Ha, I knew it. These so-called "libertarians" are indeed Republicans to the core.

Some may be, but not all of us. I'm not a Democrat, but I once lived for awhile in the South where the Demos ruled the roost as racist. And I'm not a Republican because they seem to be taking the democrats old place. Besides neither wish to end the deployment of U.S. troops on foreign soil, or the drug war, etc.,etc. Michael "the Lib"

There goes my guesses for the governor's race next year if Mr Cox truly will stay in the Republican Party.

Oh what fun?!

The conventional wisdom that Libertarian candidates spoil races for Republicans is simply incorrect. It's just shoddy political analysis.

1. Many Libertarian voters are anti-establishment types, who would otherwise vote for the Democratic candidate. (Think Reed College.)

2. It's true -- some Libertarians are just selfish bastards who don't like taxation and government services; but many of them are more annoyed with government invasions of privacy and regulations of private behavior (e.g., sodomy laws, drug laws, etc). These people would vote for a frog before they would support a Republican.

3. Some Libertarian voters just vote for the third-party candidate because they don't know a lot about, or don't particularly like, either major party candidate. Many of these voters are likely to vote for the candidate with higher name recognition if there is no third-party candidate.

4. And in the two races listed (Gov in 2002 and AG in 2000), many moderate Republicans voted for Cox as a protest vote against Mannix. A lot of people just don't like Mannix as a human being -- they don't like the dirty tricks he used in his AG campaign -- and many of them would have voted for the Democrat as a protest against Mannix if there was not a Libertarian in the race.

So I took a minute to see how the two races listed in the original post -- Gov in 2002 and AG in 2000 -- would have played out if Tom Cox had dropped out of the race, with 2/3 of his supporters voting for the Republican and 1/3 of his supporters voting for the Democrat. (Although this calculation is also flawed because some of his supporters would not have voted at all and some would have just voted for another third party candidate, it's a MUCH MORE accurate calculation than just assuming ALL of his votes would go to the Republican if he hadn't been running.)

The answer -- surprise, surprise -- is that the Democrat still won in both cases.

In the 2000 match-up for Attorney General between Hardy Myers and Kevin Mannix, Myers won by 52,722 votes. Cox took 56,611 votes. So if 2/3 of Cox's voters went to Mannix and 1/3 went to Myers, Myers STILL would have won by 33,852 votes.

In the 2002 match-up for Governor between Ted Kulongoski and Kevin Mannix, Ted won by 36,219 votes. Cox took 57,760 votes. So if 2/3 of Cox's voters went to Mannix and 1/3 went to Ted, Ted STILL would have won by 16,966 votes.

I do firmly believe that Nader played spoiler in the 2000 presidential contest. The same logic does NOT apply to Cox in 2000 and 2002.

As a former Libertarian (during my transition from Republican to Independant), I am fairly well acquainted with Tom Cox. Though it has been awhile since I spoke with him, I would imagine that Cox isn't going to change his views much to "fit" the Republican party's stereotype. Rather, I would expect he'll get into office and then vote like a Libertarian - fiscally conservative, socially tolerant. Live and let live, and tighten the government's purse strings. So I think Democrats would both find much to love and much to dislike in Cox. Personally, I think he's a good guy with guts and, like former Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Mitch Shulz, a whole lot of brains. It would be pretty cool to see him make it into office and stir the Republican pot.

As a libertarian (and former Democrat) I am greatly disappointed by Tom Cox's decision here. To say that Libertarians and Republicans are 100% compatible is ridiculous. On foreign policy, Libertarians and Republicans vehemently disagree (libertarians lean to the left). Also, on "personal/social" issues, libertarians lean to left. All of the major libertarian media outlets (e.g. reason.com, cato.org, lambaste the GOP constantly). Personally, I will not vote for a Republican, and that includes Tom Cox.

Betty, you mention: "selfish bastards who don't like taxation and government services"

I think you miss the point about why most libertarians are opposed to high taxation. It's generally not because they are "selfish bastards." There are numerous reasons to oppose high taxation on the grounds of efficiency and equity. I think a lot of libertarians started out on the Left (like myself), but eventually became disenchanted by a federal government that is just not effective at using resources.

Let me give you an example: $200 billion spent by the feds to find WMD that did not exist! If I could have these tax dollars back, I would gladly donate them to a private charity. U.S. citizens donated $248 billion to charity last year.

The tax dollars that get sent to DC often get whittled away by some special interest group (e.g. the recent $233 million “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska). This is an unfortunate reality.

In all due respect, to paint libertarians "selfish bastards" for opposing high federal income taxes, shows that you have not thoroughly read the libertarian position.

The Libertarian Party?

Isn't their slogan "If It Feels Good Do It, And Screw The Rest Of Society"?

Great party, for the selfish.

Boy, Sid, you are so far off it isn't even funny. I think Libertarians could far more accurately be described as supporting a policy that just leaves everyone the hell alone so they can live their lives in peace. They support gay rights, choice, decriminalization of drugs, private property rights, labor unions, guns, civil rights, limited government, and a whole host of other pro-freedom and personal responsibility ideas. And they also support charity. Your characterization is terribly narrow-minded. Do you really believe only government has the answers and only through government can we care for others or properly regulate behavior - and that people who disagree with you are selfish? A very shocking view, in my opinion.

Libertarians:

Me first.

You last.

Got it.

Sid - your comments remind me of the determined, narrow-minded blindness that drove me from the Republican party. You extremists are something else.

Oy vey.

First of all, "Libertarian," even if your point was right (which it isn't) it would have NOTHING to do with state politics. Last time I checked the Great State of Oregon didn't go to war with Iraq.

Anyone who doesn't think Libertarians are selfish is delusional. Show me an inner-city single working mom who doesn't think government-funded schooling is a good idea. Show me a poor blue-collar cancer patient who doesn't think Medicaid/the Oregon Health Plan is a good idea. Show me a senior citizen who's worked a minimum wage job his whole life who doesn't think Social Security is a good idea.

Let's get real, folks. For every example of government waste you can give me, I can give you FIVE examples of the government providing a necessary safety-net so all people have a chance to compete -- or at least just get by.

The reason why Libertarians are selfish is that it's so easy for someone who already has opportunity to talk about the need for more personal responsibility. But tell the five-year-old growing up in a meth lab in Turner or Stayton that he should have more personal responsibility. Tell the 12-year-old gang member in North Portland that he should "pull himself up by his bootstraps".

And don't get me started with this nonsense about charities doing the job of providing a safety-net. When you can convince Steve Forbes that he should contribute 40% of his annual salary to charity, I'll start listening to this argument.

By the way, the point of my post was ignored. My point had nothing to do with what Libertarians believe; it was about whether Libertarians are spoilers for Republican candidates. They aren't.

The Libertarian Party -- kinda like the Greens, but without the money, popularity, sense of humor or looks.

"Anyone who doesn't think Libertarians are selfish is delusional."

True, so long as we consistently define people as "selfish" if they are unwilling to endorse laws that force their neighbors (via taxation) to contribute to an undefined list of social concerns.

Hey I have a social concern. Several studies have demonstrated health benefits of regular massage therapy for for adults. Maybe if a person cannot afford it, the government should pay for it.

Of course, anyone that opposes this must be selfish.

"Selfish" is a label nowadays for those who reach a different conclusion than the labeller regarding the importance or necessity of a particular government service.

As such, it has lost most of its potency as an epithet. Sort of like categorizing everyone opposed to affirmative action as "racists".

You can say "selfish" until you are blue(oregon)-in-the-face, but most people just hear "yada-yada-yada".

Hey -- Pancho -- you talk about the decision-making process for these social programs as if it's totally random. Actually, we have a process called REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY that decides what social initiatives are worthy of funding and what social initiatives are not. The reason why we don't offer government-funded massages is that our elected representatives have decided that it's not worth the expense. And, I imagine if they had decided otherwise, they would be ejected from office!

Obviously, you would prefer a system where people get to decide for themselves whether they want to pay for government services. Why stop at social safety-net services? Pancho, if your judgment is as good as the elected government's judgment on whether you should have to pay for public schools, Social Security, and Medicaid, then shouldn't I also get to decide for myself if I want to pay for police, fire, postal service, military, money production, etc.?

Yes, if you think people should get to decide for themselves whether they should pay for public education, then I feel comfortable calling you selfish. And you can ignore my argument by just focusing on that word, but that doesn't make you right -- it just exposes the shallow depth of your analysis.

Betty -

What is ironic about your post is that on the one hand you talk about representative democracy as a means of making decisions about government spending, and on the other you demean some of the voices that are a part of our representative democracy and who have a right to weigh in on those decisions. Libertarians have every bit as much a right to express their views and attempt to win people over to them as Democrats, who were once in the minority, do. I assure you that Libertarians are not "selfish" any more than those members of the Democrat party who rely on government assistance and vote for representatives who will support government assistance programs are acting "selfishly".

To label Libertarians as selfish shows the shallowness of your own analysis. For the Libertarian (and I know a LOT of Libertarians fairly well) it is not about what may be good for him or her personally - many of these people are lower income people who could actually benefit a great deal from government programs. Rather, they take a very principled position that looks at the long-term consequences of government largesse. You may not agree with their analysis of the evidence, and you are certainly free to argue with them. But don't think your self-righteous narrow-mindedness will go unnoticed or unchallenged.

Betty-

By using the word "selfish," you imply that libertarians just want as much money as possible for themselves so they can wildly spend it on unnecessary personal items (yachts, $300 bottles of wine, etc.).

However, this isn't the argument libertarians are making. Maybe you should read more about libertarianism. You apparently aren't too familiar with it.

btw- If 92 cents of every dollar I send to DC gets squandered, and I would no longer prefer to send my money there, does that make me selfish?

What if I would prefer to give my ENTIRE DOLLAR to a private charity of my choosing? (without having any of it spent on blowing up civilians in Iraq and other absurd boondoggles and special interest projects). Is that selfish of me? I'm being selfish b/c I don't want resources flushed down a hole (ie- DC)?!?!

Betty, you put a lot of faith in our "process called REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY that decides what social initiatives are worthy of funding and what social initiatives are not"

Have you ever studied Congress? Do you really think Congress is a rational decision-making body?

I support representative democracy, but I think we should be honest with ourselves about Congress's ability to rationally decide on which initiatives are worth funding.

First of all, to the person who said I'm not respecting the right of others to have differing opinions -- wha? Just because I call someone selfish, doesn't mean I don't respect their right to be selfish. I simply disagree with them. Of course Libertarians have the same right to express their views as I do. So do people who believe dogs and cats should run the country. And I have the right to call those opinions stupid. That's how discourse works.

Libertarian -- if $0.92 of every dollar you send to the government was wasted, then I might agree with you. But that statistic is rediculous. (Did you know that 87.2% of statistics are made up on the spot?) Plus, again you're talking about money you send to DC when the present discussion is about Libertarians in STATE government. And half of the state's budget is paying for schools.

If people got to decide for themselves which services they wanted to fund, then (1) all services would be underfunded because no one would volunteer to donate that much money, and (2) unpopular but necessary services would never get funded. That's why we elect people to make judgments about allocating resources -- because SOMEONE has to pay for the Department of Sanitation.

Leon, I have indeed studied Congress. No, Congress is not perfectly rational, but representative democracy is the best form of government we've been able to come up with. The premise of representative democracy is that when I cast a vote, I agree to accept the outcome of the election no matter whether the person I voted for wins or loses. And then the elected people take the revenue collected in taxes and distribute it in services. Although that system isn't perfect, it's certainly a whole lot better than not having a public school system, a social safety-net, a police force, etc., because people are deciding for themselves what services they feel like contributing to on a given day.

-B

I only know a few libertarians and all of them voted for Bush. Believe me, there are some things that I like about the national Libertarian Party platform, like the legalization of drugs (I also think prostitution should be legalized) but I just don't see libertarians advocating on the social issues.

Did Tom Cox ever voice his support for Tom Potter's decision to demand oversight of his two police officers on the FBI's JTTF? Did any prominent Oregon libertarians? You would think they would care deeply as to why Potter chose to pull out of the JTTF, since it's likely our government is gathering information on groups based on their political, religious or ethnic affiliations.

Prominent libertarians are so busy voicing their dissatisfaction with taxes that they seem to have forgotten about civil liberties. Once their leaders begin to stand up for these issues like a real libertarian would, I'll take them more seriously.

On a blog that is supposed to be progressive, I'm wondering why no one else is taking up Betty's side of the argument.

It always gets me that Libertarians always are appalled at the waste of money in government. Do all Libertarians work for the government or so-called think tanks that study the government? Have none of you ever worked for a privately owned business? How could you ignore the immense waste and irrational use of resources in private enterprise? All you have to do is read Dilbert for a week.

Having worked in the business world for over 30 years and run my own business for the past 12, I know that we business execs have hardly anything to boast about in terms of efficiency.

Libertarians take it as a matter of principle that individuals know how to spend their money better than the goverment. As a matter of fact, individuals are human and make mistakes and at least some of the time do a piss poor job of managing their money. Jeez, just look that the growth of pay day loan outfits and the lottery. Or the obnoxious rich who drop $20k at Ann Sachs to cover their horse stables in fancy tile.

Are Libertarians selfish? Probably not. I think of them as sheltered and privileged idealists who haven't had enough contact with people from different walks of life.

Gil -

You wrote: "I think of them as sheltered and privileged idealists who haven't had enough contact with people from different walks of life." I think you probably don't know very many Libertarians. I almost choked laughing when I read that statement because it is so far from reality.

In my opinion, the reason Libertarians in Oregon are so focused on tax issues is because over the past 10 years a well-organized movement has developed in Oregon around that issue and it provided coattails by which the party could gain press and membership. That issue seems to be dying a slow death. Watch what replaces it and see whether the Libertarians' prominent message seems to change. I'll bet it will. They have to take the opportunities that present themselves.

Betty writes that she doesn't see libertarians advocating on the social issues or civil rights. Well I think the reason for that is that the party isn't really that well organized or strong enough to be setting agendas for public debate. They respond to opportunities to speak on issues and are to some extent at the mercy of what the press will report about them and what the press is talking about at the time. If the press are reporting on a tax issue, a reporter will probably call the Libertarian party for a comment. If a tax group is holding a press conference, they might invite the Libertarians to participate. But on other issues, the party may not come to mind as a source because they haven't been able, for whatever reason, to establish themselves as a go-to source in other issues. That doesn't mean they don't care about those issues or that they wouldn't speak out on them. They were outspoken against the war from the very beginning. I'm very certain they have been outraged by the Patriot Act - but who is really reporting on that anyway, and how would you even know if they had spoken out on that issue if it wasn't reported?

I don't doubt that Cox switched parties because he knew he couldn't get anywhere with the Libertarian Party of Oregon. The party is held back by an overabundance of disgruntled lefties and righties who can't seem to agree on anything long enough to join the true Libertarians and make a united front. After years of trying to focus the party and move it forward, Cox may have given up and decided to wear the party label that could get him into office so he could help to enact Libertarian values legislatively. Just my opinion.

Gil wrote:

Having worked in the business world for over 30 years and run my own business for the past 12, I know that we business execs have hardly anything to boast about in terms of efficiency.

The difference is that people can choose (or not) to invest their money into wasteful enterprises. Some businesses do very well, some just get by and some bleed money.

Buyer beware - but we shouldn't judge every entrepreneur by the lowest common denominator.

On the other hand, we have little choice when someone forces our investment into inefficient government services. The decision is to simply pay up or wait for the government come after you.

I'm not sure what surprises me the most:

a) that you ignore this obvious disparity, or

b) that, as a business owner of 12 years, you seem to believe that you (along with other execs) are no more efficient with your money than the average government entity.

Hope you aren't looking for investors.

There is one very important point that everyone seems to have forgotten in any discussion of American state and local governments. Government does not exist simply for the sake of government. It exists to serve the people.

Parks, roads, schools are managed by the government for the good of all people...not just those who can afford them.

Yes there is waste in government...yes there needs to be strict oversight of politicians...but that is what elections are for.

That is the greatness of the American political experiment. If we don't like the priorities; we vote them out. Basic Civics that seems lost in these discussions.