As to your question, who knows what would happen if Obama were to er…not make it for the next month? I don’t. Not that it matters much. But thanks for harping on it again.

For example, take McCain or Obama…

…please.”

So am I to take it that you are now viewing it as McCain & Obama, rather than McCain and what’s-her-name?

Why not create a Liberty PAC and only apply Niskanen’s plans in districts where there are no Libertarian Party candidates? Then both approaches could be tried and we could compare the results in the competitive free market.

I would be willing to help with such a project.

Mr. Hill notwithstanding “With that said, most libertarians DID endorse (and work for) Ron Paul” as a statement about Libertarians rather than conservatives is demonstrably false. I have had another opportunity to compare the very publicly available large lists of Ron Paul donors–not just the >$200 ones–with the list of Libertarians past present and contact in another state, and once again the overlap of the two lists was very small. Perhaps 2% of the names on the Paul list were on the LP list, ans similarly in the other direction.

(Apologies for excluding other libertarian organizations created to work within the Democratic and Republican parties. I’m sure there are more out there.)

If these groups are not successful in nominating a candidate acceptable to libertarians, the Libertarian Party exists as another vehicle to nominate such a candidate.

Of course, a better way would be to reform the electoral system with some type of non-plurality voting system.

I agree with Alex Tabarrok’s recommended voting strategy for libertarians this year. “Voice” did not work with Republicans over the past eight years.

So this election it is time to punish Republicans by exercising “exit.”

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/09/why-libertarian.html

Working outside the political system by exercising direct action can be effective too.

http://www.bureaucrash.com/

http://www.rlc.org/

http://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/

(Apologies for excluding other libertarian organizations created to work within the Democratic and Republican parties. I’m sure there are more out there.)

If these groups are not successful in nominating a candidate acceptable to libertarians, the Libertarian Party exists as another vehicle to nominate such a candidate.

http://www.lp.org/

Of course, a better way would be to reform the electoral system with some type of non-plurality voting system.

http://www.fairvote.org

I agree with Alex Tabarrok’s recommended voting strategy for libertarians this year. “Voice” did not work with Republicans over the past eight years.

So this election it is time to punish Republicans by exercising “exit.”

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/09/why-libertarian.html

Working outside the political system by exercising direct action can be effective too.

http://www.bureaucrash.com/

…please.

I think you are right that Mr. Niskanen is ready to endorse McCain or Obama—and I dont think many libertarians are, im certainly not. With that said, most libertarians DID endorse (and work for) Ron Paul–and this is the avenue we should always take. Run a major party candidate and put all of our money-efforts into that. After that is done, run one liberty-candidate as a third-party.

per dictionary.com. I didn’t misuse the word, except perhaps in the context of libertarian circles.

But I still, maybe inartfully, somehow made my general point.

For example, take McCain or Obama…I assume Mr. Niskanen could not have been making his argument in a vacuum, I assume he could be comfortable endorsing a McCain or an Obama, rather than running our own presidential candidate.

I am so offended by the very idea, that you use the State to take money from individuals, and then use it, for example to fund a bailout of the 3 big automakers, one of which, is even privately owned.

That is so offensive to me, that I cannot consider which evil to vote for…the point being its really evil to me.

We misuse this word evil. Any person who actually supports evil, well, is mentally ill. By definition, is, in fact, mentally ill.

The people who vote for so called ‘evil’…don’t really believe its evil. They believe its OK.

So be careful with words, I really respect that. I probably misused the word statist, but the fact is, this word ‘evil’ is being misused every day.

And the misuse of that word, is causing great confusion.

Lets make this a little simpler though, see if I can get any agreement.

If there were two pro-rape candidates running for president, but only one of them was also an old school racist, you would endorse the lessor of the two evils?

The problem being missed, here, is some people believe in libertarianism, and some people REALLY believe in libertarianism.

I’m not going to endorse any statist. Period. Not ever. Because, like rape, like racism, like pedophelia, statism is force, and it is wrong, and I don’t support it.

The lessor of two evils argument is great for people who, quite frankly don’t really believe they are talking about evil at all. They are statists, and they are comfortable with it.
But for others, I don’t see any point in supporting evil. I’ll choose a different path, and thats OK.

I’d contend, though, that Niskanen’s formula is equally as idyllic, unworkable and overly dependent on a level of discipline that would be impossible to manage in a real-world setting. The likely outcomes would be:

(1) Attention by the Favored Major Party – once the influence of the minor party is established, the most-likely favored party would lavish enough attention on the minor party as to force the creation of internal hierarchies that would lock the minor party to the favored major party, regardless of policy position off the latter.

(2) Inattention by the Favored Major Party – once the influence of the minor party is established, the most-likely favored party would act to alienate the parasitic minor party to such a degree as to push it into the Least Favored Major Party’s camp, returning the political landscape to the status quo as existed prior to the Niskanen scenario.