A relative who I respect more than any other told me yesterday that he actually is in agreement to me with my political views. He’s a hardcore liberal who loved Clinton because the stock market did so well. But now he is realizing that he really didn’t earn much value even though his wages, investments and property values skyrocketed — he realizes he isn’t that much wealthier than he was before the booms. He is thriftier than ever, and he sees that the money he’s saved for decades might not last the rest of his life, even though he is one of the thriftiest people I know.

It was with great shock that I accepted that he agrees with the libertarians, but he made an interesting point: he now prefers smaller government, but he is more afraid of continuing warmongering in the world than with freedom. He would rather vote for Hilary or Barack than “throw away a vote” on a libertarian candidate. I personally don’t support any candidate on any platform. I vote for the best person I know for every elected position — I vote for myself. I recommend everyone does it, especially all of you who don’t vote. Go out and register, and write your own name in for every election seat. As more people do this, the vote totals are more skewed to “None of the Above” or “Other” than for either party of evil.

I am taking a moment, though, to endorse Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul of Texas. As many know, he ran for Libertarian Party President in 1988 and did terribly. Third parties can’t compete because they can’t enter the debates. But Ron Paul is an elected federal Congressman, running as a Republican even though he is a Libertarian at heart. He votes Constitutionally, and supports a significant decrease in the size of the Federal government — something we all should support in theory.

So there is it — I endorse Ron Paul for President. But I won’t vote for him. Even though he is a wonderful Libertarian, he is still too statist for me. Ron Paul takes no sides on the abortion debate — he is pro-life, but he understands that the U.S. Constitution leaves Congress NO power to enact legislation. This is how it should be. He is against the police state, he is against all undeclared wars, he is against taxes, he is even against paper dollars and would prefer a return to the gold standard. He sounds like a dream come true! But Ron Paul is anti-immigration, and he still supports a small variety of Statist measures. Love the guy, love his thoughts, but my belief in only voting for myself is stronger than my belief that a President can really make a difference.

Here’s the way I think others should play it, if they’re going to vote:

1. If you are going to vote and want MORE freedom, only vote for yourself. Vote “NO” to all judge retentions, and vote against any bond issues.
2. If you won’t vote for yourself, vote Ron Paul for President. Skip everyone else, and vote “NO” to all judge retentions. Vote against any bond issues.
3. If you must vote for every office, why are you reading this site?

Take 7 minutes and watch Ron Paul’s YouTube video on why he is running for President. He says some really insightful things, and there is no doublespeak in his message. I appreciate the guy. I plan on spending a good portion of FreedomFest 2007 talking to him — and I know he always listens, too. I’ve met him at a few conventions and I’m always blown away that this federal Congressman spends time listening to me speak to the small crowds and groups I challenge in liberty.

If you must vote, please vote for yourself. If you can’t appreciate why this is the most pro-Freedom way to vote, vote for Ron Paul. If you can’t do that, you are just voting for candidates (in both parties) who want to continue to steal your money, steal your time, steal your freedom, and steal your future from yourself and your family and friends.

Discuss this article at the anarcho-capitalism forum.

Another excellent post by Christian Anarcho-Capitalist blogged VoiceofJohn, titled Judge Not. From their post:

Do Christians have the right to govern? We’ve already seen that they do not. We’ve also seen that governing other people is immoral unless they agree to participate, and that restricting people’s liberty like this is bad for the prosperity of society, because it’s bad economics. (Basically it’s socialism, even if you like to call it “democracy” and pretend it is “liberty.”)

But people have the right to establish whatever voluntary associations they want. The members of those associations may delegate their authority to those associations. So, they may give or loan some of their property to the group. They may empower the group to act in their defense. They may not legitimately have the group take what doesn’t belong to its members, or use force against non-members for purposes other than defense of rights. (If they do, they have founded a criminal organization, like the Mafia, even though (like the Mafia) the group may go around telling everybody that it is “protecting them” and so they need to “pay up,” calling itself “the state” to pretend it is something other than a criminal organization.)