Libertarian Party

Virginia's Libertarian Moment

Robert Sarvis will not win, but some libertarian principles will.

|

Unless just about every polling outfit in the country is wrong, Terry McAuliffe should cruise to victory in Tuesday's election. If he does, says Tarina Keene, "he will owe his victory to the women of Virginia — women who want to own their own bodies. Who want to be able to make their own reproductive health-care decisions."

Keene directs NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, so she has a vested interest in this argument: Making McAuliffe's victory contingent on pro-choice support makes McAuliffe beholden to pro-choice activists. But the vested interest does not make the argument wrong. In fact, given the lopsided gender gap in the gubernatorial contest, it is hard to refute.

The McAuliffe camp has flogged Ken Cuccinelli relentlessly on social issues, particularly abortion — something the Republican candidate opposes in every case except when the mother's life is at stake. And the flogging has hurt: In August, McAuliffe enjoyed a 12-point lead among women. By October, the spread had increased to 24.

Keene's remark is interesting not only for its political implications, but also for its philosophical implications. Talk of owning your own body has strong libertarian overtones. Many libertarians start by embracing the concept of individual autonomy or "self-ownership" — a notion that goes back at least to John Locke ("every man has a Property in his own Person. This nobody has a right to, but himself"). Then they adopt policy positions that logically follow from it, such as legalizing drugs and opposing motorcycle-helmet laws. It's your body, libertarians say, and nobody else can tell you what to do with it.

Granted, pro-choice groups do not apply this concept with any sort of consistency — witness NARAL's support for Obamacare's insistence that every individual buy an insurance policy, whether she wants one or not. But their inconsistency does not impeach the broader point that Cuccinelli's stance on abortion has slammed into a wall of resistance from those who don't want him imposing his personal views on them as governor.

And it's not just abortion. The Republican's stance on homosexuality also has scared away potential supporters. Homosexuality "brings nothing but self-destruction, not only physically but of [the] soul," Cuccinelli said five years ago. The next year, he insisted "homosexual acts…should not be accommodated in government policy." His views "haven't changed," he said earlier this year.

It's true, as he also says, that many other Virginians share these "sincerely held beliefs." Yet Cuccinelli has let those beliefs drive policy: Early in his term as attorney general he told state universities they had no authority to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and he has defended with Ahab-like mania a state sodomy law doomed by the Supreme Court a decade ago.

Among those who share Cuccinelli's beliefs is Virginia's current governor, Bob McDonnell — whose master's thesis at Regent University amounted to a socially conservative catechism. Yet McDonnell convinced voters he would eschew social issues and focus on jobs. Once elected, he generally did. (He even countermanded Cuccinelli's anti-anti-discrimination order.) Cuccinelli talks about jobs too — but the public can see his heart lies elsewhere.

So some who otherwise would have supported Cuccinelli have found refuge in Robert Sarvis, the Libertarian Party nominee. Sarvis has been polling well for a third-party candidate, scoring as much as 10 percent in some polls. If he clears that bar on Election Day, then the party will win automatic ballot access for state and local offices through 2021.

A sizable proportion of Sarvis' support has come from Republicans. Hence, there has been a last-minute effort to bring Republicans who lean libertarian back into the fold. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul recently went to bat for Cuccinelli, saying "a lot of the things" the candidate talks about "are free-market, limited-government, leave-me-alone government." In The Washington Examiner, columnist Tim Carney has written that if he won, "Cuccinelli would arguably be the most libertarian governor in the United States." The Daily Caller's Matt Lewis has seconded the motion, asking "Why Are Libertarians Helping Elect Crony Capitalist Terry McAuliffe in Virginia?"

They have a point: McAuliffe is no economic libertarian. On the other hand, he is not about to nationalize the railroads. His deviations from laissez-faire orthodoxy are driven by opportunism and indifference rather than doctrinal hostility. You can't say the same about Cuccinelli's views on social issues.

True, Cuccinelli does take the libertarian position on economic questions, property rights and the role of the federal leviathan.

Unlike many other Republicans, he also opposes corporate welfare ladled out under the pretext of economic development. All most excellent. (Not so excellent: Cuccinelli's hard-right stance on immigration — which contradicts the libertarian idea that people, like goods, should be able to cross borders freely.)

To Cuccinelli's conservative defenders, his economic libertarianism ought to suffice. Ed Crane, former president of the libertarian Cato Institute, heads a PAC spending $300,000 on Sarvis' behalf. According to Carney, "Crane's only critique of Cuccinelli" was that the Republican "?'is a socially intolerant, hard-right conservative with little respect for civil liberties.'?"

"Only"? To conservatives, economic freedom is paramount, the rest no big deal. But to libertarians, personal and civil liberties are no less vital: Big government has no place in either the boardroom or the bedroom.

If Cuccinelli shared that view, then he would have a better chance of participating in the gubernatorial inauguration Jan. 8 — rather than merely watching it.

This column originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Advertisement

NEXT: Senate Mulls Outlawing Anti-Gay Job Discrimination; What Will Come of Freedom of Association?

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.

  1. True, Cuccinelli does take the libertarian position on economic questions, property rights and the role of the federal leviathan.

    Unlike many other Republicans, he also opposes corporate welfare ladled out under the pretext of economic development. All most excellent.

    Right up to election day.

    As soon as he’s in office, it’s lolly time for his friends.

    1. And that Aresen, if true, is a valid reason for a Republican to protest and vote L. But if that is true, the Ls haven’t been making much of an effort to get that fact out. Instead, the whole message has been about the culture war.

      1. My vote for Robert Sarvis is a vote for better candidates. No more, no less.

        1. Why do you think he is a better candidate? The only reason I can see is gays and abortion. You guys love that shit. You care deeply about it. I don’t.

          So I see them as equals and thus would vote for the guy with the best chance to win.

          1. Oh John, such delicious tears. I can’t wait to do this next year when the House and Senate Elections start.

            1. What, you can’t be serious? If Obamacare doesn’t substantially improve in the next 3 months, the Democrats are going to get positively hammered in the mid-terms. Look how bad 2010 was for Democrats in Congress and expect worse.

              1. What, you can’t be serious? If Obamacare doesn’t substantially improve in the next 3 months, the Democrats are going to get positively hammered in the mid-terms. Look how bad 2010 was for Democrats in Congress and expect worse.

                No, no, you misunderstand. I have no love for Team Blue, but John will be on here telling me how I have to vote for Peter King or some other ridiculous shit otherwise I love abortions more than I love low taxes.

                I love election time because it brings out the dishonest crying hack in John. I think he’s secretly John Boehner.

              2. To be fair debt ceiling battles aren’t doing Republicans any favors either.

                Lets not count our chickens before they hatch.

            2. JWatts,

              Randian is ecstatic at the prospect of the Dems winning tomorrow and again next November. But he is not a culture warrior or a Team Blue troll or anything.

              I think in fairness it is more that he is just stupid. But it could be both.

          2. Why do you think he is a better candidate?

            I wrote that my vote for Robert Sarvis is a vote for better candidates, not that my vote for Robert Sarvis is a vote for a better candidate.

        2. My vote for Robert Sarvis is a vote for better candidates. No more, no less.

          And I’m glad you are making this protest vote. And I’m really, really glad it’s your state and not mine. Because while a strong message needs to be sent to the Republican party, your state is going to have to endure at least one term of Terry McAuliffe. A term that is bound to be filled with statist and cronyist suckage.

          1. A term that is bound to be filled with statist and cronyist suckage.

            And Bob MacDonald’s (R-VA) term has been filled with what again?

            1. In my opinion Terry McAuliffe trumps almost anyone.

              However, in wholesale, I agree with the idea that the Republican party needs a clear signal, that it won’t win elections with low quality candidates. I just would rather not pay the retail price. In otherwords, I’m glad McAuliffe’s not going to be the governor of my state. 😉

              Out of the three candidate’s McAuliffe’s the worst. VA is going to win the booby prize.

              1. Sad. True.

          2. JW: Yes, but Virginia is now the only state that does not allow its governor to run for consecutive terms of office.

          3. And this is why we’ll never escape this vicious cycle… the instant a third alternative pops up, we’re shamed into conformity by the two parties going “ZOMG! You’ll split the vote and the enemy will win!!!!!111” And people wonder why we have defeatist attitudes.

    2. As soon as he’s in office, it’s lolly time for his friends.

      Which is why “changing the republican party from the inside” will never fucking work; they claim to be libertarians right up until it comes time to steal your money to give it to their buddies.

      1. SARVIS FOR GOVERNOR, because I’m tired of having to choose between my bedroom and my gun safes.

        1. As the saying goes, choosing the lesser evil is still evil.

      2. Which is why “changing the republican party from the inside” will never fucking work

        It’s already working that the federal level and it is really our only option.

      3. Republicans look at the Libertarian vote the same way that Progressives look at the African-American vote. It doesn’t occur to them that Libertarians are serious about the whole “liberty thing,” and that talking a good game about smaller government and cutting taxes isn’t enough, any more than Democrats talking about legalizing pot doesn’t result in swarms of Libertarians crossing over to the left. They think Libertarians are pretty much just Republicans with stubborn streaks.

        Case in point, John talking about “gays and abortion” being “all” we care about, as if the idea of a person being free from government coercion in regard to association and even in regard to his/her own body is some trivial thing we should just shelve in the interests of preventing a Democrat from being elected. Folks like John, bless their hearts, think Libertarians should be happy with Republicans that now and again pay some lip service to libertarian ideals in the interest of defeating our (to John’s mind) “common” enemy. He doesn’t understand that if a Libertarian would be content with a Cuccinelli he or she would just register as a Republican. He may as well complain about Democrats not voting for Cooch as Libertarians daring to vote for a Libertarian candidate instead of staying on the reservation and voting for the latest Republican compromise.

        1. but where is the liberty for the child being aborted? I would think that Libertarians would be pro-life, as my son is. Sleep with who you want, but take responsibility for your choices. The most innocent and helpless are destroyed at the convenience of their parents.

      4. Which is why “changing the republican party from the inside” will never fucking work

        The socialists were pretty good at changing the Democratic party from the inside. I see no reason libertarians can’t do the same thing.

  2. To Cuccinelli’s conservative defenders, his economic libertarianism ought to suffice. Ed Crane, former president of the libertarian Cato Institute, heads a PAC spending $300,000 on Sarvis’ behalf. According to Carney, “Crane’s only critique of Cuccinelli” was that the Republican “?’is a socially intolerant, hard-right conservative with little respect for civil liberties.’?”

    If economic libertarianism alone doesn’t suffice, then you are a culture warrior. Do Libertarians really want to be single issue culture war voters? If the idea is to either destroy the Republican Party or take it over, how does being all about abortion and gays do that?

    Most Republicans are going to fall into one of two camps. They will either be on the other side of those culture war issues or they will be like me and just not care and are tired of hearing about them. I don’t see how Libertarians appeal to either of those with a “but abortions and gays” as their way to distinguish themselves from the Republicans.

    Maybe you can get some Democratic voters but I don’t see how. Most if not all of them are going to say “your damn right I believe in abortion and gay issues, that is why I vote D”. So who exactly does the L party attract then?

    1. If economic libertarianism alone doesn’t suffice, then you are a culture warrior.

      So you’re saying that if you’re not a socon culture warrior who cares only about economic freedom, then you’re a culture warrior?

      The hell?

      1. So you’re saying that if you’re not a socon culture warrior who cares only about economic freedom, then you’re a culture warrior?

        No. What I am saying is, if culture war issues are the thing that decides your vote and the one issue you won’t compromise on, you are a cutlure warrior.

        I am a gun rights warrior. I don’t care if they are perfect on economic issues, I won’t vote for any candidate who isn’t 100% on board with gun rights.

        Are you like that with culture war issues? Will you not vote for someone who doesn’t jive with your views on those issues no matter how close they are to your economic views? If yes, then you are a culture warrior. If no, and you will overlook their disagreements with you on those issues and vote for them because you like their economic views, then you are a economic voter not a culture voter.

        Why should someone who was planning to vote R say no and vote L? If the reason you give involves only “gays and abortion”, you are not going to find many takers. If your reason is “because the R candidate is in love with police power or is just as big of a crook as the D candidate”, you probably going to find a lot more takers, assuming that is true and you make your case.

        1. It sounds like someone doesn’t know what Culture Warrior means.

          Dear John,

          Being a Culture Warrior ! = being a libertarian on social issues.

          Kiss kiss,

          Reality.

          1. Dear Dumb ass

            Being a “warrior” is not an affirmative statement on which side of a conflict you are on.

            Sign,

            The Harsh Mistress known as logic and reason.

            It takes a certain breed of idiot not to understand that only one side of a conflict can be described as a “warrior” in that conflict. I guess we have found such an idiot.

        2. According to Carney, “Crane’s only critique of Cuccinelli” was that the Republican “?’is a socially intolerant, hard-right conservative with little respect for civil liberties.‘?”

          1. with little respect for civil liberties.’?”

            All of which related to culture war bullshit like abortion and gays. You can call it whatever you like. But it is still the culture war. Have fun fighting it, just don’t expect anyone to care.

            1. Shorter John: Vote Republican or you’re a Culture Warrior.

              SSDD – John’s pimping for Republicans again. It must be a day that ends in a Y

              1. which part of

                If Cuccinilli has a good view of police power, he is the only State AG in America who does. If he doesn’t have some kind of crony spending corruption problem, he is one of the few people holding state office who doesn’t.

                Is so difficult to understand? Can you just not read or are you that dishonest?

                There are lots of reasons to vote L. But gays and abortion are in my opinion, not two of them. I just don’t care about those issues. You guys do. That is your right. But you and the SOCONS and the liberals have fun fighting the culture war. But don’t expect me to get all excited about it and change my vote because of those issues.

                1. No, John, you say this every election cycle. I;m not kicking the football this time, ratfucker.

                  1. No, John, you say this every election cycle. I;m not kicking the football this time, ratfucker.

                    Shorter Randian, you must vote L or you are a SOCON culture warrior. Everyone cares about these issues and votes on them like I do.

                    Again, tell me why I should vote L and don’t mention gays or abortion, because I don’t care.

                    1. tell me why I should vote L

                      Because the L is more libertarian that the R or the D.

                    2. well, because the Libertarian is more libertarian than any other candidate. And libertarians should vote for libertarians.

            2. Economics is culture war too.

        3. Are you like that with culture war issues? Will you not vote for someone who doesn’t jive with your views on those issues no matter how close they are to your economic views? If yes, then you are a culture warrior.

          I don’t look at things from the lens of a “culture war”, I look at them from the lens of “freedom”.

          I only vote for that small handful of politicians who are pretty good on freedom on all issues taken as a whole. I always vote for either the candidate who is best advocating for freedom, or else I vote None of the Above by blank balloting the race.

          So, if I lived in Virginia, voting for Sarvis would be a no-brainer, because he is the candidate who is most in favor of freedom. If all I had to choose from was the R or D in that race, I’d totally blank ballot it.

        4. You and your violent rhetoric. People voting L don’t destroy the Republican party, it’s homophones and hoplophobes and hippgriphs like you.

        5. “No. What I am saying is, if culture war issues are the thing that decides your vote and the one issue you won’t compromise on, you are a cutlure warrior.”

          I’ll support a Republican that’s not a libertarian if they’re moderate on social issues, but I don’t have the stomach to defend freaks like Cuccinelli. Especially when there’s a great libertarian alternative.

          As an aside, are there any polls that put Sarvis against McAwful without Cuccinelli? I’d be interested to see that.

          1. I’ll support a Republican that’s not a libertarian if they’re moderate on social issues, but I don’t have the stomach to defend freaks like Cuccinelli. Especially when there’s a great libertarian alternative.

            And why is that? Because culture war issues are things that you will not compromise on. Many SOCONs feel the same way. And thus, no small government majority can be built because people are so divided over the culture war.

            1. Nope. I said I’d support a moderate. I can meet in the middle. They can’t. Cuccinelli’s position on homosexuality is extremist.

          2. OK, but Sarvis is NOT going to win, therefor a vote for him just helps put McAuliffe in office, and other than the progressives, who does that help? He’s the worst possible outcome.

            1. Bicartwright,

              Maybe it is good to have the worst possible outcome for a while.

              It might wake people up.

              The old saying goes, “Things are going to get worse before they get better.”

              1. but I have to suffer through idiots in power. sometimes they can do things that are very hard to undo (Obamacare?)

        6. I am a gun rights warrior.

          And this isn’t part of the culture war?

        7. John,

          Libertarianism is a belief system that applies consistency. While each side claims they represent liberty, Reps and Dems are not consistent in their actual beliefs.

          This is why we can choose not to vote for someone who is strong economically and weak socially – they are inconsistent with the concept of liberty.

          Why not vote for the lesser of two evils then?

          It is my belief that it is too late to try to reverse course this way. Thus, a “protest” (read consistent) vote makes sense then.

          I voted for the lesser of two evils for many many years and all I got was lesson that both D’s and R’s are basically the same when it comes to method and neither will further the cause of liberty in the long run.

        8. Sarvis got a higher score from VDCL than Cuccinellli. In fact, Cuccinelli had to be coached in order to get a passing grade. Since gun rights is your number one issue, you should be voting for Sarvis. Otherwise, you are full of shit.

          1. You might be right but you didn’t provide a link. I sure would like to believe that Sarvis is a better libertarian on paper than Cucci.

    2. if economic libertarianism alone doesn’t suffice, then you are a culture warrior.

      Bullshit.

      There is more to the world than just economics (as important as it is). Personally, I consider economics to be just another social issue, so I dont differentiate between the two. It alls comes from the same base principles.

      Self ownership implies both body and fruits of the body, such as labor.

      1. There is more to the world than just economics (as important as it is)

        Sure there is. But you only get one vote. Which issue is more important to you? Which one disqualifies a candidate? Which issue makes you willing to vote third party protest, stay home or just vote for the other side?

        More importantly, which issue distinguishes the L party from the R party? If it is all the culture war bullshit, you are going to have a hard time finding many supporters since most people who want to fight the culture war are either SOCONS or firmly committed Dems who will object to your economic message.

        Why should I vote L, if I don’t care about these issues or they are not high on my list of things to vote on?

        1. Because the L is more libertarian than the R or the D.

          But I repeat myself.

          1. But Rob, if they are more “libertarian” in ways and about things I don’t care about, what difference does it make?

            Sarvis is a protest vote. You vote for him because you are pissed off at one or the other two parties. And there is nothing a governor can do about gays or abortion, both of which pretty much belong to the courts anyway, that is going to get me pissed off.

            1. By that logic, Cuccinelli is a protest vote, since the D is gonna win this race. So why exactly would you knowingly cast a fake protest vote instead of an actual protest vote?

              1. By that logic, Cuccinelli is a protest vote, since the D is gonna win this race.

                I am not so sure, though I am prepared to be disappointed.

            2. Sarvis is a protest vote.

              Bullshit.

              I know nothing about Sarvis really, but I vote for Libertarians because they best represent me.

              If the GOP or Dems run a candidate who better represents me, they get my vote instead.

              The KY GOP did it in 2010 with Rand Paul. Otherwise, not so much.

            3. Sarvis is a protest vote.

              With all due respect, this is what every Republican says to convince Libertarians to vote against their consciences. A vote is a protest only to the extent that the voter means it as such. If you vote for a Republican because you’re mad at Democrats, then that’s a protest. If you vote for a Republican because you agree with the platform, that’s just a regular ol’ vote.

              Claiming that a vote for someone other than your horse is a “protest vote” is a bit manipulative and a little despicable, frankly, because you’re playing on fear to keep the status quo in place whether you intend to or not. When enough people stop believing the two-party bullshit about “protest votes” our government and our country will change for the better, and not one day before.

              1. Why is it being a protest vote bad? You are free to do that and not wrong for doing so. But what are you protesting when you do that? Mostly it is the culture war. I don’t understand why Libertarians can’t just admit that.

                1. John, by that logic, every vote is a protest vote. Voting for Cuccinelli is a protest vote against McAuliffe’s unlibertarian views on economics (and other issues)

              2. Except that we didn’t get into the semi-socialist, bankrupt mess we’re in because Socialists or Progressives won elections. We got here because socialists and progressives took over the Democratic party.

                1. “Except that we didn’t get into the semi-socialist, bankrupt mess we’re in because Socialists or Progressives won elections. We got here because socialists and progressives took over the Democratic party.”

                  And fundie nanny-statists with warboners took over the Republican Party. They share blame in our $17 trillion mess too.

                  1. They share some of the blame, but much of it is due to going along with Democrats.

            4. Despise, not “pissed off at”. Not “one of”, but both.

    3. If economic libertarianism alone doesn’t suffice, then you are a culture warrior.

      It’s barely noon and John is going Full Retard.

    4. If economic libertarianism alone doesn’t suffice, then you are a culture warrior

      That statement might make sense if the only choice was between Cuccinelli and McAulife, and someone decided to vote McAulife in spite of his un-libertarian economic policies.

      As it stands, the whole point is that there is a third guy in the race who is an actual, almost total package libertarian. Why would you choose between the lesser of two evils when there is an actual good choice?

      1. Why would you choose between the lesser of two evils when there is an actual good choice?

        Because if your first choice can’t win, and your second choice might beat your third choice, then it makes sense to vote for your second choice.

        1. so sir it does not. Evil is evil, there is no such thing as “greater or lesser of the two evils

          1. There are no degrees of good and evil? Seriously? So shoplifting = genocide?

            1. wiping your ass = gay group anal sex

              1. Only if you enjoy it, and use your right hand.

    5. If Cuccinelli was libertarian on social issues, then his opponent can just highlight their difference on economic issues and positions on the role of government. You know, the GOP hates poor people because they want to cut government. Did I mention gun control?

      If libertarians consistently delivered huge wins for the GOP, then stayed home in certain races due to some policy differences, the GOP would pay attention. As it is, no serious GOP candidate is going to alienate conservative base hoping that the Ron Paul crowd will make up the difference. Gary Johnson got less than 5% of the vote in VA.

      The truly independent who can be convinced are still a rare breed. Most people are still unshakeable in their loyalty to an ideology or the two party system. The ACA is a disaster – but how many Dems will question their ways? Maybe vote libertarian because they dislike the GOP?

      Not to dismiss the impact of social issues, but even on this site, pro pot or SSM subjects don’t seem to receive much comments or passion compared to anything that has to do with ACA, NSA, the deficit, medicare, school choice, gun rights, healthcare……. etc.

  3. If Cuccinilli has a good view of police power, he is the only State AG in America who does. If he doesn’t have some kind of crony spending corruption problem, he is one of the few people holding state office who doesn’t. But I couldn’t tell you a single thing about his views on those things because all the L party talks about is abortion and gays.

    What does the L party offer to someone whose number one issue is gun rights? The opportunity to make a protest vote against a candidate who supports those rights over issues that are not, at least to the gun rights voter, as important?

    1. What does the L party offer to someone whose number one issue is gun rights?

      Absolute support.

      1. John can’t really be that stupid. Maybe someone’s paying him to act stupid.

    2. . If he doesn’t have some kind of crony spending corruption problem

      Ahahahahahahaha!

      Phew, man, that was a good one.

      1. Whatever those problems are, perhaps talking about them rather than “gays and abortion” might be a good idea?

        I couldn’t tell you if he does. All I know is that he is on the other side of the gays and abortion debate. And to that I say who fucking cares?

        1. Oh, I was just laughing at the prospect that there’s a politician anywhere without some kind of mental Crony Spending Disorder.

          1. For sure. And that would of course include Sarvis. Sorry, no one who gets into politics is completely honest. Too much temptation.

          2. Rand Paul and Justin Amash clearly don’t.

            1. Two. Out of (quite literally) millions of bureaucrats.

    3. Since when is it the responsibility of candidate X to explain the positions held by candidate Y? In this case, I haven’t heard Cuccinilli stance on those issues from Cuccinilli.

      1. Since when is it the responsibility of candidate X to explain the positions held by candidate Y?

        To my knowledge Cuccinilli is pretty good on economics. If he is not and is lying, then it is on Sarvis to point that out.

        And Cuccinilli has some skeltons in his closet and is really a crook, it is on Sarvis to run on that instead of gays.

  4. “Not so excellent: Cuccinelli’s hard-right stance on immigration”

    His stance sounds OK to me, considering a welfare state that didn’t exist in Ellis Island days. I’m with Milton Friedman on this. If that means I’m not a libertarian, so be it. I hope Cuccinelli wins, or more specifically I hope McAullife loses.

    1. or more specifically I hope McAullife loses.

      The only reason I’m tempted to vote for Cuccinelli. Unfortunately, I’ve voted for too many politicians for the same reason only to find they are no better than “Mr. Please Not You.”

      1. Unfortunately, I’ve voted for too many politicians for the same reason only to find they are no better than “Mr. Please Not You.”

        This is exactly why I stopped voting for Republicans and registered as a Libertarian (I was an independent). Every time there’s a close election the Republicans tell the libertarians and independents that he’s really all about personal freedom and property rights, and just has to say some things to play to the religious right, but he’ll keep the government small and limited as soon as he’s elected, honest. And, without exception, it turns out the candidate really wasn’t a secret libertarian, and he really did believe that cavemen rode dinosaurs and Jesus hates teh gays, and taxing the shit out of you is perfectly acceptable what with all these marijuana addicts that need arresting and so forth.

  5. “To conservatives, economic freedom is paramount, the rest no big deal.”

    Uh, some conservatives simply have a different definition of social freedom, a definition which fits neatly into their views on economic freedom. Eg, the right of a human being not to arbitrarily outlawed due to its stage of growth.

    1. Uh, some people simply have a different definition of when personhood begins.

      Also, people are talking about outlawing fetuses? Who knew?

      1. “In historical legal systems, an outlaw is declared as outside the protection of the law. In pre-modern societies, the criminal is withdrawn all legal protection, so that anyone is legally empowered to persecute or kill them. Outlawry was thus one of the harshest penalties in the legal system. In early Germanic law, the death penalty is conspicuously absent, and outlawing is the most extreme punishment, presumably amounting to a death sentence in practice.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlawry

        1. When children are born they have very few responsibilities and therefore have very few rights. They cannot choose where to go, what to do or what to eat. Instead the must slowly earn these rights from their caregivers by taking on responsibility for themselves. Why is it so hard to accept that they must also earn their right to life.

          1. What the fuck? What crack-addled half-baked philosophy class did you get this shit from?

            1. Ad hominem’s are an admission of defeat. Do you have anything meaningful to add to the discussion?

              1. First of all, is it inherent in the definition of the word “right” that it has to be earned at some point? What does “inalienable” and “endowed by their Creator” mean to you, exactly? That you have to toil in the field behind your parents’ house before you have the right not to be beaten to death by a belt?

                1. So do children have full rights as adults?

                  Some guy makes more sense than you.

                  1. They certainly don’t have to earn the right to life. Holy shit.

                2. What does “inalienable” and “endowed by their Creator” mean to you, exactly?

                  You might not want to quote a slave owner when trying talking about rights. TJ had some great ideas, but he was far from being a paragon of liberty.

                  Besides, the other two “inalienable” rights he mentioned were “liberty” and “the pursuits of happiness”. How many children enjoy inalienable rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

                  1. Children enjoy those rights, they are just constrained by their parents, not by the State.

                    So who is it who finally gives a child his Certificate of his Right to Life? Some sort of central committee? Before a child earns his Certificate, can I beat him or her to death with impunity?

                    1. Children enjoy those rights, they are just constrained by their parents, not by the State.

                      So what’s wrong with their parents constraining their right to life?

                      So who is it who finally gives a child his Certificate of his Right to Life? Some sort of central committee?

                      I like the idea that a child gains the right to life the moment someone is willing and able to take care of it. Right now, the only able person for the first ~25 weeks is the mother.

                      Before a child earns his Certificate, can I beat him or her to death with impunity?

                      Only if the Mother lets you. (That’s kind of what an abortion is.)

                    2. All you’re doing is being circular. Are you saying you only get a right to life once someone *else* decides to take care of you? So, in other words, I could prevent an abortion by intervening in the first month of parenting and say, “I’ll take care of this child” and voila, it has rights?

                    3. the whole point of “inalienable” rights is that they are not bestowed by another person. What others (and the govt) give, they can take away. Then it’s not really much of a right.

                      An example was the new constitution of Afghanistan, that granted citizens the right to worship an religion of their choice, subject to any restrictions Parliament chooses to pass. So yeah, you have the right, until we vote to take it away.

          2. Why is it so hard to accept that they must also earn their right to life.

            lol’d.

            1. Seriously. That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.

              1. Why? Why are all other rights earned as children assert their independence from their parents, but not this one?

                1. Rights aren’t earned. Please try again.

                  1. Rights aren’t earned. Please try again.

                    Why bother repeating myself to someone who so consistently admits defeat via inanity.

                    1. Seriously, where do you get the idea that the Right to Life has to be earned from someone? How is that even a concept of a right? Tell me how rights are “earned”

                    2. Tell me how rights are “earned”

                      By taking responsibility and asserting independence.

                      Seriously, where do you get the idea that the Right to Life has to be earned from someone?

                      I never said it had to be earned from someone. Only that all rights have to be earned by asserting one’s independence, as children do starting at birth.

                      Read some Walter Block for more information.

                    3. I never said it had to be earned from someone.

                      Uh, bullshit you didn’t. You said this:

                      Instead the must slowly earn these rights from their caregivers by taking on responsibility for themselves.

                      Try not to contradict yourself with your own language next time.

                    4. I never said it had to be earned from someone.
                      Uh, bullshit you didn’t. You said this:

                      Instead the must slowly earn these rights from their caregivers by taking on responsibility for themselves.
                      Try not to contradict yourself with your own language next time.

                      Okay, you’re finally right on something. I was sloppy with my wording before. They aren’t earning their right to liberty from their caregivers. They are simply claiming it by taking responsibility for themselves.

                    5. it has to be claimed from someone. You’re just saying the same thing but with different language.

                    6. Sorry, but I agree that rights must be claimed to be rights. Rights are just ideas. They don’t exist outside of human heads. You have to come to agreements with other humans as to the limits to your and their actions with respect to each other.

                    7. every human starts life with rights. if they are not yet matured enough to make informed decisions others (normally their parents) act as guardians to protect their rights and interests. Once one is old enough to act on their own, they may act so despicably that the rest of us agree to wake away rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).

          3. my brother is irresponsible, can I revoke his right to eat?

    2. How does having a right to occupy a woman’s womb and take her resources for 9 months “fit neatly” with economic freedom?

        1. So you can’t answer the question? Who’s “economic freedom” are we talking about?

          1. Read any other abortion thread ever. You’re so far behind it pains me.

            1. What Randian is saying is that he can’t think of a counter-argument is too dishonest to admit it. He gets REALLY ass-pained and whiny when that happens, which is pretty often.

              1. OK, Cyto, whatever you say.

                Here’s a couterargument: in having consensual sex and creating a human being, the created human being needs to be cared for,. He would not be in a vulnerable position but-for your actions, akin to if you pushed someone into traffic. You have an obligation to provide for that person because you;re the one who created their economic circumstances.

                I’m seriously not in the mood to argue abortion with retards like you and him. All that ever goes on here is BS Philosophy 101. Start reading something and chat about something other than constructively evicting fetuses. Christ on cracker.

                1. Here’s a couterargument: in having consensual sex and creating a human being, the created human being needs to be cared for,. He would not be in a vulnerable position but-for your actions, akin to if you pushed someone into traffic. You have an obligation to provide for that person because you;re the one who created their economic circumstances.

                  And now we are back where we started. We have already established that children do not have a right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness because they are not yet capable of excercising those rights responsibly. Why does a cluster of undifferentiated cells necessarily have the right to life that is enjoyed by fully developed, independent adults? What specifically is it about that clump of cells that gives it that right?

                  1. We have already established that children do not have a right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness because they are not yet capable of excercising those rights responsibly.

                    Who gets to decide when they can exercise their rights responsibly? I can think of quite a few full grown adults who can’t do so, and I ain’t talking about those with Downs. That definition of liberty sounds suspiciously like some of the backward talk you would hear in communist Russia. People have rights regardless of whether some outside source agrees with them.

                    1. That definition of liberty sounds suspiciously like some of the backward talk you would hear in communist Russia.

                      Then you haven’t been paying attention. The only person who can decide when you can excercise your rights responsibly is you. And you do that by asserting your independence from your caregivers. That’s what I mean when I point out that liberty is not an inalienable right for children. And that is why I don’t believe that life is an inalienable right for zygotes.

                    2. So what Central Committee gets to decide when a child is exercising his rights “responsibly”?

                    3. Okay, but children, even very young children, assert their independence from their caregivers all the time. I can’t tell you how many times my 6 year old nephew has “ran away” to my house because he didn’t want to listen to his parents anymore.

                      You say life is not an inalienable right for zygotes. Do you believe it is one for children? If so, what assertion of independence caused them to acquire that right? Remember, babies don’t want to come out of the womb, they’re pushed out.

                    4. You say life is not an inalienable right for zygotes. Do you believe it is one for children? If so, what assertion of independence caused them to acquire that right?

                      To excercise liberty you must be willing to accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions. As long as you allow someone else to take that responsibility from you, you do not have a right to liberty.

                      To excercise life someone must be willing and able to sustain you. So long as someone is willing and able (be it you, your mother or someone else) to sustain you, you have a right to life.

                    5. But there are LOTS of people in this world who don’t take responsibility for their actions. Are all of them being falsely given their rights?

                      If I started a petition that said “Stop Supporting some guy’s life” and the entire world signed it… would you no longer have a right to life?

                      Again I have to say, everything you are saying sounds like the exact sort of thing I would expect to hear a totalitarian dictator describe rights.

                      The individual does not exist to serve the will of the collective. Their rights exist independently.

                  2. We have already established that children do not have a right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness because they are not yet capable of excercising those rights responsibly.

                    No we didn’t “establish” that. That’s you simply assuming the argument. If that’s your definition of “debate”, then I don’t think there’s any other discussion needed here.

                    1. No we didn’t “establish” that. That’s you simply assuming the argument. If that’s your definition of “debate”, then I don’t think there’s any other discussion needed here.

                      Previously you said:

                      Children enjoy those rights, they are just constrained by their parents, not by the State.

                      If the parents can constrain a child’s liberty, then how can the child have a right to liberty?

                    2. You’ve been asked about 10 times what you mean when you say “exercising them responsibly”, what that looks like, how it would be implemented, what protections children have beforehand, and yet you refuse to answer. is it because you know what a crappy vague answer that really is?

                    3. I responded to this at 3:14 above.

      1. Planning on paying your own mother back for committing exactly the crime you describe here? How would you even start? Would killing yourself cover the severity of the crime?

        1. Fortunately, my Mother was a willing donor. She seems to think that I’ve already paid her back.

      2. so the fetus/child/person appeared in the woman’s womb of its own volition? Give me a break. Most pregnant women get there by choice; they are willingly giving of their “resources.”

        1. I’m pretty sure the fetus is incapable of any volition until at least a few months in. I’m only for abortion up to the point of viability, and then only if someone else is willing to pay for the birth and care for the infant.

          Whether most pregnant women are willing is irrelevant to the rights of the fetus.

  6. Virginia’s Libertarian Moment

    How is electing Terry McAuliffe evidence of a libertarian moment? Was 2012 America’s libertarian moment?

    1. Then only way that could be true is if Sarvis gets 10% or more of the vote.

    2. If a libertarian in a statewide races gets 10%+ of the vote, then I’d call that a libertarian moment, when suddenly the R and L candidates become Second Party candidates.

    3. As much as a greasy, underhanded shitweasel Terry McAuliffe is, and I would never vote for him, for the Democrats he might be a step up given how far down the spiral of collectivist economic and identity politics they have descended.

  7. Libertarians are to blame for every Republican failure.

  8. Talk of owning your own body has strong libertarian overtones.

    Which the present law doesn’t agree with. (See Moore v. Board of Regents). Your body parts are alienable, but not market-alienable (you can give away parts, but you can’t sell them because…people in bathtubs full of ice with a missing kidney and poor people selling kidneys).

    Granted, pro-choice groups do not apply this concept with any sort of consistency ? witness NARAL’s support for Obamacare’s insistence that every individual buy an insurance policy, whether she wants one or not.

    It’s for your own good, peasant.

  9. Sarvis has said he isn’t an Austrian. He wants to rearrange the tax system but says nothing about reducing the net tax burden. Is that economic enough for you?

    “Cuccinelli talks about jobs too ? but the public can see his heart lies elsewhere.”

    Why, because he challenged job-killing EPA regulations? Because he challenged the job-killing Obamacare program. He took lots of heat for these stands, but now we’re told it was just a secondary issue for him?

  10. Those Libertarians are stealing votes that rightfully belong to Republicans! They’re thieves! Republicans own those votes! They own them! Fucking Libertarian thieves!

    1. ^This, this, a thousand times this.

    2. FUCKING MONGORIANS!

      RIBERTARIANS! WHATEVER!

    3. If only there were a two party system in place to prevent travesties like this.

      Oh wait.

  11. The flow of Team Red tears on this thread came much faster than expected. You have all the usual suspects saying all the same facile things.

    Fuck you, Republicans. You want libertarian votes? Nominate libertarians.

  12. women who want to own their own bodies.

    Wouldn’t a fetus be someone else’s body?

    1. ….here we go….

      *grabs popcorn*

      1. No, not only no, but fuck no! I refuse to engage in anymore abortion related thread hijacks. It’s pointless.

        1. You guys are no fun.

    2. Sophistry and butt-hurt. Bravo.

      1. That isn’t sophistry. It’s the heart of the question.

        1. Agreed.

          Everyone agrees that AT SOME POINT they because two separate bodies, its the point that is the heart of the issue.

          Those of us who thinks its very early on in the pregnancy have some science on our side.

          It seems to me that once the egg is fertilized, its a separate body. Whether it has personhood at that point is an entirely different question, but separate bodihood isnt in doubt.

          1. ‘Bodihood’ has absolutely no bearing on whether something has rights or not, which a zygote or a stupid ball of cells certainly does not have.

  13. I’m not convinced that McAuliffe has this wrapped up. I have yet to find someone who is excited about him.

    1. I’m shocked that enough special interests would trust that slimy fucker for him to be in this race. Does anyone expect him to stay bought?

    2. NOVA says that it’s over. With the population explosion that’s going on there, and all of the new residents federal gov employees or in some way tied to that, there will probably never be another R governor of VA. Until the collapse, and then it’s just all Fallout 3.

      1. wait .. do you mean me?

        I do think that VA is basically a blue state anymore for the reasons you suggest. That said, I’m not sure McAuliffe runs away with it. Maybe a one last gasp

    3. Me either. The Republicans are going to turn out. Will the Democrats? Can the Democrats really get their voters to turn out for a candidate who says he is going double down on stupid with Obamacare? Depends on how much they care about all of the culture war bullshit because that is all they seem to have.

      1. OT @ John: I didn’t like Forrest Gump because I though Tom Hanks did a shitty job playing a retard. It just wasn’t believable. They should have just hired a retarded actor. It’s been done before.

        Mickey Rooney was a much better retard in Bill.

        1. That is a good point. He did do a terrible job. You have to suspend belief on that. He is not a retarded person. He is some weird ideal of a retarded person.

          I can totally see how that would drive some people nuts. For whatever reason it didn’t me, although it probably should have.

          1. The whole movie was a shallow depiction of a time that created the most spineless political class in history. What happened to common sense. And the music was all that shit we turned off AM radio cause the deep cuts on my 8 trac were so much better.

      2. And while I have no metrics to support this, I imagine the story of McAuliffe making money from dying people has not gone over well.

      3. Team Blue has a hard time turning out in off year and especially odd year elections. They do best when there’s a president on the ticket.

    4. McAuliffe will probably win but the race is definitely tightening up.

  14. I heard a bit about Sarvis’ views Friday. From that report, he sounded about as “libertarian” as Cooch or McAuliffe. However, his site sure makes it appear he IS a libertarian. Hmm.

    Sorry ’bout your luck, VA.

    Perhaps you should just lie back and think of England Washington DC, cause it sounds like you’re fucked.

    I haz a sad for VA 🙁

    1. It’s self-inflicted.

    2. It’s self-inflicted.

  15. If every Cuccinelli supporter would vote for Sarvis instead, McAuliffe would lose.

    1. If were the kind of person to say THIS, I’d say THIS

    2. True. And if every McAuliffe voter voted for Savis, Cuccinelli would lose. So what? The question is why should someone who doesn’t give a shit about abortion or gays vote for Savis?

      1. because Sarvis is a better libertarian than Ken Cuccinnelli. What is it about “we’re libertarians” that escapes you exactly?

        1. because Sarvis is a better libertarian than Ken Cuccinnelli. What is it about “we’re libertarians” that escapes you exactly?

          Why is he a better candidate? Because he is better on abortion and gays? That doesn’t make him better to me because I don’t care about those issues. If you are a culture warrior who votes on that, sure.

          But if you are not, you sound no different than some SOCON telling me I should vote against someone because they cheated on their wife or smoked pot in college. That may change their vote, but it doesn’t change mine.

          1. you’re an idiot. I’m a libertarian – I vote for libertarians.

      2. So what?

        If your goal is to defeat McAuliffe and you dont care about “culture war” issues, then its better to vote for Sarvis and let the people who do care about those issues have their way.

        Its a win-win for both sides. Economically Sarvis is at least as good, if not better, than Cuccinelli, and on social issues, the libertarians will be happy.

        Everyone wins!

        1. If your goal is to defeat McAuliffe and you dont care about “culture war” issues, then its better to vote for Sarvis and let the people who do care about those issues have their way.

          If it were a close race sure. But it doesn’t appear that way. As it is Sarvis and Cuccinilli look about the same to me. So why not vote for the guy who has the best chance of winning?

          I don’t care if you get your way.

          1. Sarvis has a better chance of winning IF the GOP voters will be flexible enough to vote for him.

            We know from polling that 1/2 or so of the Sarvis voters would jump to McAuliffe. So from a strategy perspective, the best bet is to combine together on Sarvis.

            1. Sarvis has a better chance of winning IF the GOP voters will be flexible enough to vote for him.

              Sure. And Cuccinilli would have a better chance if Libertarian voters were more flexible.

              As I said below, it sucks to be a Republican. And the fact is that in Virginia at least it may be impossible to put together a majority to vote for a small government economic platform. Too many people care too much about culture war and vote on those issues above all. If the R candidate were all about gays and abortion, the SOCONS would be dropping out like the Libertarians are and the Republican would still lose.

              In the end, the culture war trumps economics. But the good news rob is that you are going to get your way on the culture war. You never get all you want in politics. But you are going to get something. So McCauliffe winning sounds like a win for Libertarians to me.

              1. Nope. I wanted Robert Sarvis to win. The fact that you wouldn’t vote for him doesn’t it make it my fault that some Democrat won. You can try to spin it all you like, but my inaction ! = action. I didn’t vote for McAuliffe, so it’s not my problem.

                1. Nope. I wanted Robert Sarvis to win.

                  I want a pony. Too bad.

                  The fact that you wouldn’t vote for him doesn’t it make it my fault that some Democrat won.

                  Who says it was anyone’s fault? The fact is that you have two groups, the SOCONs and the Libertarians who can largely agree on economic issues will vote for each others’ candidates because of culture war issues. So you can’t get a majority for a economic small government candidate.

                  Until either the SOCONS or the Libertarians stop viewing culture war issues as an automatic disqualier, you will never get a majority for small government economics. That is reality. You just can’t build it. If you choose someone who is pro gay and abortion, the socons drop out and you lose. If you choose someone who is anti gay and abortion, the Libertarians drop out and you lost.

                  As someone who is tried of both issues, I find that frustrating. But, clearly Libertarians and SOCONs love to fight about those issues and are not bothered.

              2. And Cuccinilli would have a better chance if Libertarian voters were more flexible.

                and if Repub voters were more flexible? Sarvis is the equivalent of a self inflicted wound for the GOP. Pay lip service to things like individual liberty and limited govt long enough, and people will eventually realize you’re just paying lip service.

                1. Waregle.

                  If the Rs had run someone who was pro abortion and gays, the SOCONS would be saying the same things you guys are and not voting or running a third party candidate.

                  So you can’t win on economic issues. Even though a majority may want small government and economic freedom, they will never get it because the majority is split over the culture war.

                  1. I’d settle for the Rs running a guy who actively promotes limited govt, meaning he gets that people may do some things he finds objectionable but he’s not in favor of legislating those things.

                    And it’s not like the GOP is holding the limited govt high ground on economic issues, either. It’s just a different set of cronies. Maybe Cooch is different; if so, he has allowed himself to be painted as a social crank.

                  2. Sarvis wouldn’t be so strong and Cucci so weak if he would just have shut his giant fucking mouth wrt gays sodomy etc. He doesn’t have to be socially libertarian just be innocuous.

                    1. Sarvis wouldn’t be so strong and Cucci so weak if he would just have shut his giant fucking mouth wrt gays sodomy etc.

                      And if that had happened, a whole bunch of SOCONs would be saying “Cucci wouldn’t be so weak if he had just stood up and said what was right about gays and sodomy etc.”

                      Do you tell me Cytoxic how to solve that? I would love to tell one side or the other to just shut the fuck up and stop caring so much about these issues. But that is not an option. Both sides care and care a lot and seem to have no interest in doing anything else.

                    2. John,
                      why would the socons say any such thing? Cooch is not sneakin up on anyone; the GOP is clear as to who he is. He beats the social drum because he thinks it matters; no makes him do that.

                    3. 1) You are talking out your ass. SoCons would vote for Coochi. They are a servile lot.

                      2) How to ‘solve that’? Wait for these assholes to die off. They will and they’ll take their obsession with Teh Gayz with them to the grave.

                    4. 2) How to ‘solve that’? Wait for these assholes to die off.

                      Good luck with that. Meanwhile the Dems will have turned the country into Argentina. But it will be very gay friendly and have free abortions. So there is that.

                    5. And those SOCONs have a lot of kids. I guess when Libertopia comes you can put them in camps to be re-educated or something.

                2. Eventually, Charlie Brown stops trying to kick that football.

              3. “If the R candidate were all about gays and abortion, the SOCONS would be dropping out like the Libertarians are and the Republican would still lose.”

                The solution is to compromise, but compromise must works both ways. I can compromise with socons if they are ready to compromise with me.

                For example : I can vote for someone who wants to ban gay marriage, but not for someone who wants to ban sodomy !

          2. As it is Sarvis and Cuccinilli look about the same to me. So why not vote for the guy who has the best chance of winning?

            Because voting isn’t about predicting the winner. Its about stating your preference for who should be the winner.

            1. Because voting isn’t about predicting the winner. Its about stating your preference for who should be the winner.

              Absolutely RC. Now tell me why I should prefer Sarvis if I don’t care about gays and abortion?

              And sometimes voting is about the negative too. If I McCaullifee, maybe I want to vote to keep him out. Nothing says it always has to be about affirming something.

              1. John,
                if you don’t care about those other things, then Cooch is your guy given McAuliffe’s willingness to grab guns. See that’s where you separate from some folks here – you view guns as a big deal because you want to preserve the right to own one.
                Some folks view the gayz and abortion as big deals not because they are gay or want abortions, but because they want the govt to butt out. Just becuase I agree/disagree with something does not mean I insist that my belief be made law.

              2. Now tell me why I should prefer Sarvis if I don’t care about gays and abortion?

                Different issue than the usual “wasted vote” line. I’m not following this race, so I couldn’t say.

                And sometimes voting is about the negative too.

                Sure. Its a zero sum game. When I vote for one guy, its a vote against the others. If I vote Sarvis, that is just as much a vote against McAuliffe as a vote for Cooch.

              3. I trust Sarvis more than Cuccinelli to actually be sincere on his stated economic beliefs.

                And it’s not just gays and abortion (I’m kinda in the middle on abortion – I draw the line later than pro-lifers but earlier than most pro-choicers, generally speaking). Sarvis is much better on drug policy, civil liberties, etc.

  16. Let’s try to look at the bright side of this, IF Sarvis is able to get 10+% of the vote.

    The election is already decided, and the radical progressive has won. So for the next term, all Virginians can look forward to their new Dem overlord railing incessantly about new taxes, evil guns, and climate change. (this is the bad).

    The good is, that the GOP may now be forced to pay more attention to libertarian voters and stop running SoCons for office, who can’t seem to stop saying stupid shit in public.

    Also, and this is a question. IF Sarvis manages 10+%, does that guarantee the Ls a spot in debates? Because that would be huge, and something that will scare the living shit out of team purple.

    1. I think at 10% the LP gets automatic ballot access for a few years.

      1. But does that guarantee them a spot in the debates?

        1. no idea

          1. I think that team purple would start putting hits out on L candidates before allowing them equal time in debates. They don’t want the sheeple to start learning things that they don’t need to know about.

            1. Don’t worry. They’ll move the goalposts.

        2. The debates are run by the news media and other non-govt actors. So they make the rules.

          That doesn’t mean that there can’t be payback in the future for the exclusions.

    2. How many Socons does the California or New England GOP run?

      Also it’s not like libertarians don’t say “stupid” shit either.

      1. How many Socons does the California or New England GOP run?

        I give up. How many? The only ones that I know of that have won in those places (Christie, Arnold), are just progressives in team red clothing.

        1. I don’t know either. Would LePage or the former RI gov count as SoCon?

          I’m just rather skeptical that there is much of a demand for fiscal conservative, socially liberal Republicans. California, DC, Chicago, Detroit, New York, New England seem to show this is not the case.

          1. California, DC, Chicago, Detroit, New York, New England

            I didn’t know there was a demand for anything in those areas, except for doubling down on stupid and expecting different results.

            1. That’s the point. Ditching the SoCons is no magic bullet.

              1. In hopeless place it’s hopeless. We’re not talking about those places we’re talking about Virginia.

        2. You guys don’t know how radical you are. Christie is no progressive. Would a progressive have picked a fight with the teachers union? You sound dumb saying stuff like that.

          1. You guys don’t know how radical you are

            This is true. In a world were John Boehner is some anti-gov nut then libertarians are quite non-mainstream.

    3. The election is already decided, and the radical progressive has won. So for the next term, all Virginians can look forward to their new Dem overlord railing incessantly about new taxes, evil guns, and climate change. (this is the bad).

      But they will have a govnor who is pro gays and pro abortion. If those are your most important issues, what is to complain about? You didn’t get all you wanted but you at least got what was most important to you.

      If McAulliffe wins, it won’t be perfect for Libertarians. But it will on the whole be a good thing. They will have won on the issues that most matter to them.

      1. Who says they matter most?

        If as you say, the economics issues are even between Sarvis and Cuccinelli, then you only need to care about other issues a tiny tiny fraction to make Sarvis the preferable candidate.

        Personally, Im probably more in agreement with Cuccinelli on abortion, but if I was in VA I would be voting for Sarvis.

        1. Who says they matter most?

          Because that seems to be the only issue that separates Sarvis and Cuccinilli.

      2. If McAulliffe wins, it won’t be perfect for Libertarians. But it will on the whole be a good thing. They will have won on the issues that most matter to them.

        And you wonder why we call you Stampy Feet on this issue.

        1. What will be your bitch about McAuliffe? He has the right views about gays and abortion. Sure he sucks on other things. But you can’t get everything you want in politics. If you get what you want on the issues that are the most important to you, isn’t that a good thing? Isn’t keeping Cuccinilli out of office and having a governor who is pro abortion and pro gays important? And if it is, then McAuliffe winning is pretty good isn’t it?

          1. ha ha ha. Please cry harder, John. It’s hilarious.

            I can get everything I want out of a candidate, and so can you. His name is Robert Sarvis. If all the Cuccinelli voters would vote for him instead, they can make themselves and the libertarians happy (to borrow from robc). So what’s wrong with that?

            1. I can get everything I want out of a candidate, and so can you.

              Sure but he is not going to win you half wit. You are not going to get everything out of the candidate who wins. So, if McAuliffe wins, won’t be happy to see him do so? He will be pro abortion and gays. And those are really important issues aren’t they? If Cuccinilli wins, the governor will be anti gay and anti abortion. Won’t that be a lot worse from your perspective?

              1. about 30 years ago, homosexuality was in the APA’a diagnostic manual as a disorder. No longer. A few years ago, a lot of people viewed libertarians in a similar way. That, too, is changing.

                I doubt Sarvis wins, but he’s making some noise and that L word is gaining traction. The GOP can’t help itself. In my state, the party won both houses and the governor’s office after a hundred years of Dem control. Among their first priorities was a referendum banning gay marriage. As if that was the state’s key concern.

              2. Okay John we got all the tears we want out of you. You can shut up now.

                1. Being a libertarian is like being on perpetual Christmas. If mcAuliffe wins, we get John tears. if Cucc wins, we get prog tears. Either way, delicious melting snowflakes for all.

                  1. You won’t get any of my tears. I don’t live there. And I don’t care about the culture war. I won’t rain on your parade that day I promise. Randian. You should wake up the next day and be happy that the governor of Virginia won an election because he agrees with you on the things you consider to be most important. You should be happy and since I don’t care about those issues, I won’t tell you not to be.

                    But if McAuliffe loses, it will mean people don’t care about your culture war as much as you thought. That will not be a good thing from your perspective.

                    1. You sure sound like you don’t care, John.

                    2. You sure sound like you don’t care, John.

                      Why do you say that? I care about the economic issues and am frustrated that the SOCONs and the Libertarians are all about abortion and gays. If I cared about those issues I would be supporting Sarvis, even though from what Virginian says below he supports the loathsome millage tax or I would be unwilling to support someone like Rand Paul, who last I looked was pretty lousy on the gay issue and wanted to let the dreaded drug users out into the streets.

                      But you do. And so do the SOCONS. Neither side is going to compromise or listen to reason or do much of anything but scream about how the other is ruining everything. So what are you going to do?

  17. Does anyone know if @SarvisPress is actually his campaign twitter handle? Because that account has criticized Cucci for wanting to cut spending and taxes. I didn’t know there was a tax and spend wing of the L party.

    1. its @RobertSarvisVA

  18. “Only”? To conservatives, economic freedom is paramount, the rest no big deal. But to libertarians, personal and civil liberties are no less vital: Big government has no place in either the boardroom or the bedroom.

    I disagree. You can’t be free without economic freedom; you can still be free without “civil” freedoms; though technically I suppose you’re “free” in either case to ignore the law entirely.

    If the government prevents me from opening a business, that is far more damaging to me than if it prevents me from fucking a guy in the ass. It’s easier to advertise when your business is legal.

    1. At the rate we are going, small businesses will cease to exist in the USA within a couple of decades. There will only be the mega corporate/gov conglomerates. Cronyism is the death of small business.

      1. There will only be the mega corporate/gov conglomerates. Cronyism is the death of small business.

        To an extent, I agree. However, even with all the bullshit barriers to entry in place today, you still have people out there with great ideas that completely destroy existing methods of performing services/products. Like Fracking.

        1. you still have people out there with great ideas that completely destroy existing methods of performing services/products

          Those will be coopted into the great society of the collective good. Or else.

        2. And Uber/Lyft. Hyperion is wrong, there will always be the grey market and technology will make the system easier to crack.

    2. “If the government prevents me from opening a business, that is far more damaging to me than if it prevents me from fucking a guy in the ass.”

      That’s easy for a straight guy who wants to open a business to say.

      I personally don’t really draw a distinction between economic and personal freedoms. Freedom is freedom

    3. Lack of civil freedoms still greatly damages economic freedoms. What good is having more money to yourself if there are some things the government will prevent you from buying “in the interest of preserving society’s moral values”?

  19. meh. we survived Kaine, we’ll survive this big govt crook.

  20. What percentage do you think Sarvis is going to get?

    (Reply today, and you can brag about your accuracy later!)

    1. I’ll say 3%; off year elections I’d think libertarians perform better… at least the ones that actually vote, despite Reason’s staff constantly trying to convince us not to.

    2. 4%. Only because anon already grabbed 3%.

    3. 8%

      Maybe after four years of MacAuliffe we’ll hit 10% and not have to get fucking signatures.

    4. I wanted to be optimistic and take anywhere from 3-8%, but I’m going to play cautious here and go with the more likely outcome.

      If he gets more than 2%, the mediots of both teams will go into a tizzy, which will be sort of fun.

    5. What percentage do you think Sarvis is going to get?

      2% (double the usual 1% because the R and D candidates are so loathsome), with a +/- margin of error of 1%.

      I’d like to think high single digits, but that’s hoping, not looking at how actual Ls tend to perform.

    6. I’ll take 6%.

      1. 9.9999999%

  21. Want libertarian votes?

    Support the most libertarian policies of any candidate in the race.

    Don’t support the most libertarian policies, don’t expect libertarian votes.

    It ain’t rocket surgery, folks.

    1. Cucci is one of the more libertarian members of the GOP. Except for his turrets outbursts about gays, he’s better than anyone not named Paul.

      1. one of the more libertarian members of the GOP

        Being the tallest midget isn’t a ticket to the NBA.

      2. Citation needed.

        1. Cucci sued as VA AG over ACA. I’m sure that Sarvis is reliably anti-ACA. But Cucci was on the line with the standing of an elected position and deserves credit for that. Cucci has put pressure on UVA for their fraud in the CAGW scam. I’m sure that Sarvis is anti-fraud, but it was Cucci on the line. Cucci has a track record we can judge him by and by that standard he’s a libertarian hero on par with Rand Paul.

          Go ahead and vote for Sarvis if you like. If Cucci didn’t win your vote, then that’s his problem not mine. But if your vote was determined by abortion or sodomy then I have to question your reasoning. From my pov, a governor with no ability to effect any changes to the law, ranting impotently about gays, abortion, or whatever, would be a good thing. Someone with correct ideas would be even better. But the governor has little say in sodomy or abortion issues. And those are hardly the most important issues.

      3. Cucci is one of the more libertarian members of the GOP.

        That’s laughable.

    2. Don’t support the most libertarian policies, don’t expect libertarian votes.

      Sure. And that exactly what everyone else says. The SOCONs will say the same thing. And that is their right.

      So, if Cuccinilli loses, then I guess it sucks to be a Republican. If he had gone with the Libertarians on the culture war issues, the SOCONs would be saying what the Libertarians are right now and he would have lost even more votes.

      The culture war matters to a lot of people. And it matters more than economics to a lot of people. And that makes it really hard to put together a small government economic majority because you just can’t get enough people to vote on that and forget about the culture war.

      But as I said above, if McAuliffe wins, the Libertarians will at least get a governor who is pro gay and pro abortion, which are the two issues they seem to care about most. They will get half a loaf. So I don’t see what there is to complain about.

      1. But as I said above, if McAuliffe wins, the Libertarians will at least get a governor who is pro gay and pro abortion, which are the two issues they seem to care about most.

        File this under, “Things No One Said”

        1. File this under, “Things No One Said”

          So they are not the most important issues? If they are not the most important issues, why do you care so much about what Cuccinilli says about them?

          Why are you so ashamed of voting on those issues? A lot of people on both sides vote on abortion and gay rights. These are things that people feel passionate about. Most Libertarians feel pretty passionate about them. They are your issues, own them.

          It would like me coming on here claiming I don’t vote on gun rights. Damn straight I vote on that. I don’t care if you worship Satan and plan to institute Sharia law, you are getting my vote if your opponent is not pro gun rights. That is my issue.

          1. Just because they are not the most important doesn’t render them unimportant.

            I vote libertarian, not on your fevered dreams of me being a “culture warrior”. The fact is I care very little about gay marriage and abortion, but I am libertarian on those things, so a candidate who is better on those things gets my vote.

            1. Just because they are not the most important doesn’t render them unimportant.

              Everything you are saying the SOCONS could say in reverse. You guys would love to have an R candidate who was all about abortion and gays. And that happened the SOCONs would walk and the Dem would still win.

              That is reality. I don’t know or really care which one of you set of clowns is right. But what I think doesn’t really matter. It is not going to change the fact that you probably, and we will see what happens tomorrow, can’t build a majority for economic freedom because the people who support such are so deeply divided over the culture war.

              If want to blame that on the SOCONS, go ahead. From my perspective both sides are equally to blame. But blame isn’t going to change the reality.

      2. Well, then, that would make them more rational than the GOP voters, right?

        Because if every last GOP voter came over to Sarvis, Sarvis would win.

        So by refusing to vote for Cuccinelli, Libertarians are (by the terms of your argument) somewhat rational. But by refusing to vote for Sarvis, the GOP voters are being completely irrational – because they get NOTHING they like in McAuliffe.

        Why is it up to Libertarians to take the lesser of two evils? Why isn’t it up to Cuccinelli’s people?

        1. Well, then, that would make them more rational than the GOP voters, right?

        2. Neither side is more or less rational. The SOCONS view a candidate who is other side of the culture war as someone they won’t vote for. The Libertarians think the same way. So you will never get a majority to vote for an economic small government candidate. That candidates views on the culture war will alienate one or the other side and kill the majority.

          Neither side is more or less rational. They both just consider the culture war to be really important must have issues and won’t give that up to get an economic freedom candidate in office.

    3. This is overly simplistic. For one thing, the LP is, except for this race, a flytrap for libertarian influence to go to die. In order to ‘swing the candidates’ libertarians have to be willing to say no to bad candidates but also willing to say yes to imperfect ones. This only applies to the two teams. Aside from Sarvis, voting 3rd party is a waste of time unless both candidates are equally bad.

      1. That was my point above. There are very few “pure Libertarians”. So what is the Libertarian party’s goal? If it is to replace one of the two existing parties or create a third equal party, it is going to have to appeal to people who currently vote for one or the other party.

        So, what is the appeal to current Republicans? In Sarvis’ case it seems to mostly boil down to “I am better on gays and abortion and the culture war”. I don’t think that is going to appeal to many people of either party. It is the same as the Dems position and most Rs either disagree or are like me and don’t care. So who is left?

      2. voting 3rd party is a waste of time

        My vote has precisely the same value, regardless of whether its cast for the eventual winner, second-place finisher, or third-place finisher.

        Why is this so hard to understand? Why do people think voting for someone who doesn’t win is a wasted vote? Voting isn’t supposed to be your prediction of who is going to win, its supposed to be your preference of who should win.

        1. RC voting 3rd party has a lot of value in that it, depending on the position of the 3rd party, can push one or both parties in a particular direction.

          In this case, voting for Sarvis, if you would normally be inclined to vote for Cuccinilli pushes the Republican Party towards the other side of the culture war. And that is a perfectly valid reason to vote 3rd Party. It is just that in this case, I am not sure doing that is going to result in much change since if the Rs do that they will lose SOCON votes and end up in the same place.

          But the culture war rules all.

        2. My vote has precisely the same value, regardless of whether its cast for the eventual winner, second-place finisher, or third-place finisher.

          I disagree. A vote that tips the difference between first and second place has more value than a vote that merely adds to a third place total.

          1. And that would be relevant if an individual vote could decide an election. Take a statistics class and get back to me on the statistical probability of that happening.

            1. I didn’t say any one vote has great value, just that some have more value than others. And while one vote rarely decides an election, relatively small numbers (2-3 digits) often do.

        3. My vote has precisely the same value, regardless of whether its cast for the eventual winner, second-place finisher, or third-place finisher.

          As in none.

  22. Libertarians can be against abortion as well, if one has the position that the fetus is a living human then to oppose abortion is logical to a libertarian.

  23. Look, I commented on abortion and four guys responded. I made a comment on economics and nobody answered. Isn’t it supposed to be the reverse?

    1. Nobody responds because Cucci is a solid fiscal conservative. Nothing to argue about.

  24. This is how republicans get beat….same thing happened in Massachusetts with a third party taking the conservative vote from a republican. This is how Deval Patrick has stayed in office….McCauliffe is another clinton residual who is nothing but a progressive self-serving hack….Virginia voters are of the same foolish electorate that just put corey booker into the Senate. I find it close to impossible to socialize with such short sighted and uninformed people….it’s getting old and I see less and less light at the end of the tunnel.

    1. .McCauliffe is another clinton residual who is nothing but a progressive self-serving hack

      Of course he is. But he is very libertarian on abortion and gay rights. And that matters a lot to a lot of people.

      1. he is very libertarian on abortion and gay rights

        I doubt it, actually. I suspect he is in favor of subsidized abortions, lower standards for abortion clinics, special legal privileges for gays, and the whole panoply of interest group crap that at least some libertarians oppose.

        1. Maybe. But those are all sort of reverse issues. To the extent that they violate people’s rights, they affirm people’s rights regarding abortion and gays.

    2. same thing happened in Massachusetts with a third party taking the conservative vote from a republican

      This implies that the Republican is entitled to all “conservative votes.”

      Also, and l repeat myself, LIBERTARIANISM IS NOT A FLAVOR OF CONSERVATISM.

  25. I’ve decided not to vote. Turns out Sarvis is a typical Beltway cosmotarian. He considers “mainstream” economics superior to Austrian economics. Also endorsed a mileage tax, and raising of taxes in general.

    It’s interesting though, because my rightwing friends have not been using the “grow up and vote GOP” line, rather they’ve been attempting to argue Cooch is genuinely better on libertarian issues. Which he is on some, but not others.

    Although if he’d come out in support of making VA the third state to legalize marijuana I’d be knocking on doors right now for him. Too bad. Guess I have a spare hour tomorrow.

    1. I’ll play devil’s advocate. Does there come a point when you choose the less bad of what you see as two bad options? I don’t see how McAuliffe helps you in any way.

      1. Having a guy I didn’t vote for doesn’t help me regardless of whether he’s on TEAM BLUE or TEAM RED.

        If I vote L, that’s because I don’t want either of the other two to win.

        1. Sure RC. But why would you in this case not want either side to win?

          1. Indeed. Think strategically. A Democrat win will be trumpeted as a vindication of the Obama administration and Democratic policies in general. A GOP win will be seen as an upset, a repudiation of Obama and Democratic policies in general, especially Obamacare. It’s not hard for me to decide which result libertarians should prefer.

          2. Duuhh…because a Libertarian wants a Libertarian to win.

      2. “Does there come a point when you choose the less bad of what you see as two bad options?”

        I’ll choose the lesser of the two evil if I can agree with most of his issues.

        “I’ll never vote for the lesser evil” is kinda like a coach saying “I never watch the scoreboards, I just concentrate on winning our game”. It’s a cool principled thing to say, but it’s not reality. 95% of the vote cast will go to the two parties in any elections. More people will actually not vote than essentially throw away a vote.

        In California, I kinda have no choice but to vote for the lesser evil. I’m convinced we’re a few years away from a 13 dollars minimum wage. Many of my (Obama loving) Asian friends are out of work or applying for jobs at herbal life.

    2. If you don’t like Cuccinilli or your dislike of him is greater than your dislike of McAullifee, you shouldn’t vote for him.

      And I would love to hear from all of these “Libertarians” how Sarvis is a libertarian yet supports a millage tax. IF that is true, I would vote for McCauliffe before I voted for Sarvis. I would live with crony socialism before I will live with the state tracking my every movement in the name of taxing me fairly. Fuck that.

      1. the mileage tax is a serious no-go, far more than abortion or gays. If it is true, that alone should DQ Sarvis from the libertarian label.

        1. It would for me. But I am not a culture warrior. A lot of people are and thus are more flexible about things like that if the candidate is on their side on the culture war.

          1. John, you are a complete liar. I defy you to find one place where anyone here said gays and abortions are THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES. Quote someone, please.

            1. John, you are a complete liar. I defy you to find one place where anyone here said gays and abortions are THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES.

              You don’t have to say it. It is obvious by how you are voting and who you are supporting. You won’t support Cuccinilli, why? Because he is not right on the culture war. That means it is no go for you and thus the issue that most matters to you. If it wasn’t, you would be willing to compromise.

              You are willing to overlook Sarvis’ support of the mileage tax aren’t you? Why? because that is not a culture war issue.

              Libertarians and SOCONs are like the half black and white guys on that old Star Trek episode.

                1. Okay, you have lost the argument and have nothing to say. Thanks rarely do you get a clear win on here. But reverse to snark is about as close as one gets.

                  When you decide to answer my question regarding the Sarvis’ support of the mileage tax and why that is not important to you, we can continue this conversation.

        2. the mileage tax is a serious no-go, far more than abortion or gays. If it is true, that alone should DQ Sarvis from the libertarian label.

          Oh another Team Red Concern Troll is trying to tell us what libertarianism looks like.

          1. Why isn’t the millage tax a no go? Do you support the government putting electronics on our cars to track our movements in order to collect a tax?

            1. Yes. I support using price mechanisms to manage demand and prioritize investment.

              1. Yes. I support using price mechanisms to manage demand and prioritize investment.

                At the price of everyone’s privacy? I support freedom more than I support efficiency. A gas tax is not perfect, but neither is a mileage tax. But anything is better than having to let the government track my movements.

                1. Earth to Hohn. The government is already tracking your movement by copying all your cell phone and credit card telemetry and scanning your plates.

      2. reason has always supported road use fees over excise taxes on fuel as a funding mechanism for roads. Not so much a VP-NG-MW issue but a big thing back in the Bob Poole era. Feel free to disagree. But don’t reject the idea as unlibertarian.

        1. I would reject it. The only way you could do it would be to track people’s movements. If there is no way to collect it without violating people’s privacy, who cares how economiclly efficient it may be?

          I don’t see how anyone who doesn’t just worship the state could support a millage tax. They would a transponder on everyone’s car. That doesn’t bother you?

          1. You wouldn’t need a transponder. A GPS device could integrate distance traveled, time of day, and route information and then report only the charge.

            1. Yeah, no danger of that ever being abused. Efficiency is not the only value. Some prices are worth paying.

        2. Road use fees sounds to me like tolls paid on the road, not the government tracking your car everywhere it goes. I support gas taxes over something like that.

          1. Then electric cars don’t contribute. And users of clear roads pay the same as users of congested ones.

          2. Then electric cars don’t contribute. And users of clear roads pay the same as users of congested ones.

    3. How did anyone not know about the mileage tax? That is a pretty big deal.

      Funny as shit to read nitwits like Randian talk about how Sarvis is so Libertarian, when the only thing they know about him is that he is pro gay and pro abortion and at the same time swear up and down how they are not really culture war voters.

      Sarvis could support full on communism and they would vote for him provided he had an “L” after his name and he gave the proper love to the all important culture war.

      1. OK, John, seriously, there comes a point where all this crying becomes unmanly. Get out a hankie and please dry yourself off and learn how to act like an adult.

        1. So you support the mileage tax? Or you had no idea Sarvis did? Which is it? Regardless, now that you know that, does it change your view of Sarvis? If not, why not?

          Come on Randian. Those are all reasonable questions. Answer them.

    4. The libertarian support for Sarvis seems to be an exercise in team politics. Sarvis has an “L” after his name, therefore he gets libertarian votes, his actual governing philosophy be damned.

      1. That’s pretty much how the politics game gets played. You don’t often see a football player run for the opponents’ end zone. But it does happen.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMNwSDAXtHY

  26. my co-worker’s sister-in-law makes hourly on the laptop. She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her payment was just working on the laptop for a few hours. pop over to this web-site…….. http://www.works23.com

    1. Finally, someone makes a worthwhile comment on this thread!

  27. Virginia Dems: Women Are Only Vaginas That Vote

    @ http://clevernicknames.wordpre…..that-vote/

    This has captured the message the D are giving the voters of Virginia:

    This is your grand-political-plan (and, it seems, of the national D party). ‘If you elect the “R’s” they will come and take away your pussy. So women, ‘Vote D to keep your Vagina free.’ As men are prone to say, with a particular color of disdain? Suck My Dick!! (I would use a much more fitting, “Just lick me.” but it doesn’t have the same rhetorical punch.)

  28. Given that the polls show McAuliffe is going to win easily, isn’t a vote for Cuccinelli a wasted vote? Don’t waste your vote on the loser Republican; vote for Sarvis.

  29. “But to libertarians, personal and civil liberties are no less vital: Big government has no place in either the boardroom or the bedroom.”

    In McAuliffe , you’ll get both!

    If the end result of Virginia’s “Libertarian Moment” is McAuliffe, then we need more such moments.

  30. “…we don’t need…”

  31. Looks like Sarvis is an Akin, a candidate supported by the Democrats to help them win.

    http://www.theblaze.com/storie…..rial-race/

    Maybe it doesn’t matter and will help put the skeer in the GOP.

  32. Interesting article in “The Blaze” that articulates how the left is capitalizing on the fight between Republicans and Libertarians. If the article is correct, progessive campaign bundlers are bankrolling Libertarian candidates to split the conservative vote and win tight elections leaving the state to be governed by who exactly?

    http://www.theblaze.com/storie…..rial-race/

  33. We appreciate your support, Mr. Liemandt.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.