Ron Paul lost out on the Republican nomination for the presidency.  Mitt Romney won the nomination, but then lost in the general election.  So neither one will be president, assuming Romney’s political career is basically done.  So the outcome is the same for them as far as attaining the highest office in the land.

So with everything over for them, at least as far as elections are concerned, which individual has had the greater impact?  For me, the answer is obvious.

Mitt Romney did not really inspire anyone.  He did not convert people’s thinking.  He did not use persuasion to convince some people to become Republicans or to change their philosophical outlook.  Romney was simply the Republican nominee against an incumbent Democrat who is mostly despised within the Republican Party.  When it comes down to it, most of the people who voted for Romney were really just voting against Obama.

Meanwhile, while Ron Paul did not get near as many votes in the primaries, and he certainly did not have backing from the establishment, he did have a profound impact on many lives.  Ron Paul’s campaigns in 2007/2008 and 2011/2012 inspired hundreds of thousands of people, or perhaps millions. He converted people to a philosophy of liberty.  Many of these people will now be libertarians for the rest of their lives.

Paul’s presidential runs were never about getting elected.  I assume that he already knew this.  I don’t know how many of his supporters knew this or even know it now.

I constantly hear some libertarians talking about electing the right people into office.  Unfortunately, they just don’t understand what it takes to achieve liberty.  At the very least, they are putting the cart before the horse.  If you are going to elect a large number of liberty-minded individuals and if you are going to hold their feet to the fire once they are in office, then you must have a large group of dedicated libertarians who stand on principle.  It doesn’t necessarily have to be a majority, but it does have to be a significant minority.

Achieving liberty is not about electing the right people into office.  It is about changing hearts and minds.  It is about persuasion.  It is about convincing others of the moral and pragmatic superiority of liberty.  It is about educating others on what it means to be a principled libertarian.  Without this step, the so-called right people will never be elected into office.

This lesson should also be learned by the Libertarian Party in general.  I think it is a good idea to run a candidate for president, but that is because it is an opportunity for media exposure that no one else can get.  It is an opportunity for the party to educate others on the benefits of liberty.  It is not about electing a Libertarian Party member to the presidency.

Gary Johnson just broke the one million vote mark for the first time for the Libertarian Party (although Ed Clark received a higher percentage in 1980).  But this doesn’t mean that much to people outside of libertarian circles.  It is perhaps symbolic that the libertarian movement is stronger now.  But it does not mean that Gary Johnson did a good job in his campaign on converting people to libertarianism through education.  It can’t mean that, since Johnson himself was learning what it meant to be a libertarian while he was campaigning.

Harry Browne received less than half a million votes in the 1996 election and again in the 2000 election.  Yet he had a far more lasting impact than someone like Gary Johnson.  Harry Browne actually converted people to libertarianism for life.  He had no hopes for winning the presidency and he said that numerous times.  His focus was on educating others.

The lesson here is simple.  You shouldn’t be convincing your friend to vote for someone like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.  You should be focusing on introducing libertarian ideas to your friend that may have a lasting impact.

In 50 years, what will Romney’s legacy be?  People just being born now may not even know him.  He will be known in the history books as a one-term governor who lost his presidential bid.

Ron Paul will not be best known as someone who lost in his runs for the presidency.  He will be known as someone who sparked a fire of liberty and peaceful revolution in the hearts and minds of millions of people for many generations to come.

It is hard to believe, but it has been over 2 months since the FOMC announced its policy decision to implement QE3, or what some are calling QE Infinity.  While the FOMC/ Fed is not specifically referring to it as QE3 (even that has a negative connotation now), they did say they would be buying $40 billion (net) each month, although this QE will focus on mortgage-backed securities and bailing out the banks again.

Looking at the adjusted monetary base (updated 11/15/12), there has not been much of a change since the announcement back in mid-September.  I recall that QE2 started out slowly too, but the Fed did eventually deliver on its promises, even if those promises meant more disaster for the economy.  I expect it to be no different this time.

We will also keep an eye on the excess reserves held by commercial banks.  The excess reserves went up in tandem with the money supply during the previous QEs.  So most of the new monetary inflation over the past 4 years has been parked at the banks, which parks the money with the Fed in order to earn .25% interest (almost nothing).

Even if the banks keep building up reserves, the policy of more monetary inflation will still eventually show up in prices, although not as much as would be the case if the banks were to lend the new money.

For this, I am still counting on gold and other precious metals to perform well.  I am also not betting heavily against stocks, as they could benefit, at least in nominal terms, from more monetary inflation.  As I mentioned recently, the stock market is a tug-of-war right now, with QE3 on one side and the so-called fiscal cliff on the other.  For this, gold seems like a safer bet.

$40 billion per month in new money, created out of thin air by the Fed, will add up.  We don’t know how long the Fed will keep this policy, but most people suspect it will be for a year or longer.

I don’t know at what point the Fed will stop inflating the money supply.  My guess is that it will stop, or at least take a break, when we see the consumer price index rise above 5% for a few months in a row.  If we hit a recession in 2013, then we may not see the official price index rise above this for a little while longer.  A recession would likely increase the demand for dollars and would essentially counteract some of the monetary inflation.

I expect 2013 to be an interesting year.  The Fed has been walking on a tightrope and I think it has been content to keep this position.  Eventually, we will see a severe recession or high price inflation.  It is inevitable.  It is more of a question of when and how the whole thing will play out.

It is a strange world we live in today.  There are people in third-world countries who have cell phones and internet access, yet they struggle just to put food on the table.  It is even becoming bizarre in America, where we have gadgets that were unimaginable just a few years ago, yet the cost of our basic needs are going up.

It makes it quite hard to judge our standard of living.  Compare a middle class family living in the year 2012 with the average middle class family in the 1950’s.  We have so many luxuries today that would have seemed impossible then.  We aren’t flying around on spaceships like the Jetsons yet, but we have instant communication throughout the world.  We have wireless phones.  We have microwave ovens.  We have giant televisions with hundreds of channels.  A middle class family in the 50’s would have been lucky to have one television set.  And there was certainly no remote control.

Of course, the list could go on for pages.  There is no question that we have luxuries today that we take for granted.  If we went back in time and had to live in the 50’s (or even the 90’s), we would quickly realize how much we have.

On the other hand, life was easier in the 1950’s in a certain sense.  Most people are familiar with the television show Leave it to Beaver, which took place in the 50’s.  While life may not have been as great and simple as portrayed in the show, it was still somewhat accurate in describing a middle class American family in the 50’s.

The wife/ mom could afford to stay home.  It was not necessary for both parents to work.  While marginal income taxes were higher, taxes overall were lower.  And government spending was a fraction of what it is today.  While many taxes are hidden today (including the inflation tax), it basically takes the woman to go to work just to pay for the tax bill of the household.

In the 50’s, medical care was very affordable.  A hospital stay for a couple of nights would not bankrupt you.  A visit to the doctor, or perhaps more accurately, a visit from the doctor, did not set people back much.

While there was no Walmart back then, things were still relatively inexpensive, particularly for basic needs.  The man could go to work and support his family and the basic needs would be taken care of, which included housing, clothing, food, medical care, a car, and other incidentals.

Perhaps we are more spoiled today and we expect more cars, more television sets, cable, etc.  But shouldn’t we expect those things?  After more than 50 years, we should expect that our standard of living would be much greater.  But now the typical middle class family has to send both parents to work if they want to enjoy the modern day luxuries.

A lot of people today do not understand why they are struggling.  While unemployment is high, let’s just focus on people who have kept their jobs.  Even these people seem to be struggling, but it is not surprising if you think about it.  Salaries have remained stagnant.  In real terms, salaries have actually gone down in the last few years.  Most people I know are not getting much in the way of raises, unless they get a big promotion.  Some people aren’t even getting a cost-of-living increase.

There are some companies giving out 1 or 2 percent raises.  But then they are also raising insurance premiums so much that the premiums alone are offsetting the salary increase.  So many people are not seeing an increase in their paycheck, even in nominal terms.  Meanwhile, even if price inflation is only 2% per year, that is a big hit, especially when it compounds over a few years time.  In less than 5 years time, you would have taken the equivalent of a 10% pay cut.  But it is all so subtle, most people don’t even know what is hitting them.  That is why the government loves monetary inflation so much.  The populace doesn’t fully blame the government for the decrease in their standard of living.

This whole thing comes down to government spending and regulation.  Every dollar that the government spends is a dollar that is not being spent by someone who earned it.  The federal government alone is spending almost $4 trillion per year now.  It is about 25% of our income (and this doesn’t include state and local spending).  It is a giant misallocation of resources.

There is no question that, despite iPads and HD TV, middle class families in America are struggling.  Food, clothing, furniture, medical care, and other basic needs are going up in price, while most incomes are lagging behind.  Until there is a significant cutback in the size and scope of government, particularly at the federal level, then American families will continue to struggle with their basic needs.

The government primarily uses taxation and inflation to seize money from its subjects.  You could also include debt, but really that is either a form of taxation or inflation, or else it is money voluntarily turned over to the government.

There are literally thousands of different taxes that we pay.  Some are obvious like income taxes and payroll taxes.  Common local taxes are sales taxes and property taxes.  But there are a lot of small ones and hidden ones.  There are gas taxes, both at the federal and state levels.  There are hotel taxes.  There are phone taxes.  There are taxes on electricity and water.  There are corporate taxes, that we all pay for indirectly, even if we don’t own a company.  There are taxes on investments.  There are “fees” that are really taxes.  These can include car registrations, fishing licenses, parking permits, etc.  Again, the list of taxes at all levels of government are virtually endless.

Then there is the hidden tax of inflation.  It subtly and slowly (and sometimes not too slowly) devalues your savings.  You can have money just sitting in your wallet, and it is indirectly being taken away from you without you touching it.  While most people understand that prices go up almost every year, not everyone understands the reasoning.  Not everyone understands that an overall increase in the general price level is a result of monetary inflation (unless there is a short-term decrease in the demand for money).  This can all be pinned down on the government and the Federal Reserve.

The crazy thing is that the government actually uses taxation and inflation together to seize even more wealth from its productive citizens.  Although incomes do tend to go up with inflation, they tend to lag behind many consumer prices.  Therefore, most people are paying higher prices before they actually make more money.  But to add icing onto the miserable cake, higher income from inflation can actually push you into a higher tax bracket, thus paying more taxes.

But here is what I see as the worst combination of taxation and inflation.  Let’s say that the price inflation rate is 4%.  Let’s also say that interest rates are paying 4%.  The real interest rates are then at zero (interest rate minus inflation rate).  So let’s say you put $10,000 into a money market fund.  After one year, you earn $400.  But your $10,000 can no longer buy what it could last year.  Your $10,400 this year is worth the same as your $10,000 from last year, in terms of purchasing power.  So you have saved this money, yet you haven’t earned any return on it.  And here is the worst part.  You now owe taxes on the $400 that you “earned”.  If you have to pay 25% in taxes, you will only be left with $10,300.  In inflation adjusted terms, you have actually lost money.

It is even worse if the inflation rate is higher.  It is also worse in a situation like today, where real interest rates are negative.  Even pushing aside the taxation issue, interest rates will not even pay enough right now for you to keep even with the inflation rate, even using the conservative CPI number used by the government.

It would be the same thing if you invested in gold.  If you bought an exchange traded fund (ETF) for gold (GLD) and later sold it for a “profit”, you would have to pay a high tax rate on the earnings.  (GLD is taxed at a higher rate than stocks, as it is considered a collectible and is taxed at 28% if held longer than one year.)  But again, much of that so-called profit might have just been a result of inflation.

The issue of inflation is so vitally important because it is allowing the government virtually unlimited power and it is secretly ripping people off.  We must End the Fed.  To do this, we must start by legalizing competition.  One of the primary goals for libertarians should be to repeal the legal tender laws.  The Fed needs some competition and it needs to be put out of business.

There is a so-called fiscal cliff that is coming on January 1, 2013 that is being widely discussed.  I have written on this before and I will probably hammer home this point another 10 times before the year is over.  There is a widespread myth being spread that must be extinguished.

This fiscal cliff is a combination of increased taxes and spending cuts.  There are many taxes starting or going higher.  These include federal income taxes, Social Security payroll taxes, and new taxes from Obamacare.  The spending cuts are supposed to go into effect as a result of a “deal” that was made last year to increase the debt limit.

Tax increases and spending cuts are being lumped together.  They are both seen as steps to lower the deficits.  They are both seen as bad for economic growth.  The first point about deficits may or may not be true.  The second point about economic growth is false.  Although the so-called spending cuts would be tiny in comparison to the overall budget, it must be stressed that spending cuts and higher taxes are completely different.

First, tax increases will not necessarily lead to a smaller deficit.  This is based on static scoring.  It is assuming that no human behavior is altered as a result of the tax increases.  It is assuming that it will not affect economic growth.  Art Laffer, while not original in his thoughts, was correct that higher marginal tax rates can lead to lower government tax collections.

Second, we need massive cuts in government spending (much bigger than what is proposed).  This is the road to economic growth and a higher standard of living.  We need savings and capital investment.  We don’t need  the government spending and misallocating resources on a grand scale.  While there might be some short-term pain for certain people with government spending cuts, it would be a net benefit overall for society.  It would be less resources being misallocated.

Third, narrowing the budget deficit should not be the main goal for libertarians.  The main goal should be to lower total spending as much as possible.  This is what matters the most.  If total federal spending were one-tenth of what it is today, then we wouldn’t need to argue too much over taxes and deficits.  A $400 billion budget would be easily funded with some minor excise taxes.

Politicians and the mainstream media are framing this debate in their own terms.  I constantly hear people saying something like, “we all agree that we need some kind of combination of spending cuts and increased government revenue.”  It is not really government revenue.  They are not selling anything, except perhaps a load of garbage coming out of their mouths.  It is government tax collections.  And “we” do not all agree.  They think it is a compromise for them to steal more from us and spend less of what they steal.  I see that as greater theft, not as compromise.

The federal government alone (not counting state and local governments) spends about one quarter of GDP.  In other words, the federal government spends 25% of our yearly earnings.  And this doesn’t even consider all of the damage they do with that spending and with all of the regulations that are enforced.  At what point is it enough?  It seems like marginal tax rates could be 80% and you would still have some leftists saying that the rich need to pay their fair share.

This whole tax the rich thing gets tiresome.  Of course, the middle class and lower class are getting hit harder, but it’s not for a lack of taxing the rich.  It is because the government doles out favors to those with connections and then throws the leftover peanuts to its voting constituents.  The answer is not to tax more.  The answer is for the government to spend less, which means a drastic reduction in its size and scope.

In conclusion, libertarians should be quick to point out the difference between spending cuts and tax increases.  Any proposal to cut spending or cut taxes should be supported by libertarians.  Any proposal to increase spending or increase taxes should be opposed by libertarians.  I would like to see a fiscal cliff where government spending is cut dramatically.  Unfortunately, we are still a few years away from that.

There are valid reasons to be both bullish and bearish on the stock market.  There are a lot of things going on in the financial and political world.  Some of these things will be good for stocks and some will be bad.  It will just be a question of what wins out.

After Obama’s re-election, the stock market tanked for two days.  It was blamed on the looming fiscal cliff, but that has been known about for a long time.  If anything, Obama’s re-election solidified that at least part of the fiscal cliff will not be avoided.

If nothing changes between now and December 31, tax rates scheduled to go up will go up.  The Social Security payroll tax will go back up from 4.2% to 6.2%.  Income tax rates will go up across the board.  An additional Medicare tax will kick in from Obamacare on high income earners.  And probably the most important to the stock market, capital gains tax rates will go up.

The capital gains rate will go up to 20% on January 1 for some people (the ones most likely to own stocks).  Not only that, but an additional Medicare tax of 3.8% will also apply to capital gains.  This is from Obamacare.  It would not surprise me if these tax rates are the reason we saw stocks go way down right after Obama was re-elected.  Stock owners are guessing that the capital gains rate will go up as scheduled in January.

This is why stocks like Apple, which have done well, took a big hit.  It makes sense.  Someone who bought Apple stock is probably sitting on big gains.  They are better off selling before the year is over and paying the lower capital gains rate.  This is a good reason to be bearish on stocks until we hit 2013.

There is a very good reason to be bullish on stocks too, despite the unfriendly taxes.  It is Ben Bernanke and QE3 (or what some are calling QE Infinity).  Obama’s re-election solidifies more government spending, more government debt, and more money creation (not that it would have been different under Romney).  While monetary inflation is bad long-term economic policy, it can be good for stocks.  Stocks are not dollar-denominated like bonds or a money market fund.  While stock prices may not go up in real terms, they will probably go up in nominal terms if there is enough money creation.

While I expect to see a continuing roller coaster over the next few months, I think the direction of the stock market will ultimately depend on the economy and whether we fall into another recession (if the last one ever actually ended).  The problem is that the stock market will be more of a pre-cursor to the economy than the other way around.  If we fall into recession, I expect stocks to lead the way.  On the other hand, if we hit an artificial boom caused by the easy money policies of the Fed, then I would also expect stocks to lead the way up.  If this happens, it will be hard to say how long the artificial boom can last before the final bust.

At this point, I wouldn’t be betting heavily for or against stocks.  It is ok to have stocks if it is part of your permanent portfolio.  Otherwise, they seem too risky right now, particularly with capital gains tax rates set to go up.

Now that the dust has settled, I am gaining some perspective on what happened on Election Day and some of the positives and negatives, at least from a libertarian standpoint.

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party (LP) candidate, will finish with just under 1.2 million votes.  This was just under 1% of the total popular vote in the country.  It was a very good finish for the LP in comparison to past races, but that is not surprising given the previous Ron Paul campaigns, the mood of the country, and the lack of choice between the two major party candidates.

It is hard to find the results of the third-party candidates.  Here is one website.  Unfortunately, we will probably never know how many people wrote in a name like Ron Paul or Big Bird.

Although Johnson received more than one million votes (first time for the LP), I would not consider it to be the most successful.  There are many more libertarians today than there were 5 years ago and there were more then than there were 20 years ago.

While Johnson showed that there is a small (but significant) portion of the population who desire real change in a libertarian direction, I’m not sure that he converted a lot of people.  Meanwhile, if you look at someone like Harry Browne, who ran twice and did not receive nearly as high vote totals, he defined success in a different way.  His main reason for running was to educate others on the benefits of liberty.  Harry Browne probably created more libertarians that Johnson did.  And the libertarians that Browne created would tend to be more principled and educated.

I think Gary Johnson is a decent guy from what I can tell and he really seems to mean well.  Unfortunately, I just don’t think he is well enough educated on what it means to be a libertarian.  He probably learned a lot more on the campaign trail than he bargained for.

I still think if the LP had run a more principled and radical candidate in the mold of Ron Paul, or Ron Paul himself, then the vote total would have been even greater.  Ron Paul received almost two million votes in the primaries and many states only allow just Republicans to vote.  If Paul had ran on the LP ticket and had been on the ballot in most or all of the states, then I think he would have received several million votes.

I also think another significant and positive story is voter turnout.  While a small portion of the differential may have been due to Hurricane Sandy, it was still down in most other states.  Obama received over 7 million votes less than he did in 2008.  Romney received over 1 million votes less than McCain did in 2008.  This means that there is widespread dissatisfaction and that many people did not feel obliged to vote for the lesser of two evils.  If not voting counted as a candidate, then that candidate would have easily beaten Obama.

Just remember this point.  Obama does not have majority support from Americans.  He only has a majority (and very slight) of the Americans who actually voted.

One last point on this whole thing here;  If Romney and the Republican establishment had treated Ron Paul and his supporters with more respect, then it might have made a difference.  I and many others still would not have voted for Romney, but I suspect that some would have.  Even more so, it would have been interesting if Romney had chosen Rand Paul as his running mate.

But Romney chose an establishment running mate and he blew off the libertarian element in the Republican Party.  Doing that, there was no way he was going to win.  He couldn’t beat Obama with a bad economy and high unemployment.  There simply wasn’t any enthusiasm for Romney.  There was some enthusiasm to beat Obama, but it was never really FOR Romney.  In the end, Romney was a dud and he deserved to lose.  Unfortunately, so did Obama.

While the election results may be depressing to conservatives and many libertarians, I want to give some “glass is half full” reasons to be optimistic.  The first couple of reasons to be optimistic will be more for libertarians and the last two will be for both.

The first reason is that we won’t have a President Romney.

The second reason is that Obama is less likely to bomb Iran.  This is actually the biggest issue that is out there.  If there is a major war with Iran, then that will affect everyone.  It will mean that many innocent people will die.  It will mean more hatred toward Americans.  It will mean higher gasoline prices.  It will mean far worse economic conditions.

While we can’t be sure of what Romney would have done and we can’t be sure of what Obama will do, it seems that there is less of a chance of a major war with Iran with Obama in office.  This is not a defense of Obama and it is not to let him off the hook for his continuing wars (some of which he started) and his drone attacks on innocent people and his continuing violations of basic civil liberties.

The third reason to be happy that Obama will get another 4 years is that he will take the blame for the horrible economic conditions that are still to come.  There has been massive malinvestment that is so big that we can’t even know what is about to hit us.  Obama is correct that he inherited a terrible economy.  We can fault Bush, Greenspan, other politicians, and even the American people to some degree for allowing it to happen.  But Obama has not improved the situation.  He has only made it worse with more regulations, more spending, and more debt.  And he certainly hasn’t criticized Bernanke for his huge monetary inflation.

Obama is known as a supporter of big government.  Romney is falsely portrayed as a supporter of the free market.  If we are going to have a terrible economy for the next four years, regardless of who is president, we may as well favor the guy who is known for his support of big government.  I would have been screaming and kicking if Romney had been elected and the media were trying to portray him as cutting government, when of course no such thing would have happened.

The fourth and final reason to be happy about Obama’s re-election is that the Democratic nominee in 2016 will have less of a chance of winning.  The Republican nominee in 2008 was doomed because of the disaster that was Bush.  The same will probably be true for the Democratic nominee in 2016, assuming the economy is really bad.  If Romney had won, then guess who would have been the immediate favorite in 2016 for the Democrats?  Yes, Hillary Clinton.  She still may run in 4 years, but her chances will be far less having to follow Obama and probably a bad economy.  So perhaps we can be thankful for Obama for another 4 years in saving us from having another President Clinton.

The election circus is finally over and Obama will get another four years.  I have to admit that it was a little fun listening to the Republican/ conservative Romney supporters who were so depressed.  Many conservative commentators were predicting a big Romney victory and their predictions were way off.

Intrade proved to be right again.  It is not infallible, but it seems to be the best “poll” that there is.  Intrade had the chances of Obama winning at about 67% just before the election.

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned much, if at all, in the mainstream media, is that Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson broke the one million vote barrier.  He looks like he will just miss breaking the one percent barrier though.  If his positions had been closer to Ron Paul, then I think he would have easily broken the one percent barrier.  I will have more commentary on this in a future post.

I didn’t vote because the lines at my precinct were astronomical.  I don’t have hours out of my day to waste for something where my vote will have no effect.  Perhaps I would have waited if Ron Paul were running in the general election, but that was not to be.

So with the long lines I saw, I thought that it was a big voter turnout.  But it turns out that it is just another thing where government is incompetent.  Why should a voting line take hours?  You can have hundreds of people filling out a ballot at the same time.  Do they not have enough workers at the polls or are they just run really inefficiently?  Anyway, it is so symbolic of bureaucratic idiocy.

Despite the long lines I saw, voter turnout was actually down.  While I’m sure not all of the votes have been counted yet, it still looks to be quite significant.  You can see the 2008 results vs. the 2012 results. According to this article, voter turnout was down by as much as 13 million people from 2008.  This is quite significant.  Now, certainly some of this can be attributed to Hurricane Sandy from the previous week.  However, it wasn’t just low turnout in New York and New Jersey.  It appears that turnout was down in most states.

I think this should be good news to libertarians.  It means more people did not feel obliged to vote for the lesser of two evils.  It means that more people did not want to endorse the status quo.

Let’s face it.  Obama just won re-election in the face of a terrible economy.  This just shows that the Republican Party put up a real dud.  Aside from the general economy, the issue that Obama was the most vulnerable on was Obamacare.  Yet, how could this be legitimately challenged by the inventor of Obamacare?  There are two Americans who have signed legislation to mandate the purchase of health insurance and those two people happened to be the main choices for president.

To be fair to Romney, I don’t think most of the other Republican candidates would have faired better.  Gingrich, Bachmann, Cain, and Santorum all would have lost, and probably even worse.  Perry might have had a shot if he had improved his debate skills.  Ron Paul would have had a chance at beating Obama too, but the Republican establishment would pick Obama over Paul any day.

So we will have four more years of Obama.  This may seem depressing, but I will give some good news about this in my next post.

1) I went to vote today and the line was astronomical (I live in Florida).  I probably would have waited at least an hour and I wasn’t going to be voting for Romney or Obama.  So I figured my time was better spent elsewhere.  One post on my blog is far more influential than any trip to the voting booth.

2) Can I still call it a voting booth?  You don’t actually go in and close a curtain anymore.  Or do they in some places?  Young adults today might not even know what I’m talking about.

3) H. L. Mencken said, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”  While it is funny, I am not this cruel.  I don’t wish this government on most people.  I think most people are just ignorant about politics, history, economics, etc.  I think most people mean well.  They may not deserve the government they ask for, but they are going to get it.

4) What are the chances that your single vote would decide the presidential election?  It would have to be at least one in a billion.  And even if it were a one-vote margin in one particular state that would decide it all, then it would end up being decided by vote counters, lawyers, and judges.  Remember 2000?

5) When thinking about the above point, it really is amazing just how close Florida was in 2000.  To think that of millions of votes, it came down to just a few hundred in a state that decided it all.

6) I don’t think most people understand when I tell them that our solutions do not lie in politics.  They don’t understand that government relies on their consent.  Some people even say that they don’t consent, but then go on and tell me about the government programs that we do need.

7) There is a saying that if you get people asking the wrong question, then you don’t have to worry about the answer.  Isn’t this what this election is?  If you have establishment candidate A (Obama) vs. establishment candidate B (Romney), then the establishment doesn’t have to worry about who wins.

8) What would happen if there was an election and nobody showed up?  Not literally.  Of course the candidates and their families will show up.  There will always be some people who show up.  But what if voter turnout dropped by a huge percentage, say 50%.  This would scare the establishment more than anything.

9) As said above, the government relies on the consent of the people.  The government will always get away with whatever it can.  It will only be as good as the people are.  It is rare that a government is better.  Are there any examples of this?  Maybe the prime minister (essentially dictator) in Dubai and United Arab Emirates.  He is a relatively free market guy.  I think the same goes for the prince in Liechtenstein.  If these places were democracies or democratic republics, they would actually be worse off.

10) Why are people so passionate about politics?  It is because it means control.  The government has so much power over our lives, that there is a big stake in the game.  If we were allowed to choose our own government, then all of this fighting would not be necessary.  I don’t care if people want Obamacare, as long as individuals and companies are not forced to participate.  If all of the blue voters want to get together and have Obamacare, go at it.  The same goes for the red voters and all of their issues.  There won’t be fighting if people are not forced to participate in other people’s schemes.