Libertarians Offer Palatable Alternatives in Virginia and New Jersey Elections

Options for those with a taste for freedom and tolerance.

Less than a minute into the interview, Ken Kaplan says something no politician should ever admit.

“I know I’m not going to win,” said Kaplan, the Libertarian Party candidate for governor in New Jersey.

Like other third parties, Libertarians have never won much of anything in American politics.  But as they have since the party was founded in the 1970s, their candidates keep pressing on with a message of limited government, lower taxation and limited regulation.

The Libertarian candidates in Tuesday’s gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia represent the two sides of third-party politics in America. On one hand, they are principled, committed and willing to forge ahead despite virtually no chance of success — issue candidates who will be happy to win a few supporters to their cause in the hope of greater victories to come.

On the other hand, in a nation growing more dissatisfied with the two traditional political parties, with Democratic promises that never seem to be delivered and Republican ideals that seem rooted in the 20th century, they represent a new way forward.

Kaplan and Robert Sarvis, the Libertarian candidate in Virginia’s gubernatorial race, are not going to win on Tuesday.  Both say they are running because the two major parties are a false choice for voters.

Robert SarvisRobert Sarvis“Virginia really needs another option,” Sarvis told Watchdog.org in an interview this spring, before he officially was a candidate on the ballot. “I think the other two candidates really epitomize exactly what’s wrong with their respective parties, and really shouldn’t be trusted with the reins of government.”

It’s in this kind of race — and this kind of political climate — that Sarvis has garnered up to 13 percentage points in the public-opinion polls. And that’s nothing to sneeze at for a third-party candidate who has never held public office and has raised barely $200,000 mostly from individual Virginians’ donations — roughly one-one hundredth of what his opponents have raised from major outside players.

The two gubernatorial elections this week are outliers on the American political calendar, but they can be important harbingers — for both good and ill — in advance of next year’s critical mid-term elections, when voters will choose governors in more than 30 states, along with congressional members and state legislators.

In Virginia, polls have shown repeatedly that voters aren’t satisfied with their major party choices — ultra-conservative Republican candidate, Ken Cuccinelli, and wheeling-and-dealing Democrat, Terry McAuliffe.

And that dissatisfaction with them and both political parties is exactly why Sarvis said he decided to make a run for it.

“I basically looked at what the race was going to be like, and when it became clear that it was going to be Terry McAuliffe against Ken Cuccinelli, I decided, why not run,” Sarvis said.

The story in New Jersey is different, but with similar themes.

Unlike Virginia, the race in New Jersey is a foregone conclusion, with incumbent Gov. Chris Christie on his way to any easy victory over state Sen. Barbara Buono, D-Middlesex, the Democratic nominee.

Though polls show voters to be dissatisfied with many of Christie’s policies, the governor is widely popular, thanks in no small part to his outgoing personality and leadership skills in the wake of last year’s Hurricane Sandy that struck the New Jersey coastline.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • JidaKida||

    Never really thought about it liek that before. Wow.

    www.PrivacyRoad.tk

  • Live Free or Diet||

    "Virginia really needs another option," Sarvis told Watchdog.org

    I did my part. The 52nd vote cast in my district.

  • RobSmalls||

    Same here.

  • Redmanfms||

    Voting for Cooch. Sarvis fucked up by being in favor of a road usage tax.

    Cooch is good on economic issues (better than Sarvis anyway), great on guns, and given that sodomy laws are done and aren't coming back, I'm going to vote for the guy who actually has a chance to defeat McAuliffe.

    I couldn't be convinced to vote GOP in any of the presidential elections since I got the vote and I voted for the libertarian the grand total of two times they came on the ballot in my district, but I'm not going to "do my part" on this one.

  • SugarFree||

    Voting for Cooch.

    Shocker. I'm reeling over here.

  • Redmanfms||

    Huh?

  • Rich||

    Urban Dictionary is your friend.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Vaginas stole that word and Cuccinelli is going to take it back. Just like Tony Soprano's next door neighbor.

  • Rich||

    And Anthony Weiner.

  • Tonio||

    Cooch is good on economic issues (better than Sarvis anyway), great on guns, and given that sodomy laws are done and aren't coming back those icky gays ruin everything, I'm going to vote for the guy who actually has a chance to defeat McAuliffe.

    Delicious socon butt-hurt. Thanks for that.

  • BardMetal||

    So OH MY GAWD HE DOESN'T LIKE TEH GAYZ!!! Outranks economic issues and gun rights with some libertarians?

    Some of you guys are more fanatical culture warriors then any of those mean ol' Socons.

  • Tonio||

    That's right, BM, cry it out. You'll feel better.

  • BardMetal||

    Do you have an argument? I'm curious as to why Cooch's statement about gays is more important to you then tax issues and the 2nd amendment?

    Is there a rational reason? Or do you just feel personally insulted by Cooch?

  • Tonio||

    Didn't say it was. How's that projection thing working out for you? Here's a tissue.

  • BardMetal||

    Projection? do you even know what that word means? And tissue? Do you think I really give a shit about this race? I don't live in Virginia.

    I just think it's ridiculous how so many Libertarians bitch about what a waste of time culture war issues are, but then use the protest vote against a guy solely because of culture war bullshit.

  • Rob||

    Maybe it has something to do with the fact republicans talk a good game on economics and consistently fail to deliver. Pols rarely fail to live down to my low expectations.

    That Cuccinelli would take his anti-sodomy law appeal all the way to the Supreme Court tells me a lot about how I think he would govern. Any pol who tries to control what people do in their bedroom shouldn't be allowed to lead a local drainage commission let alone hold sway over a state.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    He didn't even say that he didn't like the gays.

    He said that he doesn't think worshipping teh butt sex is the uber value to vote on.

  • BardMetal||

    How much you want to bet that if Rand Paul gets the GOP nomination, and says something stupid about the gays that these idiots won't vote for him?

  • Redmanfms||

    He said that he doesn't think worshipping teh butt sex is the uber value to vote on.

    That isn't even my position. My position is that because Cooch simply doesn't have the power to reinstate the laws his views on sodomy are completely irrelevant. Were Cooch to actually have the ability to reinstate them, I wouldn't vote for him, which is what I stated at 0914.

    Notice Tonio didn't respond to that post, because it doesn't leave him a way to put words in my mouth and claim I have Socon butthurt.

  • Tonio||

    Uh, no, you're in time-out, too.

  • Redmanfms||

    Uh, no, you're in time-out, too.

    Oh, I'm sure I am in your "time out" because I call you out for being a LYING SACK OF SHIT who blatantly misrepresents others' statements, puts words in their mouths and then proceeds to attack them in the lowest and most duplicitous way possible.

    Eat shit, fuck off, and die in a fucking fire you miserable mendacious little fuckstain.

  • Redmanfms||

    Leave it to Tonio to make a totally dishonest argument.

    I'm opposed to sodomy laws on principle, and if Cooch were actually able to reinstate them I wouldn't vote for him.

  • BardMetal||

    Yes there is no way in hell they would ever be able to reinstate sodomy laws, but higher taxes and 2nd amendment infringements are certainly possible.

    Of course they'll bitch about that when McAuliffe wins.

    I rally think Libertarians are their own worst enemy.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yep, especially after their candidate came out against tax cuts and for privacy invasions - oh and doesn't like that whole 'austrian econ' thing.

  • Jaybirdmojo||

    What I hope for, what I always hope for, is that the Libertarian gets more votes than the difference between the two "real" parties. Make the party that lost say "what could we have done to pick those guys up?"

  • Ted S.||

    Make the party that lost say "what could we have done to pick those guys up?"

    "Why did those guys cost us a victory?"

  • Jaybirdmojo||

    Whatever it takes to get them to edge closer to "we need to co-opt those SOBs."

    Or is it S'sOB?

    Anyway, stealing our issues and running on them is what I hope eventually happens... and getting more votes than the difference seems to me to be an attainable goal.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Pretty much what the Dems did to pick up Socialist votes, back when Socialists were still a voting bloc to consider.

  • Tonio||

    When you use an acronym you pluralize the whole thing for expediency, so SOB's.

    But when they steal libertarian issues it often turns into lip service, ie "small government."

  • SugarFree||

    What are the SOBs possessing?

  • Tonio||

    Bite me. It used to be correct to use apostrophes when pluralizing acronyms. Look, I stopped using the terminal comma, so throw me a bone here.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    But when they steal libertarian issues it often turns into lip service, ie "small government."

    Yeah, there's no way that the donks will pick up Jarvis's ideas of raising taxes and increasing privacy invasions.

    No way.

  • Ted S.||

    Instant runoff voting.

  • Almanian!||

    You know who else suggested "a third way"....

  • cavalier973||

    Fred Garvin?

  • Rich||

    Buddha?

  • mr simple||

    Jonathan Cowan?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Any man trying to convince his girlfriend to do anal?

  • Pathogen||

    Bill Clinton?

  • cavalier973||

    “Virginia really needs another option,” Sarvis told Watchdog.org

    Watch Dogs!

  • cavalier973||

    Though polls show voters to be dissatisfied with many of Christie’s policies, the governor is widely popular, thanks in no small part to his outgoing personality and leadership skills in the wake of last year’s Hurricane Sandy that struck the New Jersey coastline.

    It takes a real leader to get down on his knees and lick Obama's shoes until they shine.

  • Pathogen||

    "It takes a real leader to get down on his knees and lick Obama's shoes until they shine."

    Well, he got a gastric band out of the deal.. kinda like an Obamacare freebee, sooo...

  • Drake||

    The Communist candidate is going to win the Mayor's race in NYC. I'm going to miss his Afro-kid ads in the gym.

  • wareagle||

    so when the self-proclaimed libertarian candidate favors a mileage tax, where is Reason to call bullshit? Instead, we focus on Cooch and what he thinks of the gayz.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    "Cooch" is a proto-fascist like Savonarola. Given the far-right state assembly in VA the first dozen bills he would sign would involve state control of the uterus.

  • wareagle||

    and the sleazebag McAuliffe? Oh, he's just the guy who favors a major gun grab, supports abortion on demand right up until delivery, and is advocating various taxes. But sure, Cooch is much scarier.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Vote LP then. I would.

  • wareagle||

    of course, you would. Becuase you believe doing so would siphon votes from Cooch and you wind up with the statist sleazeball whom you favor.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I weight personal freedom highest - drugs, whores, porn, ESCR, abortion/contraception - all matter most to me.

    I know the top end federal tax rate will stay around 35% unless a GOPer runs up a huge deficit. I live in GA and I have never noticed a state income tax cut.

  • Pathogen||

    "Cooch" is a proto-fascist like Savonarola. Given the far-right state assembly in VA the first dozen bills he would sign would involve state control of the uterus."

    Sooo... you want to keep cooches out of your uterus?

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Hee hee, the owner of the cock I'm resting on is pretending that he lives in Georgia again. That Dave is such a gosh darn kidder!

  • Thomas O.||

    And the Republicrat duopoly maintains its iron-fist grip on power thanks to third-party-vote-shaming.

    Head back down the mountain, Sisyphus. That rock ain't gonna roll itself.

  • SugarFree||

    "We" didn't focus on anything. Eddie and the usual suspects lied about Cooch's position on gays and sodomy, a few of us refuted him roundly and John spun a false narrative about culture war to demand support for Cooch.

    When John engages in epic projection and makes it about his nonsense, any debate about mileage taxes is strangled in the crib.

  • wareagle||

    this isn't about John, it's about Sarvis and this mileage tax. You're acting like a Dem with that response. How is supporting such a tax better than not loving the gays?

  • SugarFree||

    Sarvis supports universal school choice, drug policy reform,[14] right-to-work laws,[15] and protecting gun rights.[16] Sarvis also supports same sex marriage and says it is a personal issue for him because his own marriage, which is biracial, was illegal in Virginia 50 years ago.[17] Sarvis opposed the controversial transportation package, Virginia H.B. 2313, which increased the sales tax and was signed into law by Virginia governor Bob McDonnell; Sarvis said the bill was a "mistake" arguing that, "We should have moved closer to a system in which users pay for the transportation infrastructure they use. Instead, we moved in the opposite direction."

    What a flaming liberal. Commie shitbaby all the way, right?

  • SugarFree||

    In addition, Sarvis wants to end various taxes such as the car tax and occupational license tax[14] and has called for tax reform with a focus on a more uniform and rule of law-based tax system.[18] Sarvis also called for an end to "the increasing aggressiveness of law enforcement tactics" after Virginia ABC agents mistook a crate of sparkling water for a case of beer which led to a late-night altercation with University of Virginia students; Sarvis proposed shifting law enforcement from the ABC, the state agency tasked with policing liquor sales, to state and local police and for Virginia to end its eighty-year state monopoly on liquor sales.[19]

    Fuck all that! Vague promises from a Republican is so much better.

  • wareagle||

    I asked a question and the bolded notion ignores the reality that users already pay for transportion infrastructure.

    Let's see: there is the gasoline tax, car licensing and registration fees, and various other driving-related levies. That states are evidently mis-managing their transportation budgets is not the users' fault.

  • SugarFree||

    This is what he voted against and argued for a mileage tax to replace.

    HB 2313

    The bill eliminates the $0.175 per gallon tax on motor fuels, and replaces it with a percentage-based tax of 3.5% for gasoline and 6% for diesel fuel. The bill provides for a refund of an amount equal to a 2.5% tax paid on diesel fuel for passenger cars, pickup or panel trucks, and trucks having a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.

    The bill imposes a $64 annual registration fee on hybrid electric motor vehicles, alternative fuel vehicles, and electric motor vehicles. Current law imposes a $50 fee on electric motor vehicles only. The revenues are designated for the Highway Maintenance and Operating Fund.

    The bill raises the state sales and use tax across the Commonwealth from 4% to 4.3% and designates the increased revenues for the Highway Maintenance and Operating Fund, the Intercity Passenger Rail Operating and Capital Fund, and the Commonwealth Mass Transit Fund.

    He opposed raising taxes that would have been funneled in part to Light Rail and other forms of mass transit. What a monster.

  • wareagle||

    he's supporting a sales tax increase, is he not? Why, yes he is; says so right in the part you quoted. Where in the libertarian handbook is personal vehicle mileage a concern for govt?

    The gas tax does more or less the same thing. The more you drive, the more gas you buy, the more gas tax is involved. And again, no one asks what it is that the VA DOT is doing with the revenue it already gets.

  • SugarFree||

    He opposed this bill. Opposed. As in "voted against."

    A mileage tax does not necessarily mean an increase in overall taxes, just how it is collected.

    Cooch's big legislative achievement? Getting cops paid more.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Did you read that correctly? Sarvis was against that bill. It's what he would replace with the mileage tax.

  • wareagle||

    why is a mileage tax better? What part of libertarian doctrine holds that it is govt's place to monitor your mileage?

  • Mike M.||

    What part of libertarian doctrine holds that it is govt's place to monitor your mileage?

    You've not familiar with the doctrine that it is far better to be invited to a liberal cocktail party than to not be invited to any cocktail party at all?

  • SugarFree||

    What part of libertarian doctrine holds that it is govt's place to monitor your mileage?

    So the argument is about who's a more perfect libertarian? Because Cooch will fucking lose, just like he's going to lose this election.

    On November 24, 2010, Cuccinelli issued a legal opinion that police, school administrators, and teachers could search students' cell phones on the basis of reasonable suspicions in order to deter cyberbullying and "sexting".

    Fuck you, 4th Amendment.

    During his Senate career, Cuccinelli introduced bills urging the United States Congress to amend the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to revoke citizenship rights for children of illegal immigrants who are born in the U.S.,[125] to allow businesses to sue others that hire undocumented immigrants,[126] and to establish inability to speak English in the workplace as cause for disqualification to receive unemployment benefits.[127]

    Fuck you, Freedom of Association.

    He's done some good on eminent domain and makes noises about cutting taxes, that's about it.

  • Tonio||

    Funny how if it's all about the mileage tax you had to bring up those icky gays. Busted.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Ah, the people doing the lying are the ones claiming it is sinister for a state ag to side with his state's courts and an obama appointed judge to keep a pervy creep in prison, and that next thing you know hell be throwing people in prison for bedroom activities with their opposite sex spouses. How does his supposed agenda to burn gays at the stake relate to him wanting to put opposite sex spouses in prison? Brcause thats the stand his opponents are taking. And the guy hes trying to krep in prison isnt even gay, but a heterosexual perv who asked a 17 yo girl to blow him and then accused er of rape. But yeah, this case proves he wants to crucift matthew shephard on a fence post.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And of course you lrft out the part where sarvis said hes not an austrian.

  • SugarFree||

    Oh, Eddie. You're supposed to keep up the dodge that this is about mileage taxes.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Logic isnt your strong suit. Youre the one pushing the narrative that a guy who has already established his credibility on federalism issues (ocare and epa suits) is doing something sinister by taking the same legal position as his states courts and an obama appointed judge. This has nothing go do with stuff he did in the state legislature. Is it your position that two federal judges get to overrule the virginia courts on a disputed legal point when congress has forbidden that very thing? Tom tomorrow and other clowns say he wants to ban heterosexual activities between husband and wife. Somyoure saying his homo hate will lead him to imprison heteros?

  • SugarFree||

    Logic? You're going to talk to me about logic?

    Pervy and gross, sure, but they have to charge that guy with sodomy because the age of consent was 16. He did nothing illegal without the sodomy law to charge him with. Oral sex between consenting adults in private is what Cooch wants to keep him in jail for.

    But you don't really give a shit about any of this. Cooch is against abortion, so anything else he does is just peachy by you.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm guessing your crystal ball is in the shop because your guesses about the contents of my mind are mistaken.

    I'm also guessing you haven't read the relevant legal documents, nor are you familiar with the fact that Congress had banned federal appeals courts from doing what the 2-1 4th circuit decision did here: overruling a state court on a disputed legal point.

    Argue all you want about C's record in the Va legislature, but don't go around pretending that supporting his own state courts and siding with an Obama judge, in a case involving a hetero soliciting a minor, proves some deep-seated plot to put herero married couples in prison in order to get at the gays. That's just silly.

  • Tonio||

    Wow, Eddie, you've descended into frothy, incoherent ranting. Srsly.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So your position is that two 4th circuit judges, over the dissent of an obama appointed judge, get to ovefrule the virginia courts on a disputed legal point when congress has forbidden such behavior. Im asking you seriously.

  • Tonio||

    Nope, didn't say anything about that. And don't put words in my mouth; that's John-level dishonesty and will get you ignored in a nanosecond.

  • Redmanfms||

    Nope, didn't say anything about that. And don't put words in my mouth; that's John-level dishonesty and will get you ignored in a nanosecond.

    Holy shit. You take derptastic projection to an entirely new level with this whopper Tonio.

  • Tonio||

    Awwww, someone has a sad.

  • Redmanfms||

    Awwww, someone has a sad.

    There are very few things on which I agree with John, but his opinion of you is spot-on. You are a nasty, hateful, duplicitous little liar.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So you don't care whether C's legal position is correct, and can't be bothered to do the research? But you're still convinced that his position in that case is part of some sinister plot against teh gays?

  • Tonio||

    See, Eddie, the way it works is when you reach a certain level of incoherence, dishonesty and projection, I stop engaging you.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Sugarfree said I was lying about C's position. All I said was that the pervy guy's case doesn't prove what it's supposed to prove: a sinister plot to imprison same-sex and opposite sex adult couples. That's the incoherent position I was rebutting. And if your only reply is ad hominems, I'm guessing you have no actual rebuttal.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    So to return to my question: Does a panel of the 4th circuit get to overrule the Virginia courts on a disputed legal point when Congress has forbidden such behavior? Or was the Obama-appointed judge simply wrong when he dissented? And if the 4th Circuit was wrong, what's wrong with C saying so?

  • Redmanfms||

    See, Eddie, the way it works is when you reach a certain level of incoherence, dishonesty and projection, I stop engaging you.

    Again with the projection.

    So far, you're the dishonest one. I said absolutely nothing about "teh gayz" in any of my posts yet you accused me of having socon butthurt.

    You are a dishonest little shitweasel, just like the other Tony.

  • Tonio||

    so when the self-proclaimed libertarian candidate favors a mileage tax, where is Reason to call bullshit? Instead, we focus on Cooch and what he thinks of the gayz.

    And it's interesting how people can swallow any number of non-libertarian positions held by Team candidates but get the vapors because of one bad position taken by a third-party candidate.

    And bonus points for blaming those icky gays.

    Thanks for the delicious socon butt-hurt.

  • Redmanfms||

    And bonus points for blaming those icky gays.

    Tonio playing dishonest identity politics, how incredibly unoriginal.

  • sarcasmic||

    Those Libertarian thieves are stealing Republican votes! Those votes belong to Republicans! They are Republican property! Arrest those Libertarian thieves! Arrest them!

  • wareagle||

    so what about Sarvis and the mileage tax? That bothers me a helluva lot more than whatever fascination Cooch has with the gays.

  • sarcasmic||

    Dunno! Don't care! The only thing that matters with regards to the Libertarian is that he's stealing votes that rightfully belong to Republicans! The Libertarian can't win, so any votes that the Libertarian gets are Republican votes, and if the Republican loses it will be the Libertarian's fault! Libertarian spoilers are handing the election to the Democrats! Spoilers! Thieves! Hooligans!

  • wareagle||

    seriously? That's the sort of answer I would expect from The Daily Beast.

  • sarcasmic||

    *psst* I'm channeling Ann Coulter...

  • wareagle||

    I think it's a question worth asking. Glomming onto an L for its own sake is not much different than doing that for a D or R.

  • sarcasmic||

    I got fooled into voting for the lesser of two evils in 2008, and I felt dirty for it. Never again. I'd rather vote for a loser and have a clear conscience than vote for an establishment douche bag.

  • wareagle||

    fair enough.

  • db||

    I made that change ten years ago and I feel so.much better. Never again will the lesser of two evils get.my vote. There are so many lesserer evils to vote for.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I think it's a question worth asking. Glomming onto an L for its own sake is not much different than doing that for a D or R.

    Not necessarily, it can be a protest vote telling the donks and phants that they both suck.

  • Tonio||

    Shorter PeaceChicken: Waaaaah!

  • Rich||

    they run with the hopes that one day, Americans will value free markets, and a free society, more than things politicians can give them.

    So, they run with the hopes that one day some states will secede from the Union?

  • pan fried wylie||

    ideals that seem rooted in the 20th century

    There's nothing wrong with roots in the past. That's where roots belong. As long as you have new branches reaching into the future.

    /Sequoias-Not-Shrubs

  • Rich||

    You know who else held ideals that ... Never mind.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Lots of people hold ideals that never mind.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Kurt Cobain?

  • Pathogen||

    For just a little while...

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Kurt Cobain?

    Any relation to Kurt Kabang?

  • Tonio||

    I have mixed feelings on the mileage tax. It's not inherently anti-libertarian since it's a user fee. A gas tax is also, effectively, a mileage tax, but you do have the ability to pay less tax by driving a high-efficiency vehicle.

    For me the problem with the mileage tax is the government intrusion into my driving habits. Yearly odometer checks would be barely acceptable; any type of tracking device absolutely unacceptable.

    I realize that many people here get exercised about mileage taxes because they are favored by the anti-car, social engineering crowd, but we have to move beyond knee-jerk politics or we're no better than them.

  • Pathogen||

    These kinds of proposals and laws are more often then not, merely a means to an end rather the end itself. I believe that Obamacare was the means, and an unbridled commerce clause was the end game, and they lost their prize in the SCOTUS. If reducing fuel consumption/ repairing the roadz are not necessarily the end game, than what is the target... and what's beyond...

  • Tonio||

    Also, a mileage tax would affect all vehicles equally; electric vehicles and natural gas vehicles don't pay gas taxes. I could also live with a fomula where it's mileage times gross vehicle weight. That cement truck does a lot more damage per mile driven than a smartcar.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Also, a mileage tax would affect all vehicles equally;

    You haven't been paying attention to how government policies are actually enacted and accrete - have you?

    They'll put an exemption in for 'public safety' vehicles right away and underhandedly expand it to anyone that works for the state.

    Then they'll offer a lower rate for teh teacher - because the KIDS and of course admin drones that outnumber teachers.

    Then they'll raise the rate for specific vehicles that are socially desctructive - "no one is saying that you can't drive your SUV, we're just saying that you need to pay the cost of the externalities that it produces".

    Then they'll offer a lower rates for the Big Three because Team AmeriKA or something.

    Then they'll come up with a tiered tax because mileage taxes hurt the poor and minorities the hardest.

    Then they'll ...

  • Pathogen||

    Spot on...

  • Tonio||

    Yes, I'm aware that this simple proposal could well be larded with exemptions, etc. That's not, in my mind, a reason to discard this out of hand since I'm only agreeing with the proposal as-stated, not every possible contingency.

    I also realize that in many circumstances it's preferable to stick with current, deeply flawed policies rather than risk introducing more mischief into the system. But not all circmumstances.

    Well, vehicle weight would cause butt hurt for SUV owners for sure. But the heavier the vehicle the more damage it does. As long as the rate is based on weight, not arbitrary bullshit "socially destruction" criteria it's still completely fair.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Heavier vehicals also use more gas so you could do a tax on gasoline. Oh wait.

  • Loki||

    Still, he and Sarvis say they run with the hopes that one day, Americans will value free markets, and a free society, more than things politicians can give them.

    Yeah, keep dreaming. It's never gonna happen.

  • AlmightyJB||

    We'll always have the future to look forward to.

  • HenryC||

    Sarvis is a social libertarian, but not a financial one. Cuccinelli is the opposite. I would vote my pocketbook if I were a Virginian.

  • ejpoleii||

    It appears that Sarvis is an Obama shill.

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/k.....e=facebook

  • JimMelloan||

    Just voted for Kaplan today. Never thought he'd get any press, even from Reason.

  • BarbaraWHadley||

    My last pay check was 9500 dolr working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is what I do---------- http://www.jobs53.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement