Tuesday, November 04, 2014

Today I am not voting.

Of course I am a devotee of Gordon Tullock and have fully taken on the insight that in any conceivable election my vote is extremely unlikely to make a difference, but let's grab this elephant by the other end here this morning.

People, I am in favor of legalizing drugs, same sex marriage, LBGT rights, and a vastly smaller military. I am also in favor of increased immigration, increased trade, and drastically less regulation on economic activity. I favor increased funding for research into alternative energy, but I do not favor specific investments in specific companies. I favor abolishing the TSA, the BATF, and the Department of Agriculture. I am against the militarization of local police forces. I am ashamed of the size and racial makeup of our prison system. I despise constant government led erosion of our privacy. I would like to replace our weird, patchy safety net with a guaranteed basic income. I favor a single payer approach to providing universal health care. I would love to see substantial, revenue neutral, carbon tax.

Oh, and did I mention I live in Oklahoma?

Exactly who am I supposed to vote for?





13 comments:

BR said...

In SC there are a few candidates on the ballot for whom a vote sends a message, but I had to write in Harry Sax for the 11 other offices.

Anonymous said...

Mike,

I was catching up on some econtalk from way back that I missed and I stumbled upon your enlightening discussion of norms in sports. I have just a few thoughts which were not discussed in the podcast.

1) First, here's colorful Canadian commentator Don Cherry discussing hockey tradition vs. baseball tradition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuwZ-Z7JVxc

2) I thought you missed an opportunity to discuss the instigator rule in hockey as an example of how new legislation designed to prevent violence can have the effect of creating even more violence. It is one of the most controversial rules in all of hockey and is extremely relevant to the conversation you were having. The short background story is that the NHL created a rule which says that any player who fights an unwilling player will receive even more punishment than is usual. Good idea in theory to protect star players. Unfortunately, some think it hurt the ability of the good to enforce the code among players and therefore has allowed "pests" to emerge. "pests" are smaller players who take cheap shots against the star players on the opposing team but never have to face the consequences of their actions. Another example of that effect which you discussed and which is also discussed among hockey fans, is the role of the visor. That is another controversial conversation because some think it increases violence by diminishing the ability of goons to seek revenge. In junior hockey for example, it is customary for two code abiding players to remove their helmet before they fight. Some also argue against going to a full shield over the face because it will lead to more dangerous hits like in football.

3) One point, which you did not discuss, is the effect season length has on fighting in sports. In hockey and baseball, the seasons are so long that each individual game isn't that important. Therefore players are willing to respond immediately because in the long run it may keep your teammates healthy. Or they may respond later because they know there will be another opportunity to get revenge. In the playoffs though, where the stakes are higher, there is barely any fighting because the players don't want to hurt their teams chances of winning by taking a penalty. So instead of seeking retribution in game, each player takes a note of what happened and gets revenge the following season. That is why real rivalries are created in the playoffs. The combination of high stakes and lack of immediate response create a dynamic where a lot of liberties are taken which then follow the players into the next season and the year after. In my opinion, fighting doesn't make sense in football because each game is so important and the players don't have the ability to face the same team later in the season.

4) thanks for the insights. It was a joy to listen to.

Jim Oliver said...

People, I am in favor of legalizing drugs, same sex marriage, LBGT rights, and a vastly smaller military. I am also in favor of increased immigration, increased trade, and drastically less regulation on economic activity. I favor increased funding for research into alternative energy, but I do not favor specific investments in specific companies. I favor abolishing the TSA, the BATF, and the Department of Agriculture. I am against the militarization of local police forces. I am ashamed of the size and racial makeup of our prison system. I despise constant government led erosion of our privacy. I would like to replace our weird, patchy safety net with a guaranteed basic income. I favor a single payer approach to providing universal health care. I would love to see substantial, revenue neutral, carbon tax.

To much bundling you will never find a candidate that you like. With Government doing so much unrelated stuff, it might be better if in place of voting geographically (Federal, state, city executives and legislature) we should vote by function.

I.e. elect a sate law enforcement head with his tax, a benevolence guy with his tax, a healthcare guy a defense and foreign policy guy with his tax etc.

MK said...

This says it all:

https://twitter.com/_FloridaMan/status/529790811018235904

Jon P said...

God save us from perfectionists.

On second thought, they don't seem to be posing any threat.

If you're hitching a ride from OKC to Chapel Hill, will you spurn a ride to Nashville because it's not Chapel Hill?

When do you drop the ideal and select the "good enough"?

Anonymous said...

If you ever decide to run on that platform, you've got my vote.

Do my essay for me said...

Too bad you choose not to vote..I think the best option would be to go and vote and make your voice to count.

Tom said...

I am thankful that I live in NC where I could vote None Of The Above, in the form of Sean Haugh, Libertarian of US Senate. In your position, Angus, I too would not have voted.

P.S. Sean got got twice the difference between the D and the R. I relish the ire of the loser ;-)

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, there were a few non-libertarian statements in this post.

"I favor increased funding for research into alternative energy, but I do not favor specific investments in specific companies."
- let the private sector do it entirely, which would be met by market demands. Why throw good resources after bad?

"I would like to replace our weird, patchy safety net with a guaranteed basic income."
- should be in favor of lower taxes to help private charities have more resources to solve the demands, like done in history, rather than creating this group by government mandate

"I would love to see substantial, revenue neutral, carbon tax."
-boo.

Anonymous said...

When you ran for governor, I - like many Libertarians - also took Tullock's approach and didn't vote. How did that work out?

It's a bit ironic that there's a well known Libertarian story about a free person who gradually has more and more of his rights taken away by government in a stepwise manner until he becomes what is obviously a slave. The narrator then asks at what point in this process was the man a slave.

Certainly, Tullock would agree that in a population of one, his vote would count. He also assumes that in a population of 250,000,000, his vote doesn't count. One must then ask, at what point did his vote stop counting.

Richard Rider said...

I largely agree with this critique of voting. Yet I still vote.
One should NOT vote to decide an election (but most do). The odds are beyond astronomical that you'd cast the deciding vote in a significant election -- EVER. Especially with all the Gerrymandering.
Oddly enough, people feel most compelled to vote for President -- the race they have the LEAST chance of affecting the outcome.
But one might choose to vote to add to the 'survey' of voters' preferences. I do. In my deep blue state of California, I cringe when I hear the liberal press claiming a "mandate" for progressive policies.
Two important things about voting:
1. Spend as little time as possible voting.
2. Spend as little time as possible THINKING about voting.
RE: 1. I vote by mail. It's a great way to vote. I am a permanent "absentee" voter (an archaic term).
Voting by mail entails less transportation risk, to start with (though I might get hit by an asteroid while filling out the ballot in my study). Total out of pocket cost -- one 47 cent stamp. Also I get to decide when to vote -- not the government. No lines. No bumbling precinct clerks. Nicer bathrooms. Better coffee.
RE 2: In California we have propositions -- state and local. The short cut for understanding these props is to look who is funding which side, and who is signing the ballot arguments. For instance, 99% of the time, if the unions advocate a vote one way, you can't go wrong voting the OTHER way.
Candidates? Same way. Who are the unions funding? That's a GREAT guideline -- for both conservatives and progressives.
Judges? Who cares? Actually most judges run unopposed, so I always vote against them (we can do that in California) -- so they feel a bit less anointed than otherwise would be the case.
--
One other advantage. I get to leverage my vote by filling out other family members' mail ballots at home for them. All legal, as they have to sign that they are the one mailing in the ballot, thereby verifying they agree with the positions on the ballot. My family is relieved of the burden, while I control a dominant number of votes with little effort. Well, "dominant" might be a tad exaggerated.

ConnGator said...

I was with you until you got to single payer health care.

I favor a free market plus vouchers for re-insurance as presented by Cato.

If there are no Libertarian candidates in you state you should run or convince a fellow libertarian to run. We had one in NC.

Tom said...

ConnGator should learn a bit about Oklahoma's ballot access wall before advising people to run for office. The system is rigged to the gills.

But Angus's decision is vidicated: your vote didn't count either. Here's why: http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/your-vote-doesnt-count