Kyle Varner’s Blog

posted by Kyle on Jan 22

I am still an ardent supporter of Dr. Paul, and I will be until he drops out of the race.  If he goes independent or third party, I will support him then.  He has, however, said many times that he has no intentions of running as the nominee of a third party, and I don’t forsee things changing.

Obviously, there is no other major party candidate for whom I could case a vote in good conscience.  They are all statists, and they will all cause Americans and people around the world to suffer as they wantonly trod upon our natural rights.

For quite some time, I considered joining the Republican Party.  I was excited about Ron Paul’s candidacy.  I thought that the Ron Paul meetup groups would be able to run candidates and get them elected, and that they would also be principled libertarians.  A large number of Paul supporters are principled libertarians, but there are also a lot of them who are just involved in the campaign in order to push various statist issues.   What especially concerns me are those who have gotten it into their heads that Dr. Paul is the “anti-immigration” candidate.   I think that these people’s idea of immigration reform is to take a shotgun and go hunting for brown people.  Dr. Paul is against illegal immigration, but he is not against immigration, and he certainly doesn’t want to go hunt brown people with you.

In any case, it has become apparent to me that change is not going to come through the Republican Party.  If we are to attempt to “march through the institutions” we will have to compromise our ideals, which really means becoming what we are fighting.  We may win elections that way, but we will never win our freedoms.   We need to build a party of principled Libertarians.  As soon as this campaign is over, I’m right back there.  The more the statists win, the more people will suffer, and the more people will listen to our message.  We have the most solid, inspiring, and practical message of all:  Freedom!  Why should we ever compromise? (Aside:  I see Dr. Paul’s stance on immigration as a compromise of our ideals)

I am, however, troubled by some of the leading Libertarian presidential candidates.  Why?  They aren’t Libertarians!

Here are some examples:

From Imperato:

I propose an approval fee on all FDA approved drugs to be contributed by the drug companies to the US healthcare system. In addition, a percentage will be added to the wholesale costs of the drugs that are sold around the world that will be contributed back to the healthcare system. It is about time the drug companies support our healthcare needs to ensure healthcare for all American citizens run by we the people.

Need I say more?

From Root (whose slogan, “Root for America” is just dumb):

*I support dramatically reduced government entitlement programs.

So you support government entitlement programs????

*I support dramatically reduced corporate welfare

 So you support corporate welfare???

*I support Social Security reform that creates ownership for senior citizens- I believe Social Security reform is a property rights issue. The money we pay into the Social Security system is our personal property. Each taxpayer should have ownership over that property- and therefore be allowed to leave that property in a will to their loved ones.
*I also believe in CHOICE as it applies to Social Security- all Americans should have the choice to create personal retirement savings accounts that give us ownership over our own retirement savings (the same right that federal employees and politicians enjoy).

So, obviously, you think that at least some part of the current system should be kept in place!

*I love the smell of vetoes in the morning- I will pledge to sign more VETOES than any President in history!

What if you have a Libertarian Congress?  This is just an irresponsible claim to make.

*I support Environmental moderation- I believe global warming is a danger to our planet earth, but at a rate far less dangerous, damaging and destructive than hysterical liberal alarmists and environmental extremists like Al Gore proclaim. I believe that we need to act to prevent further potential catastrophic damage to our planet. But I would not institute drastic laws, or agree to global standards that erode our way of life, damage our economy, or cost millions of jobs. Rather I’d invest in what Newt Gingrich calls a “Scientific Revolution” that promotes capitalism and creates more jobs- through tax breaks encouraging new breakthroughs in science, space, alternative energy, and the environment.

Yeah, a statist solution to a non-problem

*Let’s show our true colors by requesting that the Iraqi people vote on America’s role in Iraq. We are supporters of Democracy. We went to Iraq to build a Democracy. Let’s support an Iraqi national vote on whether the Iraqi people want U.S. troops to stay or go. If they vote “Go” we should leave. PERIOD.

Oh, OK, so now the Iraqi’s get to decide how we spend our tax dollars?

I can’t tell what Jingozian stands for.  He has lots of platitudes on his website, which are nice and fuzzy and cute, but don’t do a whole lot to advance Libertarianism.

So far as I can tell, there are only two acceptable candidates for the Libertarian nomination:

Steve Kubby:  A man for whom I have a profound amount of respect.

Christine Smith:  I don’t know anything about her, but her insistence on sticking to our principles is right on the money.

Right now, I’d cast my vote for Kubby.  We will see what happens.  We need someone to advance our cause, not their own little vanity game!