Much has been made about the pending ‘fiscal cliff’ facing the US economy. Automatic spending cuts and tax hikes will go into effect on the first of the new year if our wise leaders in Washington don’t come together and save us (from the problem they themselves created). Here are ten quick thoughts I have about the whole fiscal cliff fiasco:

1. The US government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

The government is not $16 trillion dollars in debt because it has failed to raise enough revenue. The total amount of money the US government takes in each year has increased nearly 20% since Obama took office in 2009. I know many households that would love to have seen their annual income increase by 20% over the last four years. The problem is that government spending continues to skyrocket. For the government to balance the budget at current revenue levels, they would have to cut spending back to....wait for it.....2002 levels!  Wasn't the government already spending plenty in 2002! 

2. Tax increases tend to lead to more spending, not lower deficits.

The income tax originally only taxed the wealthiest one half of one percent. There was a time in our history when federal government spending only consumed a few percentage points of our total economic output. As tax revenues have grown over the past century and the federal government has gotten their hands on more of our money, they have increased spending as well. Politicians tend to do more and promise more as long as they can keep getting away with it. If history is any guide, we know the government tends to look at additional revenue as an excuse to spend more, not pay down their existing bills. And once a new government program is in place, it rarely goes away.   

3. Increasing tax rates is not the same thing as increasing tax revenue.

Obama keeps making comment after comment implying that if we could just raise rates on the wealthy then we would be able to fix the government’s fiscal disaster. While this may sound like music to the ears of the class-warfare zealots, it is no more than a rhetorical distraction. Since World War II, regardless of tax rates, the US government has confiscated roughly the same percentage of GDP in the form of tax revenues. When tax rates are high, the government takes about 17.7% of GDP. When tax rates are low, the government takes about 17.7% of GDP. However, raising tax rates, as Obama proposes to do, tends to do a couple of things. Patterns of behavior do not remain constant before and after tax rate increases. Human beings respond to incentives. Just think, would you have the same incentive to work if 90% of your income was taken from you as opposed to only 10%? Higher tax rates discourage saving and investing. They discourage production. They divert scarce resources away from productive activities and drive people to spend more time and effort looking for tax shelters and loop holes. In short, tax rate increases discourage the very types of behaviors that grow an economy. If the government raises rates, they may very well actually take in less revenue than they otherwise would have in a period of higher GDP growth absent of the tax rate increases. Besides, even if they took 100% of the earnings from everyone making over $250,000 then they would have enough money to fund the US government until about Easter. It's a spending problem folks.

4. Any “tax cuts” that come out of the fiscal cliff negotiations are smoke and mirrors.

The government is not Santa Claus. You and I have to pay for everything the government does, whether we like it or not. People pay for all of Uncle Sam’s welfare, warfare, and out of control spending through either taxation, government debt (future taxation), or inflation (hidden taxation). Inflation is the cruelest tax of all. It hurts the people that can least afford it, such as the poor and elderly on fixed income. Inflation is a deceptive way for the government to slowly transfer wealth from the population to the political class. That wealth transfer is very real. The Federal Reserve is responsible for monetizing U.S. government debt. This tricks people into thinking politicians are Santa Claus when in reality they are systematically stealing from the poor and middle class. So long as the government continues to spend, the people will continue to pay (whether they realize it or not).       

5. The fiscal cliff negotiations are not about fixing the problem. It is about avoiding the blame.

The Republicans and Democrats both want you to think the fiscal disaster facing the U.S. is the other party’s fault. In fact, they are both right. The current situation is the result of decades of bi-partisan malfeasance.  The best either party can hope for right now is for you to believe them when they point the finger across the aisle and say, “It’s their fault.” Don’t pay attention to these tired political games. Both parties are to blame. 

6. Washington D.C. cannot and will not fix the problem because Washington D.C. is the problem.

I wish people would just stop and consider why we are in this mess in the first place. The fiscal cliff is the result of Congressional legislation and “bi-partisan summits” and “super-committees”. The fiscal cliff is a product of Washington D.C. The politicians created all of these programs they can’t pay for. Neither side has any intention of actually cutting spending. The most “draconian” cuts are merely reductions to the rate of future spending increases. The current unfunded obligations promised by the U.S. government over the next 70 years far exceeds the total economic output on planet Earth, yet the politicians continue to turn a blind eye to the reality of the fiscal abyss. Arguments over a billion here or a billion there don't make any material difference. The solution will not come from Washington D.C. The solution will have to come from the states and from the people. Our government spends too much because it does too much. It is time that we fundamentally rethink the role of government.      

7. The current debate is not Republicans vs Democrats….It’s political parasites vs. peaceful and productive human beings.

The term “political parasite” may sound harsh, but it is more than appropriate. Government does not have any resources of its own. It produces nothing. All that it has and all that it distributes it must first take. Washington D.C. is fat and happy. The D.C. area is one of the richest in the country and has grown considerably ever since the onset of the Great Recession. While the rest of the country has struggled to make ends meet, the political class has continued living well. The corporate stooges in Congress and the White House exchange political favor for campaign funding. The banksters, the cronies, and the military industrial complex continue to grow. Debates like the current one regarding the fiscal cliff are designed to get the people fighting with one another over the scraps rather than realizing the presences of a massive red & blue colored tick sucking dry our wealth and resources.   

8. The status quo will be extended.

There will be a compromise pushed through at that last minute.  It is likely we will see some tax increases and and possible decreases in the rate of future spending increases (not any real spending cuts). Chances are good we will see some kind of bridge deal this month and then more of a grand bargain in 2013. The politicians will celebrate it as a bi-partisan solution. It will not be a solution. Nothing changes.  

9. This isn’t a new problem.  The politicians have had years to address the problem. Waiting to the last minute is a deliberate, conscious choice.

Why do they always let it come down to the last minute? Answer: So they generate panic and then ram through their terrible plan as time expires. This is exactly what always happens with these political negotiations. This time will be no different. They have known about the fiscal cliff for over a year. Why wait until December?

10. The bottom line is that the “fiscal cliff” doesn't matter nearly as much as the fiscal abyss. 

The US government passed the point of no return a long time ago. It is fiscally insolvent. There is no possible way it will be able to honor the promises it has made. It will default. The only question remains whether the default will be honest - meaning they come clean now, level with the people, and begin to restructure. Or, the more likely scenario -  they default in a dishonest manner by destroying the currency and making life very difficult for the massive of people now dependent on government for their livelihood.

Isn't it sickening to think that a few hundred incompetent, power-lusting buffoons so strongly control the fates of hundreds of millions of people. Who thought that would be a good idea? 

In Liberty,

Jason Riddle

In the United States we celebrate Thanksgiving on the fourth Thursday of November. It’s a day of family, football, turkey, and the annual Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. How did this day of giving thanks late in November become part of American culture?

We all know the commonly-told story. It goes something like this: The Pilgrims came to America seeking religious freedom. Times were tough that first year. The Native Americans helped the Pilgrims learn to cultivate the land. The Pilgrims invited everyone over for a big Thanksgiving feast. Everybody lived happily ever after. Today we gather with family and friends to celebrate, remember, and give thanks.

There is some truth to that narrative, and there is some fiction. But, there is a lot missing from that story too. I thought it would be timely to fill in a few of the gaps and share some lesser known facts about this popular holiday:

1.  Most of the colonists on the Mayflower were not Pilgrims.

“Just over a hundred colonists sailed from England on the Mayflower in September 1620. Of these, only forty-one were Pilgrims, from Leyden, Holland; eighteen were indentured servants, bound as slaves for seven years to their masters; and the others were largely Anglicans from England, seeking economic opportunity in the New World.” - What Really Happened at Plymouth, Murray Rothbard   

2. Thanksgiving, as we have come to know it, is based historically on an amalgamation of the 1621 meeting between the colonists and the Native Americans and a celebration of the Pequot massacre.

We are told the celebration of Thanksgiving can be traced back to 1621, when Governor William Bradford invited the neighboring Wampanoag Indians to a feast in celebration of the good harvest.

The Pilgrims did have a feast to celebrate the harvest, but it was not repeated again until years later. It certainly was not the beginning of a Thanksgiving tradition. In fact, the Pilgrims didn’t even call the feast Thanksgiving. That would come a decade and a half later.

1621 was indeed a very difficult year for the Plymouth colony. Over half of the colonists were dead by the end of the first winter. The harvest was not the beginning of better times. Food was scarce for several more years in Plymouth (we will learn why a little further down).

The first official "Day of Thanksgiving" was actually proclaimed in 1637 by Massachusetts Bay Colony Governor, John Winthrop. What is not typically taught is that the annual “Thanksgiving” festivities we have come to know and love have origins in the celebration of the Pequot Massacre. 

In May of 1637, a group of well-armed English settlers, along with Narragansett and Mohegan allies, surrounded the Pequot village, set it on fire, and slaughtered the inhabitants.

Winthrop issued a proclamation stating: "A day of Thanksgiving, thanking God that they had eliminated over 700 men, women and children….This day forth shall be a day of celebration and thanksgiving for subduing the Pequots."

The annual “thanksgiving” became a regular tradition after the Pequot Massacre in 1637. Most Americans think about Thanksgiving as being a symbol of colonists and Native Americans working together in peaceful cooperation. However, now that we know the other side of the story, it is easy to understand why many American Indians today call Thanksgiving a "Day of Mourning".

3. The Plymouth Colony was originally organized as communist order, and nearly perished because of it.

“A major reason for the persistent hardships, for the "starving time," in Plymouth as before in Jamestown, was the communism imposed by the company. In this alliance, each adult settler was granted a share in the joint-stock company, and each investment of 10 pounds also received a share. At the end of seven years, the accumulated earnings were to be divided among the shareholders. Until that division, as in the original Virginia settlement, the company decreed a communistic system of production, with each settler contributing his all to the common store and each drawing his needs from it — again, a system of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." - What Really Happened at Plymouth, Murray Rothbard   

Governor William Bradford, far from an individualist or supporter of free-markets, wrote that the taking away of private property and bringing the harvest into the commons for distribution based on need “…was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense.” - William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, 1620–47, New York: Knopf, 1952, pp. 120–21.)

By 1623, Bradford and the colonists were forced to abandon this communal arrangement. Governor Bradford decided to allocate a parcel of land for each household for private ownership. He told them “…they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit.”

In other words, Bradford unleashed the colonists from the chains of the communist economic system and instituted a system of private property.

Richard J. Maybury, in The Great Thanksgiving Hoax, writes that: “The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, "instead of famine now God gave them plenty," Bradford wrote, "and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." Thereafter, he wrote, "any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day." In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.”

4) Why is Thanksgiving celebrated on the fourth Thursday of November?

On October 3, 1789, President George Washington issued a proclamation naming Thursday, November 26, 1789, as an official holiday of “sincere and humble thanks.”

From Washington until Lincoln, the date that Thanksgiving was observed varied, but the last Thursday in November was customary in most U.S. states. In 1863, Lincoln proclaimed the date to be the final Thursday in November in an attempt to foster unity between the states.

In 1939 President Franklin D. Roosevelt moved the holiday to the third Thursday of November to lengthen the Christmas shopping season in hopes of boosting the economy. (We know that these Keynesian ploys don’t actually do anything to generate wealth but merely shift consumption patterns).

Anyway, this move set off a national debate and on December 26, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a joint resolution of Congress changing Thanksgiving Day to the fourth Thursday.

Closing thoughts

Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday (in close competition with Secession Day on July 4th). It is a day of joyous reflection about all we have to be thankful for. I love that I am able to spend the day enjoying delicious food and spending time with my family.

I think we can still learn much from the Pilgrims’ early lessons about the merits of economic freedom. As Governor Bradford came to understand: Incentives matter!

Finally, I also took a few minutes today to somberly reflect on the fact that the new colonists committed horrendous acts of genocide against the human beings that had settled the New World long before the Europeans.


In Liberty,

Jason Riddle

I understand that elections are often more a referendum about what people are against than what people support. I understand and sympathize with those breathing a sigh of relief that Mitt Romney will not be the next president. I am also relieved. That does not mean I am excited that Obama is president for four more years. Quite the contrary. An honest look at Obama’s record shows that he has extended and augmented most all of the horrendous policies of his predecessor and added many new boondoggles of his own. Despite promises to increase transparency, this president has made the executive branch even more authoritarian and intrusive than the last guy. That is no small feat!

[Note: I actually wrote this article last week, but wanted to wait a few days to share so folks didn’t just think I was part of the “sore loser” crowd. I knew going into this election that a blow to individual liberty would be dealt either way. I suppose that’s what we get when the majority of people still think the only choice is the lesser of two evils. I also have an "Open Letter to Romney supporters" I will share soon.]

 An Open Letter to the Obama Enthusiasts

As Tuesday’s election results rolled in, it was fascinating to witness the social media flurry from all the various perspectives.  The folks that continue to perplex me the most are those that express genuine excitement in celebrating Obama’s victory. I understand the power of the rhetoric he uses to reach his constituents. I realize some people are excited about the promise of more goodies. I get that. I realize that most of the population is incredibly ignorant when it comes to politics, but how it is that anyone can be moderately informed and still be an enthusiastic Obama supporter is an enigma to me.

I am not being condescending. I am genuinely interested: What do you stand for and what exactly has Obama done to win your enthusiastic support?

Do you celebrate Obama because you think he is a champion of civil liberties?

Are you excited that Obama signed the NDAA into law? Do you support the indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or trial? Obama went even further than Bush by claiming the power not merely to detain citizens without judicial review but to assassinate them.

Are you pleased that he renewed the Patriot Act? Obama continues to grow the power of the surveillance state. According to Jack Balkin, Law professor at Yale, “We are witnessing the bipartisan normalization and legitimization of a national security state.” Perhaps you take pleasure in being groped by the TSA or subjected to warrantless invasions of your privacy?

Do you like that he has maintained the detention camp at Gitmo? Do you celebrate Obama’s opposition to lawsuits by victims of government torture? 

Obama has suppressed whistleblowers at an unprecedented rate, prosecuting more than double the number of whistleblowers of all previous presidents combined. Do you support the grotesquely inhumane treatment of Bradley Manning, accused of revealing evidence of U.S. war crimes to WikiLeaks?

Do you rejoice over Obama’s immigration policy? An immigration policy that, as Nick Gillespie at Reason points out, has deported record numbers of immigrants.

Do you like that Obama has stepped up the war on drugs and increased the number of raids on medicinal marijuana dispensaries? Do you remember that he promised to end DEA raids on medical marijuana but instead engaged in the biggest war against medical marijuana of any president to date? He has only further extended the domestic stronghold of the US prison-industrial complex.

“But, Obama stands for the equality of all people,” you say. Well, I guess whether you are rich, poor, black, white, gay, or straight…this president’s record is clear. It is possible for any one of us to end up on his ever-expanding targeted kill/capture list.

Maybe you celebrate Obama because you think he is anti-war?

Did you really think Obama was the anti-war candidate? Was it because he appears to be less of a war-monger than Romney? Perhaps, but that doesn’t make him anti-war.

Maybe you actually liked how Obama bragged about increasing military spending, imposing sanctions, and expanding the reach of the imperialistic US military-industrial complex during the foreign policy debate? Or, maybe you are not anti-war, but anti “Republican war”?

Obama expanded our theaters of war as president and further destabilized the Middle East. He is still bombing Pakistan and Yemen. He carried out military intervention in a civil war in Libya, which was not a national security threat to the US. He claimed immunity from having to get Congressional approval for Libya, blatantly ignoring the War Powers Act.

We still have 68,000 troops in harm’s way in Afghanistan. On Tuesday night were you celebrating our continuing occupation of Afghanistan?

Do you enthusiastically celebrate the man who has significantly increased the use of unmanned predator drones to murder innocent civilians overseas? Obama authorized nearly 300 drone strikes in Pakistan during his first four years in office. That is well over six times the number during the administration of George W. Bush. Obama fully supports “murder by drone without due process”; even if it happens to be a 16 year old, Denver-born American living overseas.

If you voted for Obama because you think he is going to keep us out of Iran, I think you will be sorely disappointed.  During the week of the election the Obama administration put new sanctions on Iran, and we saw two Iranian jets fire on an unarmed U.S. predator drone over international waters. Today we got word of the first death of an Iranian child from the U.S. sanctions on Iran. Jacob G. Hornberger writes, “The death of 15-year-old Iranian Manoucherhr Esmaili-Liousi brings to mind the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children from the 11 years of sanctions that the Empire enforced against Iraq during the 1990s." Is that what you celebrate?

I predict an Iranian conflict within the next six months. This would have happened with Romney as president too, but this is still no reason to be excited about Obama. When it comes to war, there is not a substantive difference between the positions of Bush, Obama, and Romney.

Now that the election is over, where is the outrage from the Anti-War Left?

Do you celebrate Obama because you think he fights for the little guy?

It’s like the old saying goes:  “With friends like that, who needs enemies?”

Obama, the champion of divisive class warfare rhetoric, has led the little guy through the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. Obama inherited a mess, but he cannot continue to blame the current stagnation on everybody but himself. The number of Americans living below the official poverty line is the highest number in the 52 years the Census Bureau has been publishing figures on it. 15% of America is still on food stamps after four years of Obama’s policies. Inflation-adjusted median household income has fallen the second year in a row, well after the official end of the Great Recession.

I think Arthur Silber said it well: “[S]o many people who are not members of the ruling class think that Obama is on their side. Even after Obama has systematically betrayed all those ‘ordinary’ people for the last four years, they still think he’s really on their side. He just couldn’t do what he wanted to do — which happens to be exactly what all those good liberals and progressives wanted him to do — because: a) evil Republicans; b) evil Republicans left a really, really, huge mess; c) evil Republicans kept messing with him; d) evil Republicans kept stealing his toys; and e) evil Republicans.”

The consequences of Obama’s economic policies were quite predictable even before the ink dried on his massive stimulus bill. These ideas are not new and have been tried and failed many times in the past. Obama’s every move has been toward central planning of the economy and increased federal regulation and taxation of the job creators. Uncertainty and fear are not good ingredients for a healthy economy. On top of that, Obama has already signed into law at least 21 new taxes.  

Back in 2009 President Obama predicted his stimulus bill would help push the unemployment rate down to 5.6 percent by July 2012. After wasting $800 billion on his cronies, the headline unemployment number was still around 8 percent on Election Day.  However, a more meaningful measure of the job market is the participation. The labor force participation rate, which measures how many people actually have jobs, has declined steadily under President Obama and currently sits at 63.8% - the lowest level since 1980.

Deficits do matter. The 6 trillion dollars in new debt under Obama crowds out private investment, skews the economy, and creates a gigantic burden on the present and future taxpayer. 

The poor are unquestionably worse off today, and I have not even discussed the issue of monetary debasement. Obama’s deficits are enabled by the Federal Reserve. The Fed buys US debt with newly created money. More money tends to increase prices. Price increases are much harder on the poor and those living on fixed income. That is why many call inflation the cruelest tax of all.

And of course there is Obamacare. That’s reason enough to celebrate, right? Well, I don’t want to rehash a debate that has already taken place at length, but I will go ahead and say that we already know that Obamacare will fail at accomplishing what you think it will and we know why Obamacare will fail. Here’s a reading list if you are interested.

 So, for all of you who are excited about Obama, you can be proud that (like the Romney voters) you merely voted for the banksters, the corporate cronies, the military-industrial complex, and all the other special interests that live off political loot. 

The Question for 'Candidate' Obama Supporters

Now that the election is over, I can only hope that supporters of liberty and decency across the political spectrum will not turn a blind eye as Obama continues to abuse the power of the office he was elected to serve. It is time for the intellectually honest among us to look past the cult of personality and hold this president accountable for his record.

My purpose in writing this article is summed up nicely by sentiments expressed by Kevin Carson over at C4SS.org: "These monstrous things demand justice, regardless of the culprits’ party affiliations. If you feel the rule of this Democratic war criminal and corporate stooge weighs less heavily on your neck than a Republican, I don’t begrudge you your momentary celebration. The question is, what are you going to do now that the election’s over?”

In Liberty,

Jason Riddle

p.s. You will have to forgive me if I left any of President Obama’s first-term “accomplishments” off the list. I know he had many more. I was just working from memory.

A post-election analysis and thoughts on where we go from here.

The best thing about this week is that the political circus we know as election season is finally over! I’m not sure the election itself provides us with very much new information. There was plenty to be concerned about long before this election, and there is still plenty to be concerned about now.

Obama’s reelection is not the end of the world. I do not think Romney would have been the savior (or the end of the world either, depending on how you feel about Romney). The federal government went over the fiscal cliff a long time ago. The debates in Washington DC right now are political theater. The major parties will compromise at the last minute, and the American people will be all the worse off for it.

The economy will continue to stagnate because of the failed, bi-partisan supported, Keynesian economic policies of the federal government. There is no way that the US government can make good on all of its future promises. The current obligations of the US government exceed the amount of wealth in the entire world, and Washington DC will not cut spending until they are forced to do so.

The US government will continue to police the world. They will continue to bomb innocent civilians overseas. They will continue to impose sanctions. They will continue to start new wars.

Our domestic liberties (or at least what’s left of them) will continue to be trampled under the bi-partisan boots of the increasingly nationalized police-state.

We will survive four more years of Barack Obama. We would have survived four years of Romney. I think economic life will be more difficult now that Obamacare becomes permanently entrenched in the economy. The costs of these programs will soar just like the costs of Medicare and Medicaid have done over the years. Health care will become more expense and harder to access. Everyone’s taxes will be increased. Unemployment will remain high. I am worried about who Obama might appoint to the Supreme Court during his term. I'd also be worried about who Romney would have appointed. I am worried that Obama’s divisive class-warfare rhetoric will continue to distract from the real issues.

All that said, the American people have survived much worse in our brief history. We will survive this.

After really thinking about it, I’m not so much worried about the damage that these policies or these politicians will do. The politicians themselves are a symptom of a much greater problem. I am much more worried about the sustainability of a society of people that would elect these politicians and support these policies. We will have a difficult time surviving as even moderately free people if the prevailing ideological climate is one that is conducive to electing a Barack Obama and (maybe even worse) thinking that a Mitt Romney is actually an alternative to a Barack Obama.

As Monica Perez points out, “Regardless of the labels, from top to bottom, the right now merely offers a different flavor of statism from the left’s, not an alternative to statism itself. What’s worse is that while not providing an alternative to statism, the New Right purposely displaces those who would.”

The Republican establishment has been a failure because they try to secure the power of government to push their own agenda instead of offering a principled alternative to big-government. The Republican establishment today is essentially the right side of the left when it comes to economic policy. They support the same welfare-state policies of the left. They support the economic central planning of the left. This is a strategic mistake because they will never be able to sell socialism better than the socialists. Furthermore, the Republican establishment loses even more support with their constant desire to “morally legislate” people’s private behavior. Across the board the Republican establishment has failed to offer an alternative to the big-government statism of the Democrat establishment. They have actually been extremely hostile to anyone advocating a consistent message of liberty.

I do think this election cycle has helped to more clearly draw the line in the sand. On one side we have people who want individual liberty. On the other side, we have the big-government establishment of the Republican and Democrat parties. It is a battle between "the makers" and "the takers". This battle transcends party affiliation, it transcends income, it transcends race, and it transcends age.

The ideological battle is between the peaceful, productive members of society and those that want to live by looting the people who produce. It is a battle between people who believe in freedom of association when it comes to business dealings and romantic involvements against those big-government statists who want to control who we can interact with and how.

The battle is educational. Government reflects the will of the people. As long as people demand or even merely acquiesce to bigger government, they are going to get it. It is the tendency of the state to grow to the maximum size tolerated by the oppressed.

This battle is not won or lost in the voting booth. The leg work has to be done 365 days a year. We need to make sure people understand what we are fighting for and what we are fighting against. We need to educate people about the principles of liberty and sound economics. Our solutions will not come through politics. The solutions will come by helping people to wake up and realize that politics is the problem.

I share the sentiments of economist Robert Murphy when he says, “Whatever you think the best strategy is for gaining liberty, a necessary ingredient is an educated population. So that’s why I focus my efforts on writing articles, rather than pulling a lever in a symbolic ritual setup by the government to fool people into thinking they are free.”

If Romney and Obama were our only two options, we'd be toast.  However, those are not our only two options. My job is to help pull the curtain back so you can see that the wizard isn't really a wizard at all. We have the ability to choose freedom.

"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else."  - Frederic Bastiat

In Liberty,

Jason Riddle
                                                                                             

p.s.  If it makes you feel any better, your vote did not have any impact on determining the winner of the presidential election. See my article last week for more detail, but the crux of the argument is essentially the following:

• My vote will matter in determining the winner if, and only if, it is the tie-breaking vote.
• My vote will not be the tie-breaking vote.
• Therefore, my vote will not matter in determining the winner*.

*Unless you can show that it is reasonably possible that my vote will be the tie-breaker, the conclusion seems to hold that my vote did not matter in determining the winner.  

We have all heard the gospel from the preachers of civic religion: “It’s your duty to vote!” “People died for your right to vote!” “If you don’t vote you can’t complain!” From an early age we are taught that one of the fundamental responsibilities of a good citizen is to vote. Every vote counts. Your vote matters. According to TrueTheVote.org, “You could be the difference between a winner and a loser for your party, your ideology, even your pocketbook on tax levies. Go register and go vote. Don’t let this important duty escape your attention.”

Many have even gone so far as to say this is the most important election in our nation’s history. Well, since the predominant view in our society is that voting is a sacrosanct responsibility not to be taken lightly, I figured that the least we could all do is go into Election Day 2012 as informed voters.

A fair warning: The following ideas may be regarded by some as heresy. However, for the open minded, I expect this will serve well as an engaging exercise in critical thinking. My purpose here is not to tell you how to vote. I am merely explaining the facts of reality and letting you choose your own adventure from there.

Understand Your Reason for Voting

More often than not, the reasons people give for why they vote (and why everyone should vote) are based on factual errors and flawed logic. Perhaps there are good reasons for voting. We will get to those momentarily, but first I want to rip the proverbial “Band-Aid” right off and explain why one popular reason for voting is mistaken. If you think your vote has any influence on who will win the 2012 presidential election, you are wrong. Your vote will have absolutely, positively zero impact on the outcome of the 2012 presidential election.

I do not mean that your vote counts only a very small amount, like a grain of sand on the beach. I do not mean that the election is rigged. I do not even mean that the voting machines will malfunction. I mean that your vote will be counted, and it will literally not have ANY impact in determining who wins the election. None.

Here’s why: For your vote to “make a difference” in the 2012 presidential election results, you would have to be voting in the one and only state that had enough electoral votes to swing the election to either Romney or Obama. Additionally, the popular vote in your state would have to be decided by a single vote. If, and only if, your state is decided by a single vote and your vote is the tie-breaker will your vote have any impact on the election outcome. We can safely say the odds of that happening are statistically close enough to zero to be called zero for all practical purposes. No presidential election has ever been decided by one vote, nor will it ever be.

Some might argue that the example of Florida in 2000 highlights the importance of your single vote. In fact, it shows the opposite. Not only are the odds infinitesimally small that there will ever be an exact tie, but even when elections get remotely close like they did in the 2000, the decision was quickly taken out of the hands of the voters and put into the government courts.

Again, there may be reasons for voting, but thinking that your vote will have any influence on the outcome of this presidential election should not be one of them. It doesn't. Zero. Zip. Your vote will not make a difference in determining the presidential election outcome. Not in this election, not ever.

“But I have to vote for Romney because we can’t survive another four years of Obama.” – Your vote will not matter in determining who will win.

“I have to vote for Obama because Romney is just terrible.” – Your vote will not matter in determining who will win.

“I can’t waste my vote on a third party.” – Guess what? Your vote will not matter in determining who will win.

Hopefully you are starting to get the idea.

Whether or not you vote for Romney or Obama or anyone else for that matter has absolutely zero impact on who will win the 2012 presidential election. Your thinking there is a chance you will have even the smallest fraction of an impact on the results is a mistake.

However, just because your vote will have zero impact on determining who will win the election, it does not follow that your vote is meaningless. It just means you need to have a better reason for voting than naively thinking your vote will make a difference as to who will win.

Take a moment to think of a few reasons why think you should or shouldn’t vote. Remember, don’t include anything like “because I want candidate X to win”. We just illustrated why that is not good reasoning.

Understand the Costs and Benefits of Voting

As Bryan Caplan notes, voting is a lot like watching your favorite sports team on the television from your basement. Your participation doesn’t have any influence on the winner of the game, but one of the main payoffs for voting, besides any entertainment value you derive from the process, is that you get to tell everybody that you did it. Voting is probably best understood as an expressive act. By selecting your candidate's name at the ballot box and then telling everyone about it, you get to communicate to others who you are and what you stand for. You get to feel like you are a part of the process, a part of something bigger than yourself.

Of course, since your vote will have zero impact on who wins the 2012 presidential election, you should not include any expected costs or benefits of the next administration's policies in your own personal cost/benefit analysis of deciding whether or not to vote.

For example, you would never watch the 49ers game expecting that your act of watching will have any impact on whether or not they win. However, you may watch because you are emotionally invested in the outcome, for whatever reason. Similarly, you might get real psychological benefits from voting. You might enjoy the entertainment value of educating yourself about the issues and candidates. Maybe voting provides you with an opportunity to express yourself emotionally.

You just have to decide for yourself if those benefits are worth the costs associated with voting. While you don’t have to pay money at the voting booth, the cost of voting includes the time and resources it takes to become informed, register to vote, travel to the polls, and stand in line, etc… as measured by the loss other productive activities you could have been doing with your time and energy.

For Whom Should I Vote?

Now that you’ve taken time to think about whether or not voting is worth your time and energy relative to the other productive activities you could be doing, let’s explore the four options available to you in the 2012 presidential election:

1)     Vote for Obama
2)     Vote for Romney
3)     Vote for Other
4)     Vote by Not Voting

It is already a foregone conclusion that either Obama or Romney will win. Regardless of who secures the crown on November 6th, it is certain that we will get four more years of wars, several trillion in additional debt, a continuously devalued currency, and more egregious violations of basic civil liberties. It will be this way whether you vote for Romney, Obama, Other, or None of the Above. Remember, your vote will have absolutely, positively no impact on determining the winner. Not even a little bit.

However, your vote on Election Day may be important as an expressive act. It communicates what you stand for. You should vote for your principles. It will be counted as part of the aggregate to communicate a message. A vote for either 1) Obama or 2) Romney says that you support the ever-expansive leviathan we call the federal government. It signals that you support the status quo that is this corrupt and illegitimate political system.

If you actually stand with Romney or Obama on principle, then by all means, express your values accordingly. We are going to get Romney or Obama either way, and your vote will not impact who wins. But you have to decide if you really want to say that you were one of the ones who voted for four more years of bad government? Is that what you want to celebrate?

For anyone who cares about individual liberty, and thinks they are supporting liberty by voting for the lesser of two evils, a vote for either Obama or Romney is worse than a wasted vote.  As I have shown in detail, your vote will only impact who wins in the case of a tie, and a tie will never occur. However, a vote for Obama or Romney, even if it is a vote for the lesser of two evils, is still a vote for evil in the aggregate. You won’t impact who will win, but you will send the signal that you support this broken, exploitative system as is. Your voting decision in the presidential election should not come down to voting for the lesser of two evils. You have the very real option not to support evil.

For anyone concerned about advancing liberty, we are left with only two options in the 2012 presidential election: 3) Vote for Other or 4) Vote by Not Voting.

Not voting in the presidential election is a perfectly reasonable position for most people to take. Perhaps you are concerned about the legitimacy of the political system and wish to withhold your consent. Maybe, you correctly understand that even when you vote for a particular candidate, there is no way to be sure that you get what you voted for, so why bother. It may be you find it strange that elections always come down to the “choice” between establishment candidates Big Government A or Big Government B. Perhaps, like many advocates for liberty who take seriously the idea that we should not initiate force against other people, you have a fundamental problem voting for someone to rule over others. There are plenty of strong practical and moral arguments that it is wrong to vote.

If you really want to go to the polls and vote, consider voting for a 3rd party or write-in. The game is different. These candidates have no chance of winning. You can go in knowing, correctly, that your vote will not matter in determining the outcome of the winner. But, in aggregate, if a 3rd party can get 5% of the popular vote, that does make a real difference for funding and ballot access. It can change the public discussion. Furthermore, if the winners of the presidential election start winning with less and less support, it may draw appropriate attention to the corrupt structure of our inherentlypolitical system.

In closing, although your individual vote is completely and totally meaningless in terms of having any impact on who will win the presidential election, it may very well count for other reasons. I do not write all of this to imply we should do nothing and give up. Quite the opposite! I suggest that potential voters merely understand their reasons for voting or not voting. We should better understand the costs and benefits of voting, and we should at least question how much we really think we are “participating” in this political system.

How should an informed voter vote? After reading this, you are now more informed than most. The decision is up to you.

Next week, I will talk about how we can use our resources to influence change in ways that are more productive than simply casting a ballot every couple of years.

In Liberty,

Jason Riddle