Archive | Robert Sarvis RSS feed for this section

Robert Sarvis, Libertarian for Senate (Virginia) Q&A

10 Feb

Robert Sarvis declares for Senate

1 Feb

It’s on the internet, so it must be true: ROBERT SARVIS is running for the U.S. Senate this year!

SHARE the news and tell every Virginia voter you know. With Congress at a 9% approval rating, and the federal government off the rails, it’s time for a change in direction. And VIRGINIA will lead the way.

Now you REALLY have to be there at the Libertarian Party of Virginia’s state convention on February 8th in Richmond. The LP will nominate its Senate candidate, Mr. Sarvis will give a keynote speech, and the Sarvis campaign will be organizing the ballot petition drive in earnest.

Also, we want to see a FULL SLATE of candidates for the House of Representatives. Be BOLD! If you’ve ever thought about running, please make every effort to be at the state convention, or get in touch with us ASAP! Let’s Go Big in 2014, Virginia Libertarians!

Robert Sarvis announces for Senate

1 Feb

It’s on the internet, so it must be true: ROBERT SARVIS is running for the U.S. Senate this year!

SHARE the news and tell every Virginia voter you know. With Congress at a 9% approval rating, and the federal government off the rails, it’s time for a change in direction. And VIRGINIA will lead the way.

Now you REALLY have to be there at the Libertarian Party of Virginia’s state convention on February 8th in Richmond. The LP will nominate its Senate candidate, Mr. Sarvis will give a keynote speech, and the Sarvis campaign will be organizing the ballot petition drive in earnest.

Also, we want to see a FULL SLATE of candidates for the House of Representatives. Be BOLD! If you’ve ever thought about running, please make every effort to be at the state convention, or get in touch with us ASAP! Let’s Go Big in 2014, Virginia Libertarians!

Can’t get to sleep? Watch the Libertarian Party of Virginia discuss whether to expel a local affiliate

26 Nov
Leaders of the Tidewater chapter of the Libertarian Party of Virginia endorsed another party’s gubernatorial candidate.  But then one resigned and one apologized.  But only after using LP mailing lists etc. to do the endorsement.

So the LPVA decided to de-certify or censure them.  But then it turned out they had actually neglected to re-certify themselves anyway, as had every other local affiliate.

And they are about to have new elections early next year anyway for chapter officers.

Lots of unhappiness, largely along lines of who is or is not comfortable with Republicans, and who was previously a Democrat or a Republican.  It seemed to me that although men and former Republicans were all over the map, gay guys and women were all upset with faux Libertarian Republican wannabees (even those gays or women who had previously been Republicans or even GOP officeholders).

Two people discussed the issue without taking a position on the motions:  gubernatorial candidate Robert Sarvis and State Chair Chuck Moulton.  After several hours of discussion, the LPVA state central committee chose to just wait for the next officer election of the local affiliate and see if the current officers aren’t all replaced.

Are Republicans (and Democrats) inferior goods?

12 Nov
You might think an inferior good is something like the lesser of two evils.

It’s actually a piece of basic economics jargon.  An inferior good is a good that people buy less of as they earn higher incomes or accumulate more wealth, unlike a normal good.  For example as people earn more money they usually buy more square footage of housing (as well as buying more in terms of a higher price as they move to better locations and more luxurious construction and finishes) – housing is a normal good.  Vacation homes are a normal good; people buy more of them as they become (or in inflationist economies, believe) that they are wealthier.

Inferior goods are things like second hand mobile homes, or cheap beer, or dented bin items, or merchandise at the dollar store.  Few people buy more of these as they get wealthier.  But they buy more of them as they become poorer.

Now let’s consider what “being wealthier” means to an economist.  Ultimately it means being able to make more and more exchanges so you can trade what you have for more of the things that you want, thereby satisfying more of your desires.  So having more options is having a higher psychic income, just as having a higher monetary income tends to give you more options (since you can buy or rent a wider range of goods and services).

So the question is:  is the conventional two party election a form of poverty?

Having more options on the ballot makes voters wealthier, in that they have more options, even if they continued to choose to buy the same product.  Which is what they would do if the products they had been buying were normal goods.

But apparently the establishment parties and their candidates are not normal goods.  When you end barriers to entry to the political market, either by managing to get past the barrier to entry created by ballot access laws and getting a new party on the ballot, or by raising even a fraction of the money the establishment parties have and doing enough advertising that a small share of the marketplace of voters knows there is another product, people stop buying the product they used to buy and start buying the new product by voting for the new party.  As the recent Virginia gubernatorial race shows, this happens even when the new product (the Libertarian Party) spends $3 per customer on advertising and the old firms outspend it, paying $15-30 per consumer in advertising.

Republicans and Democrats are inferior goods.  People only buy them when they are impoverished in terms of choices and information.

Are Republicans (and Democrats) inferior goods?

12 Nov
You might think an inferior good is something like the lesser of two evils.

It’s actually a piece of basic economics jargon.  An inferior good is a good that people buy less of as they earn higher incomes or accumulate more wealth, unlike a normal good.  For example as people earn more money they usually buy more square footage of housing (as well as buying more in terms of a higher price as they move to better locations and more luxurious construction and finishes) – housing is a normal good.  Vacation homes are a normal good; people buy more of them as they become (or in inflationist economies, believe) that they are wealthier.

Inferior goods are things like second hand mobile homes, or cheap beer, or dented bin items, or merchandise at the dollar store.  Few people buy more of these as they get wealthier.  But they buy more of them as they become poorer.

Now let’s consider what “being wealthier” means to an economist.  Ultimately it means being able to make more and more exchanges so you can trade what you have for more of the things that you want, thereby satisfying more of your desires.  So having more options is having a higher psychic income, just as having a higher monetary income tends to give you more options (since you can buy or rent a wider range of goods and services).

So the question is:  is the conventional two party election a form of poverty?

Having more options on the ballot makes voters wealthier, in that they have more options, even if they continued to choose to buy the same product.  Which is what they would do if the products they had been buying were normal goods.

But apparently the establishment parties and their candidates are not normal goods.  When you end barriers to entry to the political market, either by managing to get past the barrier to entry created by ballot access laws and getting a new party on the ballot, or by raising even a fraction of the money the establishment parties have and doing enough advertising that a small share of the marketplace of voters knows there is another product, people stop buying the product they used to buy and start buying the new product by voting for the new party.  As the recent Virginia gubernatorial race shows, this happens even when the new product (the Libertarian Party) spends $3 per customer on advertising and the old firms outspend it, paying $15-30 per consumer in advertising.

Republicans and Democrats are inferior goods.  People only buy them when they are impoverished in terms of choices and information.

When Ron Paul Lost His Moral Authority

11 Nov
In the wake of Ken Cuccinelli’s squeaker loss Tuesday the interwebs and local Virginia and DC political events are tortured by conflicts between Republicans, Libertarians, and Ron Paul and other libertarian Republicans.

For example, a former staff economist for Ron Paul’s Congressional office, and an executive at Paul’s Campaign for Liberty, not only defriended me on FaceBook, but banned me from the Virginia Campaign for Liberty group, for a tweet I made in reply to Ron Paul and for my posts defending Robert Sarvis against the Paul’s and others. (My posts in the Virginia C4L group and those of other Sarvis supporters were being censored for weeks anyway.)

The tweet that got me banned was in response to Ron Paul’s statement at a Ken Cuccinelli rally where he called all Sarvis supporters “insane,” kind of a nasty and loose and sloppy charge from a medical doctor. (Did he intend to have them committed so they could not vote?)

He apparently thought we should bow to the Pauls because of their contributions. Uh huh. As we all know from Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, lots of great people get a little nutty, abusive and full of themselves in their dotage. My tweet he got hissy about was this: “Ron Paul says voting for Sarvis is insane, which is a subject some would say he is an expert on.” He thought that I was claiming that Ron Paul is insane. 

He doesn’t see it as a claim that Ron Paul’s experience should make him wary of charging that (other) people are insane because they disagree with his position, since that is what happened to him his entire career.  I don’t think anyone in the Paul camp realized that’s what they were saying, because they share the general GOP delusional mentality that not only do libertarian voters belong to them, but that we are their children whom they may abuse.  (And did Dr. Paul never pay attention to his own fans – did he really think calling us names and telling us “No!” would make us follow along?)

Overall I think the Paul supporters behind Cuccinelli, with their propensity to parrot lies, betray exactly this type of (I hope temporary) rashness and lack of subtlety and intelligence.  The Paul’s wanted to centrally plan the liberty movement, and collectivize our libertarian eggs, and put them all in the Cuccinelli basket.  It was a bad investment.   The Libertarian spent less per vote than Cuccinelli did since all spending for Sarvis was $380000 and Ken spent $15 million. The GOP spent almost 45 times what the Libertarians did. But they got less than 7 times their vote. And the GOP didn’t have to first spend money to collect 18,000 signatures to get on the ballot.  So apparently Republican candidates aren’t cost effective.

The result of Ken Cuccinelli acting as a spoiler to keep the LP from getting ballot status is that now Libertarians will have to concentrate their resources again next time on getting the 10% required by the GOP coauthored ballot access law in the next gubernatorial race and do it all over again.  And Rand Paul doesn’t have have a reliable governor to support his next race.  And Ron Paul has lost his credibility with libertarians.  It’s bad timing for the Paul’s, coming in the same week when Rand Paul faces a second wave of plagiarism charges

This campaign may be a kind of watershed moment, when Ron Paul lost his moral authority and dug a new hole for Rand Paul 2016.