Buccaneer
10-03-2004, 08:34 PM
...but not in the way you thought!
I have long been tired of the apparent truism of voting for the lesser of two evils, even though some of my choices in the past 6 presidential elections have been exactly that. No, this year my choice have come down to decided between the Libertarian candidate (Badnarik or something like that) or None of the Above. After some thought, I think I will choose that latter ('None of the Above').
The reason is that as much as espoused libertarian-minded philosophies and truly believe in the reduction of authority of a central govt (and more to personal responsibilities and local control), the Executive Branch is not where the solutions lie. Despite the rhetoric from both sides, it is Congress that controls all legislation and budgetary spendings. The Executive Branch can influence and have to sign (i.e., rubber stamp) such legislation (with approval from Legals) but the complaints regarding the powers of central authority all comes from Congress. That is where the libertarian-minded candidates need to gain a foothold - to reign in spendings, to reign in layers upon layers of the same legislation, to reign in giving more authority to various Depts of Something, to reign in the apparent govt of special interest and the favors they demand, to reign in federal mandates to States, and on and on. The President does not and cannot 'control' spendings (Congress declares all budgets DOA), nor can the President influence job makings - it is Congress where the problems and the solutions.
So to make a long story short, I cannot in good conscious vote for Bush or Kerry because they have (and will continue) to go along with Congress spending money like drunken sailors and will do nothing (in fact, the opposite) in reigning in federal powers and authorities. (FWIW, I do favor Bush over Kerry solely because keeping the pressures on terrorism is paramount.) This country does not need a Libertarian president so I won't vote as thus. So what does that leave me? None of the Above.
I have long been tired of the apparent truism of voting for the lesser of two evils, even though some of my choices in the past 6 presidential elections have been exactly that. No, this year my choice have come down to decided between the Libertarian candidate (Badnarik or something like that) or None of the Above. After some thought, I think I will choose that latter ('None of the Above').
The reason is that as much as espoused libertarian-minded philosophies and truly believe in the reduction of authority of a central govt (and more to personal responsibilities and local control), the Executive Branch is not where the solutions lie. Despite the rhetoric from both sides, it is Congress that controls all legislation and budgetary spendings. The Executive Branch can influence and have to sign (i.e., rubber stamp) such legislation (with approval from Legals) but the complaints regarding the powers of central authority all comes from Congress. That is where the libertarian-minded candidates need to gain a foothold - to reign in spendings, to reign in layers upon layers of the same legislation, to reign in giving more authority to various Depts of Something, to reign in the apparent govt of special interest and the favors they demand, to reign in federal mandates to States, and on and on. The President does not and cannot 'control' spendings (Congress declares all budgets DOA), nor can the President influence job makings - it is Congress where the problems and the solutions.
So to make a long story short, I cannot in good conscious vote for Bush or Kerry because they have (and will continue) to go along with Congress spending money like drunken sailors and will do nothing (in fact, the opposite) in reigning in federal powers and authorities. (FWIW, I do favor Bush over Kerry solely because keeping the pressures on terrorism is paramount.) This country does not need a Libertarian president so I won't vote as thus. So what does that leave me? None of the Above.