Rick Sincere, writing @ “Bearing Drift:Virginia’s Conservative Voice” reports that
Robert Sarvis, the Libertarian candidate for Virginia governor in 2013, almost cost Democratic nominee Terry McAuliffe the election. Republican candidate Ken Cuccinelli’s campaign had relentlessly attacked Sarvis during the last three or four weeks leading to November 5, and may have carved off enough Sarvis supporters to give McAuliffe the edge he needed to win.
Sarvis had 145,560 votes, or 6.6 percent, the best showing by a Libertarian statewide candidate in Virginia history and the best third-party gubernatorial result since Henry Howell ran in 1973, a year without a Democratic nominee. McAuliffe had 48 percent of the vote and Cuccinelli had 45.5 percent, giving the Democrat a margin of victory of 2.5 percent.
According to exit polls, liberal and moderate voters preferred Sarvis by nearly 6 to 1 over conservative voters. Nearly half of Sarvis voters told Quinnipiac that McAuliffe was their second choice.
Mr Sincere suggests that the Cuccinelli campaign made a mistake in keeping Robert Sarvis out of the debates, where he would have shown himself an attractive choice for liberal voters.
Complete post @ http://bearingdrift.com/2013/11/07/sarvis-almost-cost-mcauliffe-the-election/
Most roads (streets) are still privately built. They get taken over by government after they are built.
As for privacy on the roads today…
http://cironline.org/reports/license-plate-readers-let-police-collect-millions-records-drivers-4883
Regarding the privatization (or more accurately, the reprivatization) of roads: Most people forget that many of the first highways for cars were built by wealthy people such as the Vanderbilts, who wanted smooth paved roadways to get in and out of New York City and their mansions on Long Island and other places. They let other people use the same roads as a sort of charity. (Of course, most automobilists at the time were rich like the Vanderbilts.) Some of these same private highways are now part of the Long Island expressway (public) system.
Phillies’ “GPS-tracking” system is only one way among many in which privatized roadways could be implemented. The reality is that a privatization movement would inspire countless inventions and alternatives. If it got off the ground we would quickly see flying cars, jetpacks, more cooperative private commuting, etc.
Privatization of roads would be entirely a good thing.
http://www.robertsarvis.com/home/thanks
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/08/libertarian-robert-sarvis-drew-record-high-votes-in-virginia.html
Not surprising; after all the crybabies are still going on about Perot and Nader, no matter how many years it’s been since it’s been shown that their complaints were without merit.
LOL–those Cucchinelli crybabies are still at it:
http://federalistpress.com/evidence-of-widespread-voter-fraud-found-in-virginia-governors-race.php
Regardless of the source, it is a fact that merchants, advertisers, automobile and gasoline companies, employers and homeowners all share a need for roads, so they would exist regardless of whether government monopolizes them or not. Furthermore, many of these interests rely on wide availability of the roads to everyone, so I don’t think it’s reasonable to be worried about private roads being exorbitantly priced or excluding would-be consumers on a whim.
I do expect that with competition to provide better service among road operators they would become more consumer-friendly and would waste less money than a regime monopoly does.
Andy is correct about private road ownership.
As far as privacy under government ownership of roads, cameras are proliferating, along with government GPS trackers, sharing of e.g. Onstar data with government, satellite tracking, etc. Cell phones can also act as tracking devices. I doubt we have very much privacy on government roads.
He may be a nice guy, but indubitably a severely unconvincing source.
Check out this video where Larken Rose addresses the issue of roads in a voluntary society.
If Not For Government
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzmOzQRq0ak
George Phillies said: “However, suppose that roads magically became privately owned.”
Privately owned roads actually already exist is a few places.
“In that case, I would drive to work, two blocks on Roads by Georgezilla, one block on Pavement by Pyeatt, two big blocks on Paulie’s Pavements, etc. I think you get the idea. In order to collect, each of us road owners needs to know which streets you drove on, what you drove for differential wear charges for your truck, what time you drove because like London there are road surplus charges, etc., so we have to have those GPS things.”
A GPS tracking device is not the only way to fund privately owned roads. Some business owners may want to voluntarily contribute to a fund to pay for roads and keep them open to the public so that people can more easily patronize their establishments. Another suggestion that I’ve heard is charging a premium for billboard advertising along roads to help pay for roads. I’d be willing to bet that a bunch of solutions for funding roads would happen in a free market.
I do not consider road privatization to be a high priority issue, but it is an issue for which libertarians should have an answer. A hardcore libertarian believes that all human interaction should be voluntary, so this means funding roads on a voluntary basis. Most people want roads, so I think that ways to fund them voluntarily would be found even in the absence of a coercive government.
With respect to the road usage tax, there is an issue being overlooked.
There are libertarians who believe that it is rational to have privately owned roads, and to pay the road owners for their use. The name of the person getting the check at the end of the month has nothing to do with the notion that you pay for the roads that you use; those are two separate questions.
At the present time we are mostly anonymous road users. I pay for gasoline, pay the gas tax, and for the most part* use the roads that I choose to use without further effort.
However, suppose that roads magically became privately owned. In that case, I would drive to work, two blocks on Roads by Georgezilla, one block on Pavement by Pyeatt, two big blocks on Paulie’s Pavements, etc. I think you get the idea. In order to collect, each of us road owners needs to know which streets you drove on, what you drove for differential wear charges for your truck, what time you drove because like London there are road surplus charges, etc., so we have to have those GPS things.
Now I have no privacy at all, and road owners sell their use data just like supermarkets. It is extremely profitable, especially that parts on politicians parked near Massage Parlors being sold to supermarket tabloids.
No, those GPS things destroy your privacy, just as privately owned roads destroy your privacy, because this privatize roads things may sound like capitalism but its main consequence is corporate fascist elimination of privacy.
*most=Except Pay Turnpike tolls
Ignorant Republicans are ignorant. That is not surprising.
Unbelievable, there are STILL Republicans whining on Facebook about us ruining the election for them. Wow.
Good article. Too bad there was not more time to counter the smear campaign right before the election. They timed it so there wouldn’t be.
Leave them up to the individual.
Good point.
I’ve been saying that for a long, long time.
Doesn’t seem to be nearly as much of a problem in groups like SFL and YAL.
Jill Pyeatt said: ” I don’t think the liberty movement as a whole is short on women, though.”
I’d say that the liberty movement as a whole is short on women. Somebody posted the results of a survey here recently that said that 68% of the people who self identify as libertarians are men. I wouldn’t be surprised if the percentage of men in the liberty movement was even higher than that.
Here’s another one: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/11/08/243989526/obama-donor-behind-third-party-va-candidate-maybe-not
Yeah, even I wish we had more women in the Libertarian party, even though it’s kinda fun getting extra attention by being so outnumbered by men. I don’t think the liberty movement as a whole is short on women, though. They certainly do “get it”.
Just thinking out loud here….
I think the general public has grown weary of the “lower taxes, smaller government” stuff, because Repubs have been saying that it forever, and never delivering. When we say it, we just sound like Repubs, and the assumption is that its just BS, because that’s all it has ever been.
Sarvis certainly focused on social issues, and the public ate it up. We would all do well to remember that, and do more of it in the future.
I believe in a strong constitution that’s obeyed on plain language terms without adding in pet things you’d like to see (sans an amendment). BUT the question obviously becomes, hey, what *should* the states do with those issues left to them by the 10th amendment? If that goes unanswered then states’ rights is just a way to dodge the question. Of course with things like gay marriage you have to stake a position since marriage comes with 1,100ish federal benefits, so you can’t proclaim “states’ rights” without deciding who those benefits should apply to (or, more importantly, if they should exist in federal code at all).
I know a number of Sarvis voters who care a lot about social tolerance, but ALSO want to maintain strong gun rights. Or they care about legalizing pot AND want low taxes. Many of them, especially the former, are women. These are the types of folks that would have voted McAuliffe, and the LP needs to recognize its attractiveness with them. Been playing hard-to-get with the female vote too long 😉
I’m a relatively new Libertarian, so I wasn’t aware of Ron Paul’s imperfections. I’m starting to get it now.
I agree that Ron Paul has done and said a lot of good, too. I’m neither a Ron Paul basher nor a Ron Paul idolater. Like everyone else he has his good and bad points.
I certainly disagree with Ron Paul on abortion and some other issues, and also on backing social conservative candidates. And I am upset in particular that Ron would back Ken Cuccinelli, who advocates transvaginal ultrasound.
But Ron Paul has long been associated with libertarians, and the hyperbolic language that Mr Phillies resorts to is not useful to the expansion of the Libertarian Movement. If we had an ignore button, I would gladly press it in his case.
Endorsing crappy Republicans has been something he has done for many years, it is not something new.
My opinion of Ron Paul has really soured recently.
In a sense, but there’s more to the link I posted than that.
Paulie,
I apologize if my words came across as implying that you agreed with Paul. However, his position that matters should be left up to states, and Ciccinelli’s positions as to what his state should do to trample our Constitution, are two halves of the same loaf.
George
I did not say I agree with him regarding states having any rights to trump individual rights. I said his view points on social issues are not like Cuccinelli’s. The article presents examples of numerous votes that lend evidence to that.
Paulie: To quote the article you cited: ” Dr. Paul consistently opposes a federal ban on abortion and believes quite reasonably that the question should be left up to the states (video here and here). ”
Left up to the states? We should leave abortion rights up to the states, gay marriage up to the states, and deciding whether or not African Americans are allowed to vote up to the states? States rights is a piece of racist rose fertilizer from male cows.
Furthermore, he and his reactionary friends do not believe in states rights, except when the state agrees with him.
Proof: Ask him to endorse the right of a state, Massachusetts, to ban private ownership of guns.
He only wants states to decide when he has lost at the American Constitution level and wants his bigot friends to keep in control someplace.
If Ohio is successful in filtering out third party candidates or third parties in general, then I would expect it to become standard around the nation. American politics is unusual and cruel. It is to be expected of those engaged to battle it out. First past the post doesn’t reward second place.
The idea of someone using another campaign to help their own desired outcome is innate to the system itself and not the operators. The Paul family is quite wealthy and would not be able to walk around telling possible voters that they feel their pain. Because they can’t. It is a simple marketing trick and part of the Americanization of their campaign.
Once the republican excepts the reality of the customers (voters) and their ability to read Libertarian candidates, the fields that are the tightest will allow for third parties to “steal” customers when it serves their desired outcomes.
I don’t feel the Republicans are going to remain stupid forever.
I think Cuccinelli’s positions on social issues are substantially worse than Paul’s. For example, see http://punkpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/08/yellow-journalism-at-its-worst.html
The Pauls have received the message, namely they are Christian conservative Republicans who occasionally shill libertarians for cash, and their libertarian stooges are not alert enough to note that they are being taken. Congressman Paul endorsed Cuchinelli because their actual positions on social and fiscal issues are virtually identical, and differences on foreign policy have nothing to do with being a Governor.
If that didn’t do it, what would it take? Some people are hopelessly afflicted with battered voter syndrome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNMPvFZctIA
Exactly! You may even want to stop voting for the D/Roids even in cases where they successfully keep us off the ballot. It only encourages them!
I don’t believe Ron and Rand have got the message yet: libertarians should not be tame lap dogs for the GOP, like African Americans are for the Democrats. We aren’t going to be crapped on, over and over, and still vote for those GOP candidates were are told are “almost libertarian.”
Ron, you saw how your votes at the National Convention weren’t even allowed to be tallied.
Every libertarian needs to stop voting for Republicans (or Democrats) whenever there is a Libertarian opponent – maybe then our votes will be respected instead of demanded or taken for granted.
Future Libertarian candidates should take note of the Republican strategy, and smite it vigorously before it starts. Republicans, the opposite of Libertarian, is a good message. Note that the Republicans have marched out of the right of the Nolan chart, and on down to the bottom.
Sarvis paid the price for the failure of contemporary Libertarians to notice that Paul’s stands are not very similar to ours on a vast range of issues other than foreign policy. However, he has clearly now established that he is not our friend, at all, and should be given the same treatment that many Libertarians give Bob Barr (who, by the way, did not campaign against Sarvis, so far as I have ever heard.) He may once have been out nominee, but the world has changed.
Alternatively, it could mean that as the race tightened at the end more left-libertarians that would have otherwise voted for Sarvis became concerned that Cuccinelli could actually win, so ended up voting for McAuliffe instead. So, absent the smear campaign of falsehoods and half-truths it may well be that Sarvis would have had the same mix of support, but a larger total.
They’re politicians. They have quite well proven that. So, I’m sure that their behavior is easily changed…..by the way the media wind is blowing.
Interesting comment, Richard. I wonder how many of these types of articles Rand and Ron take the time to read, and I wonder if they ever let one change their behavior. Somehow I doubt it.
What this shows is that Ron & Rand Paul’s campaign to get right-libertarians to vote for Cuccinelli was successful. Sarvis’ support among right-libertarians evaporated and almost all his votes were from left-libertarians.
I hope Ron Paul and Rand Paul read this article.
Good… to bad it wasn’t t o Sarvis that McAuliffe would have lost the election to.