Where are the libertarians in the USA?

[Garth Zietsman]

I've been following the US elections closely and I decided to have a look at the sort of support Johnson was getting.  

The counties with the most concentrated libertarian support lie in central New Mexico and northern Montana i.e. more than 4% - although most of New Mexico and Montana have good libertarian support i.e. more than 3%.  The most libertarian county is Wilbaux County in East Montana at 18%. Do any of you have special knowledge of these areas that may shed light on why libertarian support would be concentrated in those areas, and why support in neighboring states like Colorado, Arizona, Idaho, the Dakotas or Texas sucks?

Curiously libertarian support in New Hampshire is relatively modest - best county only 1.6%.  Is the "Free State" project dead?

Garth

[Gareth Brickman]

The Free State Project is still going, but it's only moved between 1000-2000 people over there, out of a population of 1.3 million.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa?hl=en.

[Garth Zietsman]

Jeez that's not much.  It's less than 10% of the target which is itself modest.  20000 would only make a difference in 3 of New Hampshire's counties but virtually all of Montana's counties and most of New Mexico's.  Montana has a smaller population than New Hampshire, many more counties, about twice the absolute number of libertarians and about 2.5 times the libertarian concentration.  It might be a better "Free State" destination than New Hampshire.  

Bernelille County New Mexico (which houses Albuquerque), where there were 11870 libertarian votes (relative to New Hampshire's total of about 7400), might also be an interesting destination.  20000 wouldn't make much of a dent percentage wise but that would be a lot of libertarians in one place.  It already has a higher density of libertarians than New Hampshire would have with the extra 20000 shipped in - 3.9 versus 2.1 per square km.

The downside is that Montana and New Mexico are among the 5 poorest states (in per capita income) and generally receives generous transfers from other states e.g. twice what they pay in taxes, while New Hampshire is number 7 in per capita income and doesn't live off other states. If one wants a convincing example of a libertarian state then avoiding being hypocritical would be a good idea????

Anyway if you want to spend time with lots of libertarians then Albuquerque is the place to go.

Garth

[David Joffe]

Hmm, Gary Johnson is a former Governor of New Mexico, and appears to
have grown up there - might explain some of the support for him
there?

- David


On 7 Nov 2012 at 12:15, Garth Zietsman wrote:

Date sent: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 12:15:18 +0200
Subject: [Libsa] Where are the libertarians in the USA?
From: Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com>
To: LibertarianSA <li...@googlegroups.com>
Send reply to: li...@googlegroups.com

[Garth Zietsman]

Ah that would explain quite a bit. But then how did he become governor in the first place - not as a libertarian I take it?

When one looks at Senate and House contests it seems that there is a much better libertarian showing - often at 6% when both Dems and Republicans are running and even 30% in two cases against a single Republican.  

The most libertarian areas by that measure are

Alaska

Arkansas (North West corner)

Arizona (North East and small central bits)

Colorado (Central)

Indiana (South East bit)

Kansas (South & small eastern bit)

Louisiana (North)

Mississippi (South East corner)

Missouri (South West corner)

Montana

New Hampshire

Ohio (North East corner)

Texas (North West corner)

with Indiana, Missouri & Montana being the most libertarian states.

Broadly speaking North and South parts of the mid-West and a fair bit of central America. 

[David Joffe]

On 9 Nov 2012 at 10:49, Garth Zietsman wrote:

Date sent: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 10:49:32 +0200
Subject: Re: [Libsa] Where are the libertarians in the USA?
From: Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com>
To: li...@googlegroups.com
Send reply to: li...@googlegroups.com

>

> Ah that would explain quite a bit. But then how did he become governor
> in the first place - not as a libertarian I take it?

Hmm, as a Republican, evidently. (In theory that would seem odd,
given the large difference between Republicans and libertarians ...
unless he had some moral revelations, which is not impossible ...
but this kind of
ride-the-bus-that's-more-likely-to-get-you-somewhere opportunism
seems to be normal in politics.) I must admit though, I haven't
followed this election lately at all, and know very little about
him.

- David

[Stephen vJ (Gmail)]

What ? Libertarians vote ? ;-)

 

No matter who you vote for, the government gets voted in. Libertarians often get that, so measuring support for Libertarianism by counting votes is dubious in my view.

 

Not to mention the inclination of Libertarians to be suspicious of politicians i.e. they would probably be less likely to vote for a politician who says that he is a Libertarian (as opposed to Republicans voting for a candidate who says he is a Republican and does or does not live by typically Republican norms).

 

I, personally, would rather vote for a Republican who advocated lower taxes and spending or for a Democrat who was in favour of a reduced & balanced budget, for example. They might not be Libertarian per se, but as long as they do Libertarian things, that is what I really want.

 

Then again, I don't vote, so you wouldn't know.

 

S.

[Frances Kendall]

What about the social issues? Are they a factor in whom you would vote for?

Sent from my iPad

[Stephen vJ (Gmail)]

Economics is a social issue. It THE social issue. There is no one without the other. Specialization and trade is our primary reason for social interaction. Economics is the reason we evolved speech.

 

Besides, it's impossible to find and relocate all the Jews or to hunt down all the weed smokers without funding, so I figure that lower taxes will automatically also reduce the chances of such anti-social behaviour.

 

S.

[Frances Kendall]

I'm talking about gay marriage, one child policy, abortion, religious freedom,  immigration, capital punishment etc. 

I don't think for example the GOP & Dems are very far apart on economics, in fact I think either in power would do the same things as we have seen in the past, but on social issues they differ.

In some of the Arab countries they have freedom to trade & low taxes but no religious freedom.

In China they have increasing economic freedom but little personal freedom.

Economic freedom may ultimately lead to the others, but in the short term maybe the others are held more dear by the people concerned?

Sent from Frances iPhone

[Bryan Lever]

Hi Stephen

By not voting at all you are actually voting for the majority party by boosting their %age of the cast votes. Why not spoil your ballot paper. That at least increases the number of ballot papers counted and would reduce the majority party's %age.

Bryan

On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Stephen vJ (Gmail) <sjaar...@gmail.com> wrote:

What ? Libertarians vote ? ;-)

 

No matter who you vote for, the government gets voted in. Libertarians often get that, so measuring support for Libertarianism by counting votes is dubious in my view.

 

Not to mention the inclination of Libertarians to be suspicious of politicians i.e. they would probably be less likely to vote for a politician who says that he is a Libertarian (as opposed to Republicans voting for a candidate who says he is a Republican and does or does not live by typically Republican norms).

 

I, personally, would rather vote for a Republican who advocated lower taxes and spending or for a Democrat who was in favour of a reduced & balanced budget, for example. They might not be Libertarian per se, but as long as they do Libertarian things, that is what I really want.

 

Then again, I don't vote, so you wouldn't know.

 

--
Bryan Lever
PO Box 199, Fontainebleau, 2032 South Africa
Cell: 082-414-5690
Visit my website:
http://www.bryanleverstudios.ws

[Stephen vJ (Gmail)]

No, spoilt votes don't count for or against anyone. They don't reduce the winning party's winning margin, they just add to the statistic of people who are so dof that they can't even make a cross in a square. I'm pleased not to be one of them.

 

Spoilt votes only waste the time of the counters and the one spoiling the vote. I have drinking and smoking to do with that time.

 

A friend suggested that a non-vote is like a vote for the majority... so in that election I went and voted for the majority, so effectively I voted for the winning party twice - once with a cross and once by withholding my vote from the opposition. ;-p

 

Besides, by voting, I would indicate my agreement with a system of refined oppression. Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Just because you get to choose a new master every five years, does not make you less of a slave.

 

I don't agree with the principle of democracy and will have no part in it. Collective decision-making is only needed where freedom is lacking and voting is participation in collective decision-making rather than seeking the freedom it attempts to compensate for.

 

S.

 

From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bryan Lever
Sent: 11 November 2012 22:13
To: li...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Libsa] Where are the libertarians in the USA?

 

Hi Stephen

--

[Stephen vJ (Gmail)]

Whether the Republicans want to build a 6m high electric fence around Mexico or the Democrats want to make everyone be equally circumcised does not interest me much. Some of them hate gays, others hate business owners and yet others hate smokers. Whatever their flavour of hatred is, does not concern me as much as their ability to fund the actions and propaganda campaigns needed to advance their latest hatred. You can hack at the branches all you like, but taxation is at the root of it all. Both Arabia and China are relative newcomers to economic freedom and as can already be seen from the Arab Spring and recent abolishment of the one child policy in parts of China, social freedom is not far behind. I argue that they must be, because the two are in fact one.

[Julian le Roux]

Stephen: Besides, by voting, I would indicate my agreement with a system of refined oppression.

Wrong!!!

"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former.

His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him."
-- Lysander Spooner
(1808-1887) Political theorist, activist, abolitionist
Source: No Treason. No. II The Constitution, (Boston: Published by the Author, 1867)
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2213&layout=html
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Lysander.Spooner.Quote.3EAD

[Stephen vJ (Gmail)]

For once, I disagree with Mr. Spooner.

 

In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave.

 

Exactly. I refuse to partake in a system which has only two sides and both of them losing sides. I consider being a master just as despicable as being a slave.

 

And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former.

 

This is where I disagree. There is an alternative. In fact, there are many. One can advocate proper freedom and thereby change this environment within which you find yourself. You can start an action group or a think-tank or blow up parliament or declare your independence. The choice is not simply to vote or not to vote and I can find at least a dozen things better to do with my energy than to partake in a lose-lose game.

 

The analogy to war is demonstrably wrong too, since one can flee (as most people who find themselves surrounded by it do). In the case of democracy and government, the places to flee to are rather limited, more so than in the case of war. That does not change the principle though, which is why people entertain ideas like sea steading.

 

S.