Topic: Bob Barr
Do Not Support Bob Barr Supporting Bob Barr for president is supporting vice.by Steven M. Paquin
(libertarian)
Monday, July 14, 2008
Libertarians become ecstatic whenever a Libertarian politician with some name recognition campaigns for president. It happened with Ron Paul earlier this year and now it is happening with Bob Barr. However, in every case, without even analyzing the politician's platform one can find several rotten planks. This was true for Paul, and it is true for Barr.
The fact that Barr is campaigning for president is the first reason not to support him. No individual actively seeking political office should receive support. The problem with political offices is that they are positions within an institution that has a monopoly on using force. Though the institution, government, is only supposed to use force for defending natural rights, it invariably initiates force, violating natural rights.
Government initiation of force is so prevalent it is essentially common knowledge. Therefore, most political candidates are aware they are seeking participation in a vicious institution. Barr is undoubtedly included in this group, for he is a Libertarian; his entire platform is based on curbing government vice.
However, this does not make Barr virtuous. In order for him to curb government vice, he must partake in it for some time. Furthermore, Barr will not curb every government vice. For example, taxes — government sanctioned armed robbery. Therefore, he will always be participating in some government vice. Barr is well aware of this; thus, he is seeking vice.
Additionally, if Barr was able to remove all government vice, he would have violated the Constitution to do so. Legislators have the most power in reducing government vice, for they pass and repeal laws, which initiate force. The President cannot repeal laws. Therefore, if Barr did remove all government vice, he would once again be vicious.
The other problem with seeking political office is that it includes seeking power or control over others. Only vicious men seek power; thus, politicians should never be volunteers. Even Barr is seeking power. Reducing the government's infringement upon men's lives means the reducer has control of men's lives. For example, a firefighter, though reducing the flames, has control over whether or not the flames' victims live.
The second reason not to support Barr is that he is going to lose, and that Barr knows he is going to lose. Barr is obviously intelligent. Therefore, he realizes he is a third party candidate lacking the support to win states and electoral votes; thus, he knows he will not win the presidency. However, he is still asking people for support, donations, campaign volunteering, etc. He is asking people to invest their time, money, and labor in a campaign he knows will lose. This is comparable to a businessman asking people to buy stock in his company that he knows is unprofitable. Barr is essentially asking people to buy something he knows is broken. This is a mark of skewed reasoning. A man, who knows he cannot achieve something, yet pursues to achieve it, and asks others to help him, is truly irrational.
The final reason not to support Barr is because he is religious. Government employment should not require passing religious tests because that would make the government a theocracy, which is just another way to spell tyranny. However, political candidates should have to answer for their religious beliefs. They should explain why they believe in something without any evidence. Of course, there is no logical explanation; religion is inherently irrational. Therefore, Barr is irrational, especially in regards to his morality.
The core of a religion is its moral code. However, religion is irrational; thus, the morality that follows is irrational. Since every action is a moral action, every action committed by a religious person is based on irrationality. Consequently, supporting religious candidates for political offices is to support irrationality within the government — an institution requiring the utmost reason to function properly and virtuously.
Barr is clearly infinitely superior to the presumptive alternatives, Barack Obama and John McCain, but these points alone make him imperfect. Therefore, though Barr is the lesser of the evils, he is still evil; thus, supporting Barr is supporting vice.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Steven M. Paquin only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Steven M. Paquin is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-07-14 21:03:30
Hi Steven,
You've wrapped yourself around a logical fallacy. If you can't imagine a reason, besides winning, for running for office, especially the office of the president of the united states of America then I'd say a logical fallacy isn't your biggest handicap.
If you can imagine a reason for running, other than winning, then perhaps Barr is not so obviously irrational as you assert and your whole premise crumbles.
This could be the most inane article I have ever read at the Nolan Chart website.
"No individual actively seeking political office should receive support."
How should we fill elected offices, then? Should we just randomly place homeless people and assorted slackers and college dropouts with no future into the Presidency, Congress, Governorships, etc? Just make sure when we ask them if they wish to serve in office, that they are surprised. We wouldn't want to fill political offices with people who actually want the job.
Ok...so, supporting any Libertarian for any office is bad because government as it stands right now is bad? You're wallowing in a non-sequitur, Steven.
We still have avenues for recourse, and we'd be stupid not to use them.
the logic behind this is seriously flawed. take for instance the part about how politicians should not be volunteers? how can you say that and not be either an anarchist at best, or a statist at the far opposite? if anarchist, i agree with it, being there would be no government, but as statist i would believe you to be saying conscript them, which is altogether opposed to your own argument of not using force. makes no sense to me.
as far as him losing, who's for sure? it doesn't matter anyway- the president is pretty well useless by himself. and i haven't heard him say word one about religion yet.
the rest of your argument is pretty well gibberish, so i'll leave it at that.
Before I critique your article I want you to know I love you and respect you. Unlike 98% of the population you are on here sharing your ideas with us and most importantly using your head. Keep it up, even if we disagree with you.
That having been said, the article is wrong on so many levels.
I'll start with the religion bit. I am a libertarian and consider personal freedom and choice extremely important. I should have the right to my beliefs, incoherent and inane as they may be to you. You have the right to your lack of belief. This is called mutual respect. I don't care what somebody believes as a leader as long as they do not advocate imposing it on me. Your requirement that no religious man or woman get involved in our government is the opposite of libertarianism.
And not supporting him because you know he is going to lose? You may be right that he is going to lose, but that isn't what the fight for freedom is all about right now. We're locked in a battle for hearts and minds. Ron Paul didn't secure the Republican nomination, but it was his entry into the Republican arena that caused so many to see the validity of libertarianism (myself included). And you yourself admitted that the president isn't all that important anyway. You have to think long term here. Don't let the inevitable short-term losses distract you from the goal here.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandhi
And I am going to oppose your first point on practical grounds. I do not know how we can have people serve in the government without them wanting to do so. Do you advocate forced government servitude for the best and brightest? What if they want to do something else?
We still need *some* government. It is up to us to pick the best and brightest and most correct of all willing to serve in public office. It is also up to us to get in their way when they step out of line after we elect them. Basically it's our job to make sure government doesn't do wrong by us, not theirs. If the system gets too corrupted and we lose control it's up to us to take it back--with force if necessary.
We will never have some magic bullet to fend off all possible evil/vice/whatever you want to call it in government. This is a long term effort, not just an election year strategy.
Posted By: Benjamin Vander Jagt
Date: 2008-07-14 23:48:31
I was really hoping to vote for Ron Paul, but thanks to your article, I am going to support Bob Barr for at least these three reasons:
1) He is campaigning for president, just like Ron Paul. 2) He knows he is possibly going to lose, but fights anyway, just like Ron Paul. 3) He is religious, just like Ron Paul.
Thank you for your informative article. I think you may have finally convinced me to vote for Barr when you said, "Barr is clearly infinitely superior to the presumptive alternatives."
Sir, I do hope you have learned at least as much from me as I have from you.
I won't vote for the two clowns that have been shoved down my throat by the media. Bob Barr is at least not the lesser of two evils like Obama and McCain. Not a very good article. Many assumptions that have no backing.
Your argument is that (conclusion) Libertarians should not support Bob Barr because (premise) Libertarians should not support politicians, period. The problem with that premise is that, if it were believed, only non-libertarians would support politicians; and therefore governments would "invariably violate rights." That's both vicious (since doing what you advocate would lead to continued rights-violations) and circular (since "governments invariably violate rights" is your premise [your reason] for concluding that Libertarians should not support politicians in the first place).
Burke put it this way 200 years ago: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
But Plato had beat him to it 2,000 years earlier: "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
"The fact that Barr is campaigning for president is the first reason not to support him." What? In order to run for an office, you have to want it. Campaigning is how you get your message out. You have to compete in the arena of ideas. We don't pick our elected officials merely on their SAT scores. There has to be a desire to serve and a hunger to put your life on hold.
You argument that "religion=vice" is like "fire=bananas". I guess you could put bananas in a fire, but so what? I thought you were going to show some basic flaw that would make him unqualified for the office, or less qualified than his competitors.
Sure, he'll probably lose. I don't think the Libertarians will get a single electoral vote. But sometimes ratcheting up the popular votes brings attention to issues the other candidates aren't willing to talk about. Ralph Nader and the Greens may make the environment more of an issue this election. Barr might draw more attention to the growth of government.
Posted By: Chris in Texas
Date: 2008-07-15 07:35:37
I suppose the USA is an irrational nation that should not exist according to your logic (or lack of logic).
The founders of this country were all religious men. Yes that includes George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and all the other signers of the Constitution. Ever read any of their writings? Here are just a few...
Patrick Henry: "Orator of the Revolution." • This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.” —The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry
Thomas Jefferson: “ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.” “Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.” "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." --Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]
George Washington
“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]
"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]
Like it or not, the laws of this country are based on the Christian Bible. Or do you think our laws are "irrational"? Would you prefer anarchy? Or perhaps a system of laws based on the Koran? Just ask the people of Afghanastan about those living conditions.
You may not believe in the Christian faith, that\'s your choice, but you better hold your tongue before you ridicule it, because the very freedom that allows you to do so is based on it.
As for voting for Bob Barr, I fully recommend it. I\'m not in agreement with all of the Libertarian platform, but I believe in sending a clear message to the 2 party system that has become nothing more than a globally minded, power hungry, juggernaut that must be stopped before it is too late and the American people loose every freedom that we have fought so hard to achieve.
It\'s too bad that all third parties could not join forces just this once. But everyone must do what they feel is right. After all, this is America... we are still free to choose... for now.
I rather enjoyed the idea of rejecting anybody who wants political office from holding one. Perhaps we could hold a raffle among with all contsitutionally eligible citizens required to participate to fill the presidency, the Congress and all other currently elected offices. It would, of course, require amendment of the constitution, but I don't know that those selected would be any worse than our present and pending group of office holders.
A good US presidential candidate should first apologize for runining for such a scray office as the Presidence of the United States.His platform should include strategies to bring the vice-president role to a part-time job without much staf as it used to be.
I don't find the other two arguments quite convincing. Running for office is good only because it's an opportunity to make some noise againt governments. A good candidate should promise to (1) shut down as much of government as he can, (2) give up his salary/perks, (3) do nothing. If elected, don't serve!
Frankly, the "religion" argument is weird. Sounds like you read too much of Ayn Rand, if I may. As a cure, you may watch the Murray Rothbard play "Mozart was a red"; it must be available on mises.org. It is fun.
In any case, the title of the article is perfect. Bob Barr,! Go back to where you belong: the Republican Party!
This is without a doubt the most asinine article I have ever read on the web. I have read some really bad ones over the years, but none based on a premise quite as illogical as the one on which this article is based.
We are Americans. We don't just give up because the situation in which we find ourselves looks particularly shitty. We endeavor to persevere. We have done so for over 200 years, and we will continue to do so.
I am supporting Bob Barr because he is the BEST option we have this time around, not because he is the least of the evils. We may yet get McBama, but we survived Jimmy Carter. We'll survive McBama as well.
Still, the ONLY way that We The People are ever going to get any real, meaningful change in Washington, D.C. is to break the back of the two-party system once and for all. The best way to do that is to support third party candidates whenever viable, credible ones volunteer. The opportunity to support Bob Barr's campaign this year may well be the best chance the Libertarian Party has ever had.
Thank God that Bob Barr agreed to step forward. He has my full and unequivocal support. I've been disgusted with the Democrats for decades. Now, after 30 years of loyally supporting the GOP, I am finally disgusted with them as well. I recently made a modest donation to Bob's campaign. He has my vote this November. I will not waver.
this comment is for Chris in Texas - the Christian
Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature's God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Most of them were stoutly opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular.
The article itself is purely ridiculous - it seems like he just wants people to read his article for the absurdity of it all, as it could be one of the dumbest pieces I've read on the internet in awhile, and I normally enjoy the articles on Nolan Chart.
Posted By: Thomas from Texas
Date: 2008-07-15 23:05:03
It looks like there are a lot of people reading articles on Nolan Chart. It is interesting to see that people are thinking and that the comments are sometimes more informative than the articles written.
Religion is entirely irrational then, heh? Ok O Wise one, i guess that means you're just smarter than the rest of human kind, and everyone who is religious is a dumbass then. The whole point of religion is having faith - that's why it's called faith not facts. You asking religious people to have to prove their faith to you is a ludicrious proposition.
Here's a question than for you. Can you prove with 100% certainty that there is no God? Think about it, and think about the concept of life, and of course the answer is no you cannot prove that God doesn't exist. Even someone as narrow-minded as yourself can probably wrap your mind around that.
Posted By: Christopher (Fipher) D. Osborn
Date: 2008-07-16 07:20:25
"I kept waiting for the punchline. " - Mike, indeed, as was I.
It really is a depressing article to read. By describing why not to vote for Mr. Barr or Dr. Paul, you discribe who you do think we should vote for, and that person does not and will never exist.
Posted By: Matthew Espenshade
Date: 2008-07-17 12:07:27
I agree with most of the comments up here, not to beat a dead horse but I really felt compelled to vent on this article.
I'm voting for Barr knowing he's probabley not going to win, but believeing he does have an outside shot. But moreover I'm hopeing every little bit of support he gets will help the Libertarian ideal to become more widely known. You never win anything if you don't try.
As for the religion issue, is it really irrational to believe that a universe driven by cause and effect needed to be created by an anomaly that exists outside of it and may possibly possess some conciousness rather than simply believeing "there was nothing, then there was something, and then it exploded"? Moreover, I am a christian who would personally would not engage in homosexual activities and would keep the sabbath holy, but I don't believe in legislating it or anything else that doesn't hurt another person on this planet. Is that irrational?
If Barr is "superior" to the other alternatives then why don't you vote for him??? The logic here is MIA. The idea is to vote for the best candidate and although Barr isn't perfect he is the best that we have right now.
I have never seen an article that doesn't discuss the legalization of marijuana that actually makes me wonder just how high this author was. What a bunch of poppycock.
I wouldn't vote for Barr simply for the fact that he's a neocon in libertarian clothing. CIA all the way. He's the only one they have been able to convince us is better than freshman Barack or Miserable McCain. Both the liars promised to accept only private monies until they saw how much there was to be matched. Boo on the parties and BOO on this article.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
