Robert Sarvis - Libertarian in Name Only

[FiremanBob]

Dean: Note that I did not use the word, "compromise" in any of my posts on this topic.

You are free to do whatever you want (how's that for libertarian attitude). But the reality that a vote from the Right for a hopeless candidate adds to the margin for the monolithically united Democrats is not BS, it is reality.

I think your pessimism is premature. The GOP is not where the Whigs were in 1850. And the Republican party was not a third party when it was created in 1852, it replaced the Whigs, which had completely collapsed. The Libertarians are not going to replace the Republicans in any foreseeable time. In fact, the conservative wing of the GOP is in a resurgence stronger than any since the 1980s, and has a realistic chance, though not an immediate one, of taking control of the GOP. This would happen faster if the Libertarians would join with the Tea Party republicans and add more critical mass to the GOP's demographics.

Pessimism is an interesting attitude. As Thomas Aquinas first pointed out, it is closely related to sloth. He called the combination of pessimism and sloth "acedia", a turning away from life. I believe that the Libertarian party is the escape route for people who are not willing to do the hard work required to take over the GOP.

(Here is a great article by Thomas Pynchon about acedia: https://www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/ ... sloth.html

[Kreutz]

Bob, historical comparisons fall by the wayside when a party (the Democrats in our case) promise (and deliver) an unending torrent of free stuff paid for by someone else.

Issues do not matter anymore. As the African farmer who lets his fields go fallow because he cannot sell his produce when food drops from the sky learns, you cannot compete against free.

[DBJohnson]

Bob: Politics IS compromise. You compromise every time you vote for the lesser of two evils. Nearly half of the votes cast a year ago (for the sake of argument, we'll pretend there was no voter fraud despite the evidence), were compromises because Romney was not the best choice for the candidacy (couldn't win against the worst POTUS since...ever!).

I cannot in good conscience support the party that gave us The Patriot Act and is complicit in keeping two-party rule entrenched. The GOP (leadership, just so you know I recognize that the party is indeed splintered) is as guilty as the Dems in keeping every other option pushed off the ballot and out of televised debates. That's why they both refused to debate the candidates from the other parties and chose to split the small differences between themselves.

You want to think I'm lazy...be my guest. I would posit that it's lazy for the Tea Party republicans to stay with the GOP rather than switch to Libertarian or Constitution or form their own party. Maybe they fear the ridicule that they've helped heap on those of us who vote our conscience...or perhaps they want a bit of that blind devotion to the 'R' in the nebulous future where they have the chance to seize the reins. Regardless of the reason, they still identify as part of the GOP and are at odds with the mainstream GOP. The principled choice would be to make an unequivocal stand.


Look. You're not going to change my mind and I'm obviously not going to change yours. Accept the fact that if I could vote in this election (I can't since I just moved here) I would vote for Cuccinelli because he is the best of the three candidates...and I got there by not being blindly loyal to a party. I offered financial support to Cuccinelli and have talked to people about Sarvis's false colors. You seem to have gotten stuck on my assessment that the GOP is little different than the Dems when you break it all down--they both believe in big government and less Liberty. It's obvious that you want better than what the GOP leadership offers. So do I. We come at it in different ways because we've travelled different roads. If you vote R because that's what you believe (as opposed to because that's what you've been told to do), I respect that. I would hope you would have the same respect for my choices in those same decisions.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[FiremanBob]

Sure, Dean, I said already I respect your choices. I'd just appreciate it if you would stop the name-calling. This debate began with the phrase, "GOP Kool-Aid drinker".

[ratherfish]

I hope Sarvis does the right thing for Virginia and throws his support to KC.

[DBJohnson]

Bob: I'll own up to throwing that term out there too quickly as it obviously (now) does not apply to you. Mea culpa.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[j1mmyd]

Is Sarvis a Libertarian in name only. You be the judge:

http://thefederalist.com/2013/10/25/vir ... rian-name/

My Rundown of Sarivs' positions on the subjects that actually matter in real life:

Tax policy: Does not favor cutting taxes.
Government: Wants to find savings through "efficiency" without giving specifics. Incidentally, McAuliffe stated the same exact thing in the last debate.
Medicaid: "Endorsed expanding the Medicaid program in the state under Obamacare" - What free-market argument is there for expanding Medicaid?
Economics (And going to GMU): “I’m not into the whole Austrian type, strongly libertarian economics, I like more mainstream economics and would have been happy to go elsewhere.” Name a principled libertarian that endorses mainstream (read Keynesian) Economics?
Transportation Taxes: Wants Higher Transportation taxes, and is open to higher gas taxes and instituting a vehicle-miles driven tax in the state (VMT). A VMT generally requires a government GPS to be installed in your car to track your miles driven.

Now, how many of us want a government GPS in our car tracking each mile that we've driven? I surely don't.

Vote for the true man of principle this election. Vote for Ken Cuccinelli.

Bringing the thread back around: In this sample Sarvis sure sounds more like a Liberal than a Libertarian.

[ShotgunBlast]

Is Sarvis a Libertarian in name only. You be the judge:

http://thefederalist.com/2013/10/25/vir ... rian-name/

My Rundown of Sarivs' positions on the subjects that actually matter in real life:

Tax policy: Does not favor cutting taxes.
Government: Wants to find savings through "efficiency" without giving specifics. Incidentally, McAuliffe stated the same exact thing in the last debate.
Medicaid: "Endorsed expanding the Medicaid program in the state under Obamacare" - What free-market argument is there for expanding Medicaid?
Economics (And going to GMU): “I’m not into the whole Austrian type, strongly libertarian economics, I like more mainstream economics and would have been happy to go elsewhere.” Name a principled libertarian that endorses mainstream (read Keynesian) Economics?
Transportation Taxes: Wants Higher Transportation taxes, and is open to higher gas taxes and instituting a vehicle-miles driven tax in the state (VMT). A VMT generally requires a government GPS to be installed in your car to track your miles driven.

Now, how many of us want a government GPS in our car tracking each mile that we've driven? I surely don't.

Vote for the true man of principle this election. Vote for Ken Cuccinelli.

Bringing the thread back around: In this sample Sarvis sure sounds more like a Liberal than a Libertarian.

Hey look, now this thread is a loop.

I suggest that the curious go to
http://www.robertsarvis.com/issues

and see his stance on the issues for themselves rather than let someone else do their thinking for them. If something is not directly addressed on the page, then email and ask. He actually does respond.

GPS? Lol. Grab your tinfoil, Poindexter!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ratherfish]

Not so much!

Dr Paul evidently agrees...
The appearance by Dr. Paul, at the campaign's last event, is indicative of the out-sized role Libertarians are playing in the VA race.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... l-to-Close

Vote wisely, your way of life depends on it!

[SpanishInquisition]

I hope Sarvis does the right thing for Virginia and throws his support to KC.

I was going to say the same thing but with the names in a different order.

[ratherfish]

"A Vote for Sarvis Is a Vote for McAuliffe in VA Governor's Race"

With the Virginia gubernatorial election taking place on November 4, gun owners need to remember that a vote for Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis is a vote for Democrat Terry McAuliffe. Voting for Sarvis will put McAuliffe in place to follow through on his pledge to bring Colorado-style gun control to Virginia.

The RealClearPolitics aggregate of polls shows McAuliffe currently leading in Virginia at about 45 percent, while gun rights proponent Ken Cuccinelli has about 39 percent and Sarvis receives about 10 percent.

The 10 percent voting for Sarvis have to understand that their votes will guarantee McAuliffe a victory.

Some supporters of Sarvis have said they are voting for him because of his support for open carry of firearms, but this reason is moot if a vote for Sarvis hands the governorship to an anti-Second Amendment candidate like McAuliffe. He has promised to limit the number of guns Virginians can buy each month, to ban "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines, and to put universal background checks in place.

Sarvis cannot win the November 4 gubernatorial election. However, pro-gun candidate Cuccinelli can win if those who value gun rights vote Cuccinelli instead.

To vote Sarvis is to vote McAuliffe, which is a vote to take your own guns away.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... -McAuliffe

[ratherfish]

I hope Sarvis does the right thing for Virginia and throws his support to KC.

I was going to say the same thing but with the names in a different order.

Time to wake up to the fact that if KC does as you propose and backs sarvis...

HE STILL HAS NO CHANCE OF WINNING!

NADA...

ZERO...

ZILCH!

Vote wisely Virginia, your way of life hangs in the balance!

[ShotgunBlast]

I hope Sarvis does the right thing for Virginia and throws his support to KC.

I was going to say the same thing but with the names in a different order.

Time to wake up to the fact that if KC does as you propose and backs sarvis...

HE STILL HAS NO CHANCE OF WINNING!

NADA...

ZERO...

ZILCH!

Vote wisely Virginia, your way of life hangs in the balance!

Time for you to donate another $15 to KC.

[ratherfish]

Good thing i'm working and thank God have been since I was 14!

Proof that sarvis is backed by liberal money to be a spoiler.

http://vagunforum.net/general-discussio ... 19976.html