Liberty Maven

For the Ron Paul supporter living in Louisiana or Montana you are somewhat lucky. Ron Paul will be on your ballot on November 4th so you can vote for him. For the rest of us who reject the write in of Ron Paul as truly a wasted effort the decision comes down to two candidates: Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin. Anyone who reads Liberty Maven regularly knows I’m supporting Bob Barr, but my goal is to make this comparison unbiased. Continue reading to see if I’m successful.

First and foremost, if you believe in true liberty your only choices for President are Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin. Ralph Nader is not a viable choice. He is far too anti-free market. Cynthia McKinney is also not a realistic choice. She is more socialist-leaning than Obama. I also reject the write in of Ron Paul because doing so is the equivalent of staying home on election day, writing ‘Ron Paul’ on a piece of paper, then throwing it in the trash. Of course, there is also a good argument to be made that voting for Barr or Baldwin will have little effect since neither is going to come close to winning, but unlike a write-in at least their vote totals will be registered no matter how minuscule they end up being.

Now that the choice is narrowed down to our two liberty candidates, which is the better choice? Let’s find out.

Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin agree much more than they disagree on the issues themselves. There are notable exceptions. Chuck Baldwin is much more a purist/radical than Barr on issues like abolishing the Federal Reserve and U.S. Sovereignty. It’s hard to find a Baldwin speech where he doesn’t mention how electing him would make “the New World Order come crashing down.” Barr takes a more moderate approach to these issues in an attempt to woo conservative Republicans and more mainstream votes. To the purist, Bob Barr could be considered a “sell out” or “lacking integrity” for this strategy. To the moderate it is precisely the best way to run a campaign and maximize exposure and votes.

Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin for President. That may be enough for those that believe Ron Paul is the one true all-freedom all-liberty can-do-no-wrong Lord of the Revolution. For those that dig a little deeper some concerns arise. Ron Paul has his own PAC called the Liberty PAC. On it’s website Paul endorses sending money to several candidates who are neoconservative warmongers. For me, this negates any credibility a Ron Paul endorsement has on affecting my own choice for President.

Going back to the issues, Chuck Baldwin’s views on trade are not in the same ballpark as those of Ron Paul or even Bob Barr for that matter. To put it simply, Baldwin is a protectionist. FreeColorado.com sums Baldwin’s protectionism rather well.

Note that Baldwin is not merely advocating tariffs as a least-bad tax, to be imposed evenly across the board so as to impose the least economic damage. No. Baldwin is advocating tariffs to impose protectionism, to limit free trade. He wants tariffs “based on the difference between the foreign item’s cost of production abroad and the cost of production of a similar item produced in the United States.”

Baldwin’s position is antithetical to liberty and free markets. That Paul, allegedly a sympathizer with Austrian economics, would endorse a protectionist — a protectionist! — for president is horrendous. Mises would be appalled.

It’s difficult not to accept that Baldwin is a protectionist on trade, but I don’t necessarily buy into the claims that he is a theocrat. The Constitution Party platform invokes the bible and God, and Baldwin is the Constitution Party’s nominee. However, Baldwin is his own man, and while he is a church man, he does believe in states rights on the questions of same sex marriage and abortion. For that he should be commended.

Concerns also arise with Baldwin on the Drug War. He does say that he will leave it to the states, but he has never said that he would end the war on drugs. He also meshes combating drugs and immigration by saying he will “seal the border” to stop the flow of drugs. When we rated Baldwin on our Paul-O-Meter his campaign replied with some clarifications, but he never responded to our specific question that asked, “Will you end the war on drugs?”. As a supporter of Ron Paul this worries me.

Baldwin doesn’t have a voting record. He only has his own articles and commentary. This is in contrast to Bob Barr who doesn’t have the best voting record when it comes to liberty to put it mildly. Barr voted for the Patriot Act, although he did so to be allowed to put sunset provisions in the act. He also voted for sending troops to Iraq. His excuse is that he and his fellow lawmakers were misled by the Bush’s Executive branch about what the purpose of the actions in Iraq would be. Barr also was one of the biggest drug warriors in Congress. These are reasons he will never be trusted by the strictest of liberty-seeking voters. I understand that concern and can’t blame anyone for having it even though Barr has repudiated much of his anti-liberty past.

If a Ron Paul write-in option is included we have three flawed liberty candidates from which to choose. Ron Paul has his own flaws no matter how godlike some of us supporters believe him to be.

Rejecting the Ron Paul write in option, your choice is between Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. Barr has a past that some believe diminishes his capability for liberty in the present. Baldwin is anti-liberty on trade and his party’s penchant for embracing God within its platform eliminates him from contention for some.

Neither Barr, Baldwin, nor Paul are going to win. Does that mean this entire article and your vote is pointless? Hardly. In some states during the primary season delegates are on the ballot instead of the actual candidates. The delegates are pledged to a specific candidate so by proxy you are voting for the candidate by voting for the delegate or slate of delegates.

Think of Baldwin and Barr as delegates for liberty and cast your vote for one of them on November 4th. Or if it helps, think of them as delegates for Ron Paul and do the same.

It is time to push away the temptation to argue the finer points among these liberty candidates. Sure, it will leave some feeling empty inside, but the sum of votes that Barr, Baldwin (and Paul in Louisiana and Montana) receive on November 4th will all be votes for the message of liberty. And never forget, it is more about the message than the man.