendment, then subsequently suggest people lose their First Amendment rights because they disagree with you, and expect to have any credibility left can you? I would hope not. And I would hope you the reader make note of this and don’t take political advice from this guy. Ironic enough that his own proposed law of course would probably ensure his buddies Chavez and Ahmedinejad be locked up for their lies—Ahmedinejad especially for calling the Holocaust a myth. But what’s even more ironic is that Sean Penn wants to make laws that oppress people who disagree with him politically, when his own father suffered the same oppression.

Sean must have forgotten that his father, the late actor Leo Penn, was an actor during the Red Scare. He was a communist sympathizer, a supporter of Hollywood trade unions and refused to accuse his communist friends to the House Un-American Activities Committee and as a result was blacklisted—i.e. nobody would hire him because of his political leanings! But in Sean Penn’s hypocrisy, he suggests people should be jailed for their opinions (or FACTS) that Hugo Chavez is a power hungry socialist tyrant.

Sean Penn is a true celebutard; a politically inept hypocrite who should just stick to acting and stay out of politics! But as much as I detest him, I would never suggest he be locked up for his lies. I would most likely never suggest he be blacklisted. But I will suggest a boycott of him. I don’t think I’ll be watching his upcoming films.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

My views on Sean Penn’s hypocrisy remain the same to this day. I hope the readers of this article take these facts to heart and share them with others, particularly the ones regarding Leo Penn. The Hollywood left is losing its credibility but I can only hope it will lose it in time stop my generation from accepting this entitlement mentality present among Occupy Wall Street. The last thing I want is to wake up in 10 years to a repeat of the recent London riots: a bunch of spoiled 14 year olds throwing rocks and molotov cocktails at shops because mommy and daddy didn’t buy them that iPad they are “entitled” to. And if you believe for one second this hypothetical will never happen, I’ll refer you to the even more recent riots in malls all across the country over the new Nike Air Jordans. I don’t think you get a more accurate example than that of combining the “entitlement” mentality with the peer-pressure driven cult of celebrity, not to mention the general wussification of the American male when a bunch of guys in their teens and early-to-mid twenties are fighting over shoes as if they were the Sex and the City girls.

Its not too late to stop this from happening. Just as we managed to do with the temporary stoppage of the so-called Stop Online Piracy Act, libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives will have to take up arms against Big Hollyweird once again; this time over their lies, distortions, and political influence. Don’t be afraid to spend a little extra time attacking their hypocrisy and their logical fallicies and eventually they’ll lose credibility with some of the electorate.

As for Sean Penn, the characters of Spicoli—the dumb stoner, and Sam—the mentally challenged man—may actually be smarter than their portrayer, Sean Penn. Sean PWNED!

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Aaron Alghawi is finishing his B.S. in Economics at Texas A&M University; he is a board member and Director of Student Outreach for the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Last night’s State of the Union address had a more positive tone than I had originally expected. But it still carried a hypocritical juxtaposition of calling on Americans to come together and adopt reforms that create jobs and lift the burden on businesses, improve our children’s educational opportunities, and achieve energy independence while also touting the divisive rhetoric that drives us against each other and drives us to blame the wrong causes for our current situation.

Much of what President Obama said tonight was true. It is true that mortgages were lent to those who could not afford them. It is true that companies are shipping jobs overseas and at the same time receiving tax breaks. It is true that with the death of Osama Bin Laden and numerous Al Qaeda leaders, America is much safer. And it is true that millions of new jobs have been created since he took office.

The positives may sound good when you phrase them as such. But the grim reality is that the problems America faces are so significant, that the good things that have happened under this administration are eclipsed. While these jobs were being created, millions of jobs were being eliminated. We still have fewer jobs than when the president took office. And whether he likes to admit it or not, his own policies have played a part in this anemic growth.

EPA regulations piled on by this administration have cost us over 5% of our GDP, and that’s just one federal department of many. The Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill will cost $30 billion that we don’t have. The Small Business Administration estimates that the compliance cost of our current regulatory environment is $1.75 trillion per year. President Obama alone cannot be blamed for this, as his predecessors and those in Congress passed many of these regulations prior to 2009.

The president failed to mention that government programs incentivized lending of mortgages to those who could not afford them. Federal laws demanded banks loosen their restrictions or face legal action. The Federal Reserve further incentivized banks to comply by offering them easy credit. They lowered interest rates causing investors to put their money into long term projects and many focused on residential construction.

With his re-appointment of Ben Bernanke to chair the Federal Reserve System, this inflationary policy of unnaturally and artificially low interest rates has continued. The Fed has injected trillions of dollars into our economy under this administration, money which is not backed by matching economic growth or a significant demand for US dollars. This has caused the value of our currency to drop, and commodities such as gasoline have jumped in price as a result of a speculative bubble.

President Obama could have partially alleviated this problem by promoting domestic drilling for oil and the construction of new refineries, while we wait for science to develop inexpensive renewable energy. Instead, he has chosen to stand in the way of domestic oil production, while we continue to send billions of dollars to the Saudi elite, and turn a blind eye as they send that money to violent, theocratic institutions all over the world. He turned down the Keystone oil pipeline which would run from our largest supplier of oil—Canada—to the world’s most high-tech refineries in Houston.

It would have created tens of thousands of new jobs, including many for union workers that support Obama enthusiastically. They have been denied this opportunity in favor of capitulating to a lobby of environmental zealots known for its dishonesty in promoting its agenda.

The president covered a topic that I have focused much of my attention on in recent years: education. While he briefly touted the importance of returning control to local communities and schools, the other solutions he proposed are not only wrong, but they would further damage a K-12 system that is already a miserable failure at meeting the needs of the 21st century economy.

The president proposed forcing students to stay in school until they are 18 and claimed this would improve overall education. With all due respect, this is dead wrong. We have to get out of this ‘everyone gets a trophy’ mentality and realize that some children just will not learn. By forcing them to stay in school they hold back those of our children who have the drive to succeed. It is sad and politically incorrect to mention this, but it is true.

It has been mentioned in the writings of Jim Blockey, a reform school teacher from Las Vegas, I’ve discussed it with Robert Mansfield of Pennsylvania; a man born to a drug-addicted mother who grew up on the streets of Philadelphia with nothing and who rose to success when he returned to school, got his GED and joined the Army where he rose to the rank of Sergeant.I have heard even more examples from my friends who attended failing government schools in the inner cities of Ohio.

Although early childhood education in this country is world class, by the time our children reach high school, students in European countries like Belgium beat us on a number of metrics. Students in Japan, South Korea and Singapore blow us out of the water. China isn’t messing around either. They are targeting their most skilled students and placing them into advanced programs. When those students come to our universities they trounce their American peers in mathematics and natural sciences, and then our broken immigration system forces them to return to China and use the skills that we taught them against us in the global economy. A better system would incentivize and enable them to become Americans, and grow our economy instead.

The Belgians and the Japanese emphasize on the importance of school choice and privatization of education. And the British and the Japanese both emphasize on the important of the individual. Their programs are customized to fit the abilities of each student. In Japan, education is mandatory till around 15 years of age, at which they get their equivalent of our GED. Their upper-tier secondary schools are optional, and yet over 95% of Japanese students continue their education beyond the mandatory requirements. These programs are customized as either vocational education or preparation for university.

And one third of these schools are private!

In Great Britain, when you are 16, you can stay in the system, go to a trade school, or if you are smart enough go straight to college. Some states have adopted similar programs right here in America, where gifted students can achieve associates degrees upon graduating. I propose that we don’t waste their time teaching things they don’t need in the career they want.

We need to take heed to what the Belgians, the British and especially our Japanese friends have done. We shouldn’t mandate education to 18; we should eliminate the high school diploma and require a GED at the end of what is currently 9th grade as they do in Japan. Then make tenth through twelfth grade a customizable and optional program. Let students have choices of vocational programs, college preparatory programs, and if they are skilled enough, let them go straight to college. Provide a system that can ensure our 18 year olds truly are adults by giving them the marketable skills they need to make a living wage instead of mooching off of mom and dad into their twenties.

The status quo is unacceptable! And it fosters this sort of environment. To those who are worried about the students who wouldn’t go to school beyond their GED, they can always take the unskilled labor jobs and then work their way up the ladder or choose to continue their education at a later time in life. What makes such a system work so well is that the market will determine what skills are needed and relevant programs will be supplied.

This one-size-fits-all everyone-needs-to-go-to-college mentality is causing us to fall behind the competition. It is creating an education bubble that will inevitably burst. Many of these college degrees are becoming useless, rendering starting salaries that are not significantly higher than a high school diploma. The focus must be on marketable skills. General education is never a bad thing and should be viewed as a virtue, but it can only go so far.

The best possible system we can provide for our children is a system of individual choice, with a supply of curriculum determined by the market economy’s demand. A system that empowers parents, rewards the best students, and the best teachers, and yes—a system that discourages and reprimands failure.

The president went on to claim that college tuition is too high, and if it continues to rise he will pull subsidies from those universities. He’s right to acknowledge the avarice of our university system: costing its students thousands in waste on unnecessary programs and fees that should either be privately funded or purchased a la carte at the individual level.

Yet, he fails to understand the prime reason why tuition has risen at twice the rate of inflation and four times the wage rate. The federal government’s guarantee of all student loans has given greedy academics and administrators an opportunity that they would not have in a free market. They have constantly jacked up their prices, knowing that the government would credit the money to them no matter what, and the students would get stuck with the bill.

In the state of today’s economy, no one between the ages of 18 and 22 with the exception of military, civil service and a few lucky kids who invested from their teen years would be able to apply for a loan at a bank to pay over $10,000 a year for full-time tuition and living expense financing unless they had either a parent or credit-worthy friend co-sign for them. I know because I borrow primarily from a credit union to finance my education. Without a co-signer I likely would not have been approved, and if I was approved, my interest rate would be over 10%.

But the government federally guarantees many financial options for students who have little to no credit history. This has allowed the universities to set their tuition and fees well above a true market rate. In a free market where the finance was out of pocket or credit-based, they could not do this. Their classrooms would sit empty at those prices, and they would go bankrupt. Ending the federal department of education would quickly slash tuition prices in half, and prices would finally begin to increase in conjunction with wages and inflation.

When my father went to college in the 1970s, you borrowed directly from the school. A full-time summer job was enough to cover a year’s tuition and much of your living expenses at a state university. My father came here a poor immigrant, went to a small private college, and worked part time as a manual laborer. He graduated on time and with two years of debt.

My generation has not been so lucky.

This achievement by my father is the American Dream that we should want for all of our children, and it is morally wrong to deny them the benefits of a free market where they have the power to control their own destinies.

The message of class envy is dividing us and acting against the interests of that dream. Claiming that a job creating class is not paying their fair share when the top 1% of earners pay nearly 40% of the income taxes and the top 10% pay 70% of income taxes is ludicrous. But loopholes favoring one business over another certainly must go.

Our country needs a fairer, flatter tax. We need low rates for all, but we need few to no deductions. Compliance with our current tax laws cost American businesses nearly half a trillion dollars every year. Corporate taxes only make up 9% of our federal revenue yet their punitive nature begs the question: are they really worth it? What if the economic growth that was unleashed as a result of their elimination put so many people back to work, that the income tax revenue increased not only to offset that 9%, but to surpass it?

President Obama mentioned that companies are receiving tax breaks while they offshore jobs, and he mentioned the importance of incentivizing them with tax breaks to bring those jobs back here. There are over one trillion American dollars sitting overseas because investors don’t want it to be taxed by both the foreign country and the United States upon its return. Presidential candidate Ron Paul, former candidate Herman Cain, and myself all support a common sense solution to this problem.

I call upon President Obama to eliminate taxes on all foreign money repatriated into the U.S. economy. Let these corporations and businesspeople know that if they use that money to create American jobs, they can bring it back tax free! This is something that everyone should get behind! One trillion dollars is a lot of money with the potential to create millions of new jobs. If the president and both parties in congress are serious about restoring this economy to greatness, then a bill will be brought up and soon eliminating the repatriation tax, and President Obama will not hesitate to sign it.

There is too much at stake here to play class warfare politics. If government stole the entire net worth of every billionaire on the planet, not just in the U.S., it would total up to $4.5 trillion. Under this administration, the national debt has increased by over $5 trillion . We have debt because we spend too much, not because we tax too little. Both parties are to blame. We cannot afford our so-called entitlement system as is and we cannot afford a foreign policy of being the world’s policeman.

Now that we are out of Iraq President Obama said he wants to take that money, spend half of it to pay down the debt and half to build our own infrastructure. What he failed to mention was that there are no actual savings from the end of the Iraq War. We borrowed and printed money to finance our operations there and continue to do so in Afghanistan. There is no sudden influx of revenue we can use to pay down the debt, there is only a smaller deficit.

The President must realize that this is a Now or Never moment to prevent our country from going the way of many great empires in history, destroying itself under massive debt from an affluent society at home and a thinly spread militarism.

Do not give up on bipartisanship, Mr. President. Despite the differences between you and the Republicans, you can still get started on these things. Take a look at the recommendations of the Erskine-Bowles commission. Find the things in there that you and the Republicans can agree on, and immediately pass them. It will not be the end-all-be-all solution, but it is far better than doing nothing.

We owe it to future generations to actually build them a future. I understand the pressures of an election cycle, Mr. President. But the best way to get reelected is to do right by the American people. Embracing the free-market, ending corporatism, foreign nation building, and unsustainable benefit programs is the only way to save the American Dream.

Thank you, and God Bless America!

————————————————————————————————

Aaron Alghawi is finishing his B.S. in Economics at Texas A&M University; he is a board member and Director of Student Outreach for the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Scrutiny of the Koch brothers has intensified since they were connected to the battle over public sector unionism in Wisconsin.  The latest incarnation of the “two minutes of hate” directed at the Koch brothers has taken place at my alma mater, Florida State University.  As DeVoe Moore professor of economics (and RLC Advisory Board member) Dr. Randall Holcombe explains at his blog, the knee-jerk reactions are severely overblown and unwarranted:

The Koch Brothers’ Philanthropy and Academic Freedom

Writer Brendan Behan once remarked, “There’s no bad publicity except an obituary.”  I am an economics professor at Florida State University (FSU), and my department has been getting lots of publicity this week.

Our run in the spotlight started with an op-ed on May 1 in the local newspaper, The Tallahassee Democrat, in which the writers were criticizing a grant my department received from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation because, the writers argued, we gave up our academic freedom to get the money.  The story was picked up by the St. Petersburg Times, and seems to have gone viral after that.  I could pick and choose a few links to share, but when I just Googled “Florida State University economics Koch” Google returned 211,000 results.  You can see for yourself what people are saying.

I don’t object to the investigative reporting that is being done on this issue.  As a government-run institution, I am happy to have our activities scrutinized and for the press to inquire into our funding sources, and how we are spending our money.  In this case, however, I think the press coverage has distorted the facts.

The money from the Koch Foundation was intended to fund faculty positions, to provide money for graduate student stipends, and to fund some undergraduate programs.  All of the negative publicity has been with regard to the faculty positions.  The contract with the Koch Foundation says that a committee that includes a representative from the Foundation will screen and approve any hires on that money, that the Foundation will get annual reports on the activities it funds, and that it can withdraw its support at any time if it is dissatisfied.  The money is coming as annual grants to support one year’s spending.  None is going into an endowment.  FSU is being criticized for allowing the Koch Foundation to have a say in who we hire.

Here are some facts about our accepting this money.  We recognized at the outset that we didn’t want an outside organization telling us who we could hire, and agreed we would only take the money if the Foundation agreed to support candidates we wanted to hire.  If there were no mutually acceptable candidates, we would not take the money.

Further, if you look at the three faculty we added with the Koch money, only one of them actually went through the screening process described above.  In two out of the three hires, we identified a candidate we wanted to hire without any Koch Foundation screening, we presented the candidate to Koch, and they said they would fund the hire.  They aren’t telling us who we can or cannot hire.  If the Koch Foundation turned down a candidate we wanted (and, they have turned down none of our suggestions), we could always hire them with our own money (which means, money taken from Florida’s taxpayers).

The university also agreed that if during the grant period the Koch Foundation decided to withdraw its annual appropriation to support those hires, the university would fund the positions.  The Koch Foundation could not determine who we hired, or whether someone would be terminated.  They could only determine whether they would pay for a hire.

This seems reasonable to me.  More than a decade ago I wrote a book (which is for sale through the Independent Institute) describing the way that philanthropic donations often end up supporting causes that the donor would have found abhorrent.  Donors always make donations with the intent of furthering ends with which they agree, whether it is funding cancer research, or supporting a symphony orchestra… or the teaching of the virtues of the market system in an economics department.  Once the money is given, especially if it is in the form of a bequest, or goes into an endowment, there is always the risk that the money will be spent for things which the donor would not approve.

In our grant from the Koch Foundation, they protected their interests both by only agreeing to provide the money if it was spent on something we saw as our mutual interest, and by having the right to stop their payments to us if they were dissatisfied with how they were using them.  On our end, we protected our interests by agreeing (within our department) that we would only hire on those lines if the candidates were people we would have chosen anyway, and (as a guarantee from our university administration) that if the Foundation did withdraw their funding mid-way through the contract, the university would fund those positions.  Does this constitute giving up our academic freedom?

In addition to being able to hire three faculty in tight budgetary times—at no taxpayer expense—we are also supporting several graduate students and undergraduate programs with money from the Koch Foundation.  Nobody in the department objects to the hires we made, and we are happy to have the financial support for our students.  But, understandably, there are some faculty who are upset about the negative publicity the Koch money has brought us.

Perhaps one source of hostility toward this agreement stems from the fact that Charles Koch is well-known for supporting libertarian causes, and the publicity is intended as an attack on Koch.  As a faculty member in the Florida State University economics department, I may be too close to the situation to give an objective judgment.  The agreement was signed and the Koch money began coming to our department in 2009, and after two quiet years, all of a sudden this week the subject is getting a lot of press.

Source: Holcombe, Randall G., “Philanthropy and Academic Freedom at Florida State University.” The Beacon Blog, May 12, 2011.

No matter what your opinion of Ron Paul happens to be, it is impossible not to notice the energy his ideas have generated among young people over the last several years. Largely unknown outside of his Texas congressional district prior to his 2008 presidential run, the ideas he has espoused for decades have recently grown by leaps and abounds among the under-40 crowd. One would think this might be of particular importance to the mainstream conservative movement, as many of their most energetic and intellectually curious younger members have been joining the liberty movement en masse since 2008.

The current Republican leadership can either embrace this change and correctly view it as the wave of the future, or it may simply dismiss it and attempt to put off the inevitable.

It would be wise counsel for them to come to terms with the truism that that correct ideas will always outlive the man. The ideas that are taking on a life of their own seem to have caught the establishment portion of the Republican Party off guard. The hegemony many of those in elected leadership and media formerly possessed allowed them to monopolize the definition of what is and is not inherently “conservative.”

In the recent past, it often seemed like large swaths of the so-called conservative media existed solely to squelch pockets of independent thought that cropped up among its members. Anyone questioning one Republican policy or another was written off as some sort of “liberal” or “kook.” For the better part of the last decade, many conservatives were repeatedly told that the most indefensible actions by those in charge were somehow “conservative” so long as it was done by a Republican. But, by gosh, if the other party did the precise same thing, well, they must hate this nation. Massive invasions of civil liberties, foreign nations, and individual sovereignty—wow, where do I sign up? Obviously this was not the response these sort of actions engendered among the majority of younger Americans.

Long unquestioned by listeners and audiences, this shtick had begun to grow old. Thankfully, its formerly slow erosion has been sped up by the Internet and Tea Party movement. The terms of the debate have begun to be redefined as millions of conservatives, whether supporters of Ron Paul or the liberty movement in general, are no longer content to be dismissed when they have the slightest objection to Republican policy.

Many in the younger generation had rapidly grown weary of defending the actions of the previous administration on their college campuses to countless dissenters. Though the worldview of these dissenters might have been liberal in nature, they at least caused some critical thinking to be done regarding what largely turned out to be more than thorough contradictions and brazen hypocrisy. Sensing something was off about denouncing socialism while cheering on candidates who showed no real aversion to federal interference when it suited their agenda, many of these younger people were drawn to the message of a candidate like Ron Paul.

The notion that fidelity to the Constitution was something that withstood party or public opinion resonated, acting as a breath of fresh air after years of doublespeak and government expansion. The demand for this has only increased now that the same problems with government have continued unabated through the first two years of the Obama administration.

Considering the fact that, according to CNN’s exit polling, Republican presidential nominee John McCain received less than one-third of the 18-29 year old vote (which comprised 18% of overall voters), finding a way to tailor their message in a manner more appealing to the younger generation would seem like a logical venture. However, for a party and broader movement that is still more likely than not to cheer Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney at public events, one must conclude logic and not offending the average voter’s intelligence are apparently not on the front burner. Seemingly, party loyalty at all costs is still the flavor of day in many parts of the conservative movement; this explains the large resistance to Ron Paul and the liberty movement.

And this movement does have a high mountain to scale. According to recent polling data from Public Policy Polling, only 13% of Republicans hold an unfavorable opinion of George W. Bush, underscoring the degree to which party loyalty is still trumping independent thought despite the heroic efforts of many factions in the Tea Party movement. But the numbers in this same poll bear out what other surveys have indicated, showing that Ron Paul’s popularity among 18 to 29 year olds is nearly twice what is found among other age groups.

For now, owing largely to the lower turnout numbers among this age bracket in primary and general elections, the Republican Party can still get by with ignoring such developments. Many will still be happy to, with head firmly planted in sand, pull the lever for the next generic Republican without the slightest bit of hesitation. But not for much longer; their efforts to continue marginalizing the liberty movement are becoming progressively less successful.

The liberty movement will expand in proportion to the speed at which Republicans begin to realize the minimal difference between the Bush and Obama administrations. Sooner or later this will reach critical mass, eating away at enough of their base as these voters constitute more and more of the electorate. Instead of the current policy of ridicule, Republicans might want to act faster at changing their tune; at some point down the road enough of these enterprising young voters might become so disillusioned so as to make it too late for such an about face to occur.

Whether the candidate of choice for liberty-leaning conservatives happens to be Ron Paul or not is not the point of these observations. The intention is to alert Republicans that that the erosion among young voters will keep up the longer they hold on to Bush-style big government conservatism and reject pleadings to return to the traditional limited government movement.

It’s hard to believe, but the RLC celebrated its twenty year anniversary over the weekend with its biennial Republican Liberty Caucus National Convention and outreach effort at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

The activities began on Wednesday evening when RLC’ers Dave Nalle, Aaron Biterman, George Primbs, Shelby McCurnin, and Julian Babbitt set up the CPAC outreach booth. On Thursday, the day began bright and early with Republican Liberty Caucus outreach efforts at CPAC. This marked the first RLC outreach efforts at the conference in almost a decade.

Dave Nalle brought impressive RLC literature, pins, and t-shirts to distribute to attendees. RLC’ers used the World’s Smallest Political Quiz to help attendees identify their political leanings. Throughout the two-day conference, members and supporters of the RLC wore “I am the RLC” stickers and RLC pins to express unity and shared commitment to individual liberty and limited government.

Some RLC members attended speeches by Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Governor Gary Johnson, and events hosted by those three leaders of the libertarian Republican movement. On Thursday evening, both Johnson and the Pauls had their own respective events. On Friday, both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson spoke before CPAC attendees and were well received. On Saturday, the straw poll results from the CPAC conference were announced, with Ron Paul placing first with thirty percent and Gary Johnson placing third (after Mitt Romney) with six percent.

Clearly the momentum at CPAC has shifted over the past two years. The RLC is pleased with the inclusiveness of the CPAC event and is very excited about how popular the liberty message is with CPAC attendees. Congratulations to Dr. Ron Paul for placing first in the CPAC straw poll for the second year in a row!

On Saturday, Republican Liberty Caucus members from across the country — over 125 liberty activists from more than 30 states — gathered to attend the RLC National Convention. The day opened up with a presentation on libertarianism from an expert on the topic, Cato Institute Executive VP David Boaz.

After Mr. Boaz answered questions, a panel about the Tea Party’s relationship to Ron Paul and libertarian ideas ensued. The panel, moderated by Corie Whalen and including former RLC National Board member Dr. Murray Sabrin, columnist Todd Seavey, Ron Paul campaign veteran Joe Seehusen, and Tea Party organizer Chip Tarbutton, was well very timely considering the possibility of both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson running for President in 2012.

Also in the morning session, Christopher Doss of the Leadership Institute gave a presentation about communication skills and a group of RLC members who are active in their local Republican Parties discussed how to form RLC state chapters and influence the party organizations.

One highlight of the day was the panel of current and former elected liberty Republicans. The panel featured three former State Representatives, Ken Lindell of Maine, Terri McCormick of Wisconsin, and Jamie Callender of Ohio, as well as New York City Councilman Dan Halloran (see photo below).

Congressman Justin Amash, the second youngest member of Congress and a fan favorite of RLC members, met with RLC delegates while discussing the current Congress during the lunch session. Representative Amash is cautiously optimistic. World famous Professor Randy Barnett, the most notable intellectual critic of the Obamacare health law, presented his ideas related to “The Libertarian Roots of the Republican Party,” which centered on Salmon P. Chase.

The afternoon sessions focused on civil liberties, privacy, the War on Drugs, foreign policy, how to run a winning campaign, and constitutional reforms. Panelists discussed voting methods like Instant Runoff Voting, ballot access laws, term limits, recall, and initiative & referendum.

Gary Johnson won the 2012 RLC Presidential Straw Poll with 45 percent of the vote to Ron Paul’s 38 percent of the vote. Newt Gingrich received five percent and other candidates totaled ten percent.

The recommended Bylaw, Statement of Principles, and Rule changes were adopted without modification — with one exception: Proposed Amendment to Article III, Section 6 was modified to the following wording: “Any membership may be suspended or revoked by a majority vote of the Board of Directors of the Caucus or the applicable Chartered State executive committee for just cause, which may include malfeasance in office, misappropriation of funds, misrepresenting the positions of the Caucus, or conduct which reflects poorly on the Caucus, or conduct which reflects poorly on the Caucus. Any member suspended or revoked by a State charter organization shall have the right to appeal to the National Board of Directors within 90 days, and the National Board of Directors shall render a decision within 90 days of notification.” Delegates added a statement defending Personal Liberties to the RLC Statement of Principles.

The following individuals were elected to positions on the RLC National Committee: Dave Nalle (TX), Chair; Aaron Biterman (VA), Vice Chair; Jason Hellenberg (FL), Secretary; Matthew Nye (FL), Treasurer; and Ed Lopez-Reyes (NH), Bill Westmiller (CA), and Corie Whalen (TX) were elected At-Large Board members. Regional directors will be selected by state RLC chapters within 30 days after the Convention. Alternate Board members elected included Aleq Boyle (GA), Shelby McCurnin (VA), Jeff Palmer (NC), Erik Setzer (FL), John Underwood (NC), and Eric Wall (FL).

Delegates adjourned until dinner. The dinner portion of the Convention was particularly exciting. The co-keynote speakers were Peter Schiff, who gave booming yet pessimistic predictions about the future, and Governor Gary Johnson, who outlined what he did in New Mexico. Both speeches were very well received and showed the different styles of the two speakers.

Veteran RLC member Cliff Thies presented “Bye, Bye Miss American Pie” as “Bye, Bye Miss Liberty Bye,” which prompted an audience sing-along. And Laura Crockett, a longtime RLC member from California, presented a very special pictorial history of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Convention award winners included: Aaron Biterman (Virginia RLC), Chairman’s Award for Service; Laura Ebke (Nebraska RLC), Outstanding Activist; Michael S. Murphy (Wisconsin RLC), Activist of the Year; and the New Hampshire RLC, Most Successful State Chapter of 2010.

After dinner, Convention attendees were joined by Campaign for Liberty members and other assorted liberty activists at Baileys Pub in Ballston (Arlington) for a reception hosted by the Virginia RLC. The after-party featured Governor Gary Johnson playing RLC’ers in checkers (and apparently winning!) and was attended by commentator and columnist Jack Hunter.

Twenty years. Fifty states. One goal: Liberty. The Republican Liberty Caucus National Convention was the place to be on Saturday. Some additional Convention photos can be found here. Thank you to Republican Liberty Caucus delegates and officers as well as our generous sponsors — each of whom did their important part to make the Convention a tremendous success.

In a story at Time.com authored by Time Magazine editor-at-large and senior political analyst Mark Halperin, he discusses how Gary Johnson was initially excluded from the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) — which is taking place from Thursday to Saturday — but was included in the agenda as of yesterday.

Halperin says,

“Governor Johnson will also be the keynote speaker at the Republican Liberty Caucus on Saturday, February 12th. His name will be included on the straw poll at both events.”

He adds that Johnson’s “stance on marijuana legalization, gay rights, ending war in Afghanistan and immigration make him unique among conservatives.”

(Picture at right: Governor Johnson is posing with Jon Tucker, Nebraska RLC Vice Chairman.)

Halperin says that Republican Liberty Caucus, Citizens Opposing Prohibition, Americans for Tax Reform, Log Cabin Republicans, Students for Liberty, Free and Equal Election Foundation and Young Americans for Liberty are all supporting Johnson’s bid to partake in CPAC events.

Read the full article. The RLC also picked up media hits in Yahoo! News and The DailyCaller on this same topic.

The RLC is co-sponsoring a Young Americans for Liberty gathering with Governor Johnson on Thursday night from 10pm to 1am and will also host the former Governor as a co-keynote speaker with financial analyst Peter Schiff at our banquet dinner on Saturday, February 12.

Laurence Vance, a columnist who posts at LewRockwell.com, has a new piece up in which he provides a not-so-thoughtful analysis regarding his views about the Republican Party in general and the Republican Liberty Caucus in specific. This is his second write-up about the RLC this month. I’m pleased that we’ve caught his attention.

Mr. Vance received a postcard from the Florida chapter of the RLC inviting him to attend the recent Florida RLC Convention in Kissimmee.

Vance’s first criticism is that the RLC postcard he received said that Republicans “won big on libertarian themes”. I am not involved in the Florida RLC chapter and therefore did not pen that language (and I would have chosen alternative language), but winning in politics can take a variety of forms. Perhaps the Florida RLC was talking about candidates running campaigns on libertarian themes — as new RLC-endorsed State Rep. Glen Bradley of North Carolina did.  His campaign theme was “Restore the Constitutional Order” and he featured the RLC logo at his campaign hub. Mr. Bradley was just one of many newly elected RLC-endorsed state legislators.

Or perhaps the author of the postcard was talking about ballot initiatives with libertarian themes, such as the anti-Obamacare measures passed in states like Arizona and Oklahoma and the medical marijuana initiative passed in Arizona. Still, there are other measures of successful libertarian themes in the Republican Party, such as the push for state sovereignty by elected Republican legislators, the anti-TSA resolution championed by Republican legislators in New Jersey, the legislation to decriminalize pot possession sponsored by a Republican legislator in Virginia, and the “Health Care Freedom” bills that many states are pursuing with Republicans taking the lead.

Some of this legislation has been successful, some will be in the future, and other items will fail. The legislation that fails will do so because there aren’t enough liberty-loving Americans serving in public office — which the RLC is working to change through retail politics.

In referencing the “liberty wing of the Republican Party,” which was mentioned in the Florida RLC postcard, Mr. Vance claims that the liberty wing has only one member: his hero, Ron Paul.

Mr. Vance likes one politician, but no others.

I’ve noticed that trend in the Mises economic circles.  All politicians and both political parties are evil, the story goes, with one exception — Ron Paul.

What makes Ron Paul different?

He was elected — that’s what separates him from the rest of the crowd.

To be elected, he had to participate in the political process, something Mr. Vance says he explicitly opposes.

In my e-mail response to Mr. Vance’s original blog entry from January 3, in which he initially made the claim that the “liberty wing of the GOP” was made up of one person, I cited examples of other elected officials who make up the liberty wing of the Republican Party:

—–Original Message—–
From: Laurence M. Vance
To: aaronjbiterma
Sent: Tue, Jan 4, 2011 2:35 pm
Subject: Re: Your post about the Republican Liberty Caucus

who are the current and former elected officials?

Subject: Re: Your post about the Republican Liberty Caucus
Date: 1/4/2011 2:41:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: aaronjbiterma
To: lmvance

Governor Gary Johnson
Congressman Justin Amash from Michigan
City Councilman from New York City (Dan Halloran)
County Commissioner from Maryland (Cindy Jones)
State Representatives from Maine, Maryland, Ohio, Wisconsin

The elected officials I mentioned in the e-mail to Mr. Vance are just some of the decent liberty-loving folks who will be attending the upcoming RLC National Convention. The list excludes a plethora of legislators who were just elected in November and who have been serving as loyal libertarian Republicans for many years, such as State Senator Sam Slom of Hawai’i and State Senator Bob Hedlund of Massachusetts.

Mr. Vance chose to ignore the information I provided to continue his hero-worship instead.

I admire Congressman Ron Paul just as Mr. Vance does. What freedom-loving American doesn’t?

But there is a point where hero-worship becomes counter-productive, and Mr. Vance illustrates the point quite well:

He opposes participation in electoral politics and instead believes that writing for LewRockwell.com is going to change the direction of our country.

If Congressman Ron Paul is as wonderful as Mr. Vance says he is (and I believe he is), then why aren’t we all working to find more principled people to run for office and win?

Well, some of us are. Others would instead prefer to get paid to write articles.

Laurence Vance needs to work on his persuasion skills.

I’m a longtime libertarian, and his efforts have only dissuaded me from wanting to associate with the purity club that is LewRockwell.com and the Mises Institute.

Mr. Vance expresses that he has treated the RLC fairly. He then falsely claims that the Florida RLC endorsed Ron Paul for President in 2008 (not true) and goes on to say that the Florida RLC website is out of date (also not true). He commends the “hardcore” members of the Florida RLC who have written to him in the past (presumably, these members met his litmus test) and then goes on to criticize their choice of State Senator Mike Haridopolos as a speaker at the recent Florida RLC Convention (who did not meet his litmus test).

Unlike the intellectual elitists (and racists and homophobes) who write for LewRockwell.com — sitting in their comfy computer chairs criticizing the masses who do not agree with every tenet of their ideological platform — the Republican Liberty Caucus is working to change the makeup of the Republican Party. So it’s a friendlier place for liberty advocates. So the policies in our country can change dramatically for the better. And to engage folks who may not agree with every libertarian idea but are open to the prospect of learning more about libertarian principles.

Whoever added Mr. Vance to the mailing list of the Florida RLC chapter would be well advised to remove him. Vance neither understands (nor cares to understand,) nor agrees with the mission of the organization — and the RLC Statement of Principles doesn’t jibe with his rigid purity test.

Readers interested in hearing a substantive response to Vance’s claims about the Republican Party should register to attend the 2011 RLC National Convention on February 12 in Arlington, Virginia.  Professor Randy Barnett will give a speech entitled “Rediscovering the Libertarian Roots of the Republican Party.”  At the same time, we’ll be celebrating 20 years of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Anyone can run for office, including those of us who have deeply-held libertarian convictions. The idea that the liberty wing of the Republican Party is made up of one elected official — a lie stated and repeated by Laurence Vance — should be expunged from our discourse.

And the politics of hero-worship should be purged from the libertarian movement so that we can recruit, support, and elect libertarian-minded citizen leaders who are in the same mold as Ron Paul.

After all, it was Congressman Paul himself who said, “We must redouble our efforts to educate our fellow citizens, recruit and support liberty candidates, and marshal our resources for the battle ahead.”

We’re just weeks away from the 2011 Republican Liberty Caucus National Convention, and we hope you’ll consider attending — even if you’ve never attended a RLC meetup before. There is still time to register, but make sure to do so before February 1, when the prices rise.

The top ten reasons you should register and attend the Convention:

10. You will be able to hear from RLC leaders in other states to see how their chapters operate.

9. It promises to be really fun — an exciting and uplifting event. Check the agenda.

8. Panels will offer intellectual discussions from key figures in the liberty movement related to the Tea Party, foreign policy, drug policy reform, electoral reform, and other topics.

7. Training on communications and campaigns will be offered by experts in these fields.

6. Over 100 activists from 30 states will gather to network, socialize, learn, and mobilize.

5. The Convention will mark the largest pro-liberty gathering of Republicans in the country.

4. The RLC will celebrate its 20 year anniversary at the Convention, having been founded in 1991.

3. Justin Amash, the 30-year old Congressman-elect from Michigan, and former New Mexico Governor Gary E. Johnson will share their thoughts and experiences.

2. Prof. Randy Barnett’s speech “Rediscovering the Libertarian Roots of the Republican Party” will make the case for libertarian participation in the Republican Party.

1. Registered delegates will be eligible to vote in the RLC’s 2012 Presidential Straw Poll!

Don’t miss out — register today!

For the first time in recent memory, the Republican Liberty Caucus will host an outreach booth at the Conservative Political Action Conference from February 10-12, 2011 in Washington, DC.
The Republican Liberty Caucus National Convention will also occur on February 12, 2011 in nearby Arlington, Virginia — a short metrorail or cab ride from the CPAC location.

We decided to host our Convention on the final day of CPAC to piggyback on the fact that many potential Convention attendees and many likely Convention attendees may already be in town for CPAC.  Interested parties can choose to attend one event — or both.  Most major CPAC events, including the Campaign for Liberty and assorted liberty movement events, will occur on February 10-11, while our Convention will occur on February 12.

This is an excellent opportunity to inform or remind folks that no public policies will change without changing the Republican Party structure and makeup; hence, the RLC’s existence.  “Education” is important, but “action” is also necessary.

If you’re planning to attend CPAC, please make sure to stop by the Republican Liberty Caucus booth and say hello to us!  If you wish to register for CPAC, you can check out the following links:

• Gary Johnson CPAC Packages
• Young Americans for Liberty / C4L CPAC Packages
• CPAC Official Site – Agenda and List of Speakers

Please make sure to register and attend the 2011 RLC National Convention on Saturday, February 12, 2011 in Arlington, VA — the largest gathering of liberty Republicans in the country!

If you would like to volunteer to work the RLC booth at CPAC 2011, please get in touch with us.

by Jay Bailey

I’ve noticed a pretty contentious divide between so-called principled non-voters and so-called principled voters. Here I will lay out the arguments for both sides and arrive at a conclusion.

Many libertarian or anarcho-capitalists refrain from voting because they, as anti-statists, do not want to consent to the system to which they so vehemently disapprove. In other words, they oppose the existence of the state because they view it as an illegitimate monopoly on the initiation of force. They view it as an inherently coercive institution and they, like all libertarians, oppose coercion on principle. These democratic republics are based on citizen involvement and supposed consent.

In the principled non-voters’ view, it is inherent in democracy that people are pinned against each other based on their interests and elections are nothing more than a means for one group of citizens to coercively enforce their point of view onto others. Therefore, they say that voting is actively consenting to the institution that you should oppose. Some take this farther and claim that voters indirectly are committing an act of violence because by aiding and abetting an inherently violent organization — government.

A separate argument is not philosophical but instead economic. It is based on two main ideas: the probability of one vote being decisive and opportunity cost. The more people that vote in a given election, the less likely it is that your single vote will be the decisive vote in that election. If it’s not, then your vote didn’t matter. Also, they believe that voting is not worth the time it takes to do it — opportunity cost. There are other things that you could be doing instead of voting and most of these things (for example, not having to take time off of work) tend to bring you more personal satisfaction than the act of voting. Voting also includes risks such as driving to the polling place, standing in a line, participating in the sometimes aggravating process, etc.

The principled voters counter these points. On the first philosophical point, I think it’s a fairly strong argument, but only if you’re an anti-statist. If you’re not, then this does not provide you a reason not to vote. I can see why it would be important for these individuals to campaign against voting — because the fewer people who vote, the less legitimate the government becomes. Much like agorism, though, the practical effectiveness of this idea is doubtful. Is it not better to vote and at least do SOMETHING than it would be do to literally NOTHING? Further, if voting is considered an act of violence, then isn’t it just self-defense to vote in retaliation? And what about those who don’t consider themselves voluntaryists? For the disillusioned minarchist, this is where the economic argument is put to play.

The voter will suggest that obviously voters are perceiving the personal satisfaction of voting as greater than the opportunity cost — else they wouldn’t do it. Even if it’s just to fulfill societal pressures, they are increasing their own personal satisfaction by satiating the guilt that would accompany not voting.

I don’t necessarily think all of the pro-voting responses are sound, either. I don’t believe the answers to key questions such as “Why vote?” or “For whom should you vote if you do vote?” should be assumed. These are important questions that can only be answered subjectively by each individual in their own locality. For me, though, the main question is: If you do vote, for whom should you vote and why? My answer is this: It’s only worth the opportunity cost to vote for candidates that you genuinely think are worth the time and effort to vote for. For me, voting against the greater of two evils is not good enough, because you’re still supporting an evil — just a lesser one. I would never support with my vote someone I would not support with a donation or by campaigning for them.

My problem with many pro-voters is that they tend to be vote-promiscuous, to avoid more misogynistic terms. They will vote for the Rick Scotts or the John McCains just because of the letter next to their name or the opponent they are facing. My problem with non-voters is that they become principled to the point of irrelevance — not voting for the type of candidates that would try to take the country in a direction even the anti-statists should support (less government in all ways).

Sure, your one vote probably won’t make a difference, but there is a chance that it will. Don’t believe me? Well, Ron Paul lost the straw poll at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference last year by a single vote, and guess who was supposed to go but couldn’t make it? Here’s a hint: me. So, yeah, one vote really can make a difference. The larger point is that the state of mind of “one vote doesn’t matter” — while perhaps true in national elections — creates an aggregate effect. If all the anti-statists that don’t vote on principle would have gone out and voted for Ron Paul in the primaries, he would have done substantially better. I’m not saying he would’ve won, but the point is that the effect is not just one vote.

It was Bob Murphy (himself an anarcho-capitalist) that used what he called the Star Wars example. He said that in order for Luke and Han to destroy the Death Star, they had to dress up as Star Troopers. The point is that in order to bring about the change you want to see, sometimes you have to work within the system to bring it down. Had Luke and Han sat in the Millennium Falcon with their arms folded, would their smug self-satisfaction — due to their strict adherence to principle, of course — have made them feel any better as they watched entire planets be destroyed?

My final point is this: Look at what Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign did for the liberty movement. In 2005, when I first started calling myself a libertarian (though at that point I was more of a neolibertarian), the liberty movement consisted of a few people in a room that they called the “Libertarian Party National Convention” and this one Congressman in Texas who always votes no. Yeah, the Kochs were doing stuff too, and Cato and Mises were around. All true. But look at how the movement has blossomed since Dr. Paul’s presidential run. Are you going to let your principled adherence prevent you from supporting his campaign, or campaigns like his (Gary Johnson, for instance)?

The fact of the matter is that we are stuck in our current situation. These “vote for nobody” campaigns, as fun and thought-provoking as they may be, are doing nothing to advance liberty. Ron Paul did. His message resonated with people across the country, and I would say that just from his 2008 run, there will be a large liberty movement thriving within both parties within 10 years. That movement will be larger — and perhaps will come about sooner after he runs in 2012. You can be a part of that — or, you can sit on the Millennium Falcon with your arms folded and pretend that the move toward liberty had something to do with your unwillingness to participate.

As for me, I didn’t vote this time around. Why not? Because I had no one to vote FOR. There is a liberty-ish candidate in my district, but he has no chance of winning (third party). I simply can’t support either of the candidates for Governor of Florida. You can criticize me all you want, but as a principled selective voter, I am content with my decision. I wouldn’t want to support someone who would vote or act in ways with which I did not agree. That’s my subjective assessment of the candidates in my state and locality. Ultimately the choice is yours, but realize that your voting choice, no matter how irrelevant (or relevant), does affect other people. Something to consider.