Thursday, 22 May 2008

Libertarianz '08

Liberty Scott explains clearly, cogently and convincingly why voting Libertarianz in 'o8 is not a wasted vote.

I won't waste time summarising it, since by the time you've printed it out, hung it on your fridge and used it several times in debate with your backsliding friends and acquantainces you'll be able to summarise it perfectly yourself. But I will repeat this important point:
It is time to be bold politically and stand up for beliefs and philosophies, not pander to fears and prejudices. Your vote is a very small influence, so it should be one that says what you believe in - and that should be more than simply "I want rid of Helen Clark."
It's all up to you, isn't it.

Meanwhile, good luck with getting your tax cut this afternoon.


  1. I strongly agree. The first comment on his site summed it up best for me:

    "You should vote for the candidate and party which best represent your values and wishes. The idea that if you don't vote for the winner you have wasted your vote is misconceived."


  2. Last time it was 946 votes. Assuming that the Libz have the minimum number of members required (500, right?), then only 446 "outsiders" voted for the party. I can't be that hard for each member to convince one other person to vote for the party.

    There are obviously more than 1000 voting liberterians in New Zealand. The "wasted vote" thing is a real problem, especially with ACT providing a safe alternative.

  3. Your vote is a very small influence, so it should be one that says what you believe in - and that should be more than simply "I want rid of Helen Clark."It's all up to you, isn't it.

    This is all very wonderful and probably makes you libz feel warm and fuzzy, but the reality is that the influence it will have on policy next term is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

    A vote for ACT will be infinitely more valuable even if they only manage to cause a very small reduction in nanny state.

  4. Liberty Scott and PC are missing the most important fact:

    Elections are SUPPOSED to be popularity contests. That's the whole idea. There's nothing unfair about voters choosing the more charismatic candidate-- ie Key.

    That's how things work in politics.

  5. It could be argued that a vote serves a rational purpose - to elect a party that can form a government - and that a vote cast contrary to this purpose seems somewhat irrational. It could also be argued that the anonymous vote is hardly an expression of political boldness. But I think the best argument is that if 500 Floridians had voted for a libertarian candidate rather than the Republican candidate in 2000, An Inconvenient Truth would be more than a just a bad, disingenuous movie. I don’t remember your 2000 evaluation of Bush being any more favourable than “John Boy”.

  6. Elijah Lineberry23 May 2008, 11:26:00

    It could also be argued, Justin, that voting for what you believe in is better than selling your soul to confidence tricksters of the Murray McCully variety.

    Regarding Florida 2000, had the US Supreme Court allowed the additional recount, it would have shown up all manner of bogus votes from dead people, felons, triple voting and all the other tricks the Democrat party gets up to.

    This would have seen President Bush declared the winner by many thousands, rather than 500, in that State.

  7. The Republicans are hardly lily white on voting irregularities. But 1,000 votes, 2,000 votes, whatever, Elijah. The point is that a relatively small number of votes cast the “wrong” way can make all the difference. Western democracies (MMP window-dressing notwithstanding) are two-party systems. You cast your vote in support of the administration or in opposition to the administration. The only clear, serious advocates for a change of government able to achieve it are National and (maybe) ACT. To vote otherwise, in real terms, indicates support for the administration, or ambivalence for the administration.

    And ambivalence might be an acceptable position. I know many New Zealand libertarians believe that there is no real difference between National and Labour, which is fine. But to suggest that the Libertarianz party will be politically relevant this election borders on delusion. It is simply the wrong vehicle for libertarian activism, lost in the noise of a general election. I would venture that this blog is a much more effective vehicle, enlightening one person at a time. Perhaps the Libertarianz could funnel their money and resources PC’s way.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.