Vote for Liberty by Not VotingRead the rest here.
by Daniel J. Sanchez
"He may not be perfect, but at least he is better than Obama." Even some former Ron Paul supporters have given this line as an excuse for supporting Mitt Romney for the United States Presidency.
The line betrays a deep misunderstanding of what liberty means.
As many libertarians have already pointed out, Romney is not nearly as different from Obama as is commonly supposed. But more importantly, in some vital ways he is actually worse.
For one thing, your vote helps provide a mandate for all of the elected officer’s policies, whether you support those policies or not. As one author has said, voting "just encourages the bastards."At this point I am more convinced to vote for Obama rather than Romney. If the end is coming, then let's get it over with.
Furthermore, every vote for a federal office is a vote for the hyper-state known as the U.S. federal government, and for hyper-states in general. It is effectively an endorsement of centralized power and a vote of no confidence in localism. And yes, this would be true of a vote for a middling libertarian like Gary Johnson, or even an exceptionally heroic individual like Ron Paul. True progress toward liberty cannot be achieved through the offices of a gargantuan state.
I plan on voting for Gary Johnson, but I could be convinced not to vote.
The way I see it now is: if few people vote, then that will be a mere footnote in the election of either Obama or Romney. At some point a significant enough number of Americans could vote for the Libertarian candidate that would get future Libertarian candidates at least some media coverage, and maybe even a spot at the debates.
I'm skeptical that I will get to see a Libertarian candidate in a debate with the R and D, but like my dad says, "its only a wasted vote until its not."