United Liberty

Yes, sometimes the New York Times has something interesting. In this case, though, it’s a vitally important thing happening in Utah that they decided to bury at the very bottom of their story on all the local elections going on across the country:

In dozens of communities in Utah, the question was whether to have an election at all. A new state law this year, aimed saving money for local governments, allows local authorities for the first time to forgo voting if the results would have no material effect; as of Monday, 45 towns and cities had notified the state that they were taking up the offer.

A no-vote election is available to a community only if every office on its ballot is uncontested — not uncommon in small towns where recruiting candidates is tough — and if there are no ballot propositions. The 45 participants this year saved an estimated $270,000, said the state’s director of elections, Mark J. Thomas.

On the face of it, I understand the reasoning. All the offices are uncontested, there’s no referendum for the public to vote on, and nothing anyone does will actually change the makeup of the local government, so why spend money? The pragmatic argument for this is obvious.

But America was never about pragmatism. If America was pragmatic, it would never have started the American Revolution, or fought to keep the Confederacy within the Union. It would have never gone to the Moon, or decided that NASCAR made any sense. No, even today, in these “dark times,” America has been one of idealism, not pragmatism.

In response to Jason’s post indicating where he ranks the GOP candidates, which was followed by the CNBC economy debate, I decided to have some fun and create two lists from before and after the debate. First, Jason’s List:

1. Gary Johnson
2. Ron Paul
3. Jon Huntsman
4. Rick Perry
5. Newt Gingrich
6. Mitt Romney
7. Michele Bachmann
8. Herman Cain
9. Rick Santorum

Here is my list BEFORE the debate:

1. Gary Johnson
2. Ron Paul
3. Jon Huntsman
4. Newt Gingrich
5. Mitt Romney
6. Rick Perry (Perry and Romney tied)
7. Herman Cain
8. Michele Bachmann
9. Rick Santorum

And here is my updated list after last night’s debate with comments:

1. Gary Johnson: Honestly, this is the first time I remember agreeing with literally everything a candidate for any office says. If I have one disagreement, it would featuring Marijuana legalization as a top issue. Johnson was never taken seriously by the GOP mainstream because he was immediately tabbed as “the pot guy”. In the uptight GOP base, it immediately disqualified him.

We do a regular feature here, a “power ranking” of the GOP presidential candidates. It’s similar to what commentators post for football or other sports. But during a chat with a friend a couple of days ago, I was asked to list my preference for the Republican nomination for president. I explained that there weren’t many real options for me, as a libertarian, given that the candidates are very anti-libertarian outside of Gary Johnson and Ron Paul.

But my friend encouraged me to “give it a whirl anyway.” So while I’m indulging my friend here, the reality is if Johnson wasn’t running, I’d vote for Paul. If neither were in the race, I’d stay home. So anyway, here goes my list:

- Gary Johnson: Easily the most traditionally libertarian on the issues. Unfortunately, Johnson isn’t receiving due attention, despite his impressive fiscal record as a two-term Governor. I realize that when I vote for Johnson, I realize I’ll be casting a ballot for someone with no chance of winning the GOP nomination; and I’m OK with that.

- Ron Paul: I still have some issues with Ron Paul, but he has run better campaign this time around and has influenced politics in the GOP. That in and of itself is a win.

- Jon Huntsman: There are some positions that Huntsman has taken that I’m not fond of, but his tax plan is the best I’ve seen in the field.

- Rick Perry: Many conservatives abandoned Perry over the immigration issue. I thought that was the best thing about him. His tax plan is also a good start, but is a bit watered down to be called a “flat tax.”

After taking heat from his fellow candidates and conservatives, Herman Cain finally addressed, in a very direct manner, the allegations of sexual harassment by several women that have be raised in the last week:

Addressing the controversy before a throng of reporters in suburban Phoenix, Cain said he had no recollection of ever meeting Sharon Bialek, the woman who went public Monday and accused him of groping her in a car after the two dined together in Washington 14 years ago. Cain called her account “baseless, bogus and false” and said Bialek and three other women who have accused him of sexual harassment are part of a coordinated effort to attack his character and derail his campaign.

“We are not going to allow Washington or politics to deny me the opportunity to represent this great nation,” Cain said, adding that he would be willing to take a lie-detector test. “As far as these accusations causing me to back off and maybe withdraw from this presidential primary race — ain’t gonna happen.”

Cain’s campaign is taking the Bill Clinton approach by trying to tear down her credibility by pointing out her past financial and legal issues. But as Allahpundit notes over at Hot Air, this falls flat:

Erick Erickson, the editor of RedState and political commentator, wrote a lengthy post yesterday declaring that if Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination that conservatism will somehow die.

Should Mitt Romney win the Presidency, conservatives will find this pattern play out repeatedly. Romney will head in a direction conservatives do not like and they will bitch and moan repeatedly and maybe, just maybe, he’ll part his hair in their direction.

We’ve seen this play out over and over. Jon Huntsman comes up with the best economic plan of all the candidates, Herman Cain follows up with 999, Perry comes out with a flat tax, and Romney refuses to do anything. Until he does something.

Mitt Romney is not the George W. Bush of 2012 — he is the Harriet Miers of 2012, only conservative because a few conservative grand pooh-bahs tell us Mitt Romney is conservative and for no other reason.

That is precisely why Mitt Romney will not win in 2012. But no worry, once he loses, Republican establishment types will blame conservatives for not doing enough for Mitt Romney, never mind that Mitt Romney has never been able to sell himself to more than 25% of the GOP voters. It’s not his fault though, it is the 75%’s fault.

Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee. And his general election campaign will be an utter disaster for conservatives as he takes the GOP down with him and burns up what it means to be a conservative in the process.

I realize there is an anti-Romney sentiment in the conservative movement and among tea partyers.That’s understandable given, as I’ve written here many times, that Romney has no real core principles. The man will say anything it takes to get elected and therefore lacks authenticity.

This is an excellent video from Libertarianism.org, a new project from the Cato Institute that dives into the libertarian philosophy of economic liberty and personal sovereignty. As Matthew Hurtt said yesterday, this really should be on the air as a commercial:

In the latest video from Learn Liberty, Professor James Otteson defends capitalism against a frequent criticism, that a free society will destroy community and turn neighbors into competitors against each other.

Otteson admits that the charge is true, but only to a point as neighbors may compete against each other, but are also reliant on each other as well because their individual success depends cooperation:

Check out more videos from Learn Liberty on their YouTube channel.