A Quick Note About Robert Sarvis

I have nothing against the man personally, and I believe the more candidates and choices that are given the voters the better.  But I must interject about something concerning Robert Sarvis.  While yes, he is running on the Libertarian Party ticket, he is hardly an actual libertarian.  Robert Sarvis, who I like and met once or twice when he ran as a Republican against Dick Saslaw, is a pro-gay marraige Republican.  

The major libertarian influences over the years ... Mises, Spooner, Hayek, Rothbard, Rand, Halzett, Kaufman, Ron Paul ... Robert Sarvis has absolutely nothing to do with them.  It is unfortunate for the Libertarian Party that they have been coopted by a Republican.  I mean, Sarvis was a dues-paying member of my YR group, the FAYRs, until the day he accepted the LP nomination.  He wasn't an active member and I haven't seen him in awhile, but when he was running for state senate he was certainly happy to be at our meetings.

So good like to Sarvis in November, I'm happy he's running.  The more choices the better.  But please, don't call yourself a libertarian.  

Comments

[Isophorone]

I believe Sarvis said that he didn't really believe in the Austrian school libertarian economists. (Cuccinelli does.) Just reinforces your point even more.

[Rick Adams]

Oh for crying out loud, he's running for Governor of Virginia, not for the presidency of the Mises Institute.

[Steve M]

The author is obviously confused. There is no requirement to believe one economic school or another to be a libertarian.

From LP.org FAQ

What is a Libertarian?

Let’s start with Webster’s definition:

libertarian: A person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action.
Libertarian: a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles.

Libertarians believe in, and pursue, personal freedom while maintaining personal responsibility. The Libertarian Party itself serves a much larger pro-liberty community with the specific mission of electing Libertarians to public office.

Libertarians strongly oppose any government interfering in their personal, family and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.

In a nutshell, we are advocates for a smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

[Rick S.]

Most libertarians are Austrians because if you are not an Austrian then for the most part you believe in Central Banking. No problem with that. Milton Friedman was not Austrian and believed in the Federal Reserve and no doubt was a small government guy. However, I have never met a libertarian that liked the Fed.

[znm]

Sarvis is going to be the reason Cuccinelli loses. Perot did the same thing with Bush.
If you think about this it is really stupid on Sarvis's part. Why would a Libertarian want a Democrat to win vs a Republican? I submit that what is at issue here is Sarvis's ego. Wants his name in the Press, etc. He has no chance in Hell that he can win. He knows that. Therefore, why would he want to increase Terry Mc Awful's chance of winning? Seems to me Terry is the worse of the two evils being presented to the VA voters. Again, what Sarvis is doing makes no sense except stroking his own ego. Consequence is bad for VA.

[Virginia Gentleman]

Sarvis is a stalking horse.

[GabeF]

Correction Rick S.>>
Milton Friedman did not believe in the Fed: "He said he actually would 'like to abolish the Fed', and pointed out that when he wrote about reforming the Fed it was simply his recommendations of how it should be run given that it exists. Though opposed to the existence of the Fed, Friedman argued that, given that it does exist, a steady expansion of the money supply was the only wise policy, and he warned against efforts by a treasury or central bank such as the Fed to do otherwise...he squarely blamed the Great Depression on the Fed, saying 'The Fed was largely responsible for converting what might have been a garden-variety recession, although perhaps a fairly severe one, into a major catastrophe. Instead of using its powers to offset the depression, it presided over a decline in the quantity of money by one-third from 1929 to 1933 … Far from the depression being a failure of the free-enterprise system, it was a tragic failure of government.'".

[Calvin T. Jenner]

As before, so again: the rare Libertarian candidate who gets enough votes to affect the election at all will draw those votes disproportionately from the Republican base.

Sarvis looks like he'll get about 10% of the votes, most of which would otherwise have gone to the lesser of the two evils. Thus, once again, as Libertarians do when they manage to do anything at all, he will hand a close election to the GREATER of the two evils.

The Libertarian Party in Virginia hasn't been co-opted by a Republican. It's been co-opted by a Democrat disguised as a Republican-in Libertarian's-clothing.

[EJerikjay]

You are wrong about Sarvis "helping" McAuliffe win. You have to make a veritable laundry list of assumptions, starting with the notion that nearly every person that votes for Sarvis would have voted GOP had it been a two-horse race. (Make that "two-jackass.") This bit of "political wisdom" is a mix of myth and misunderstanding, and a very few minutes of research will demonstrate this -- unless you've made up your mind and do not wish to be confused by any ill-fitting facts. Fact is, most libertarians I know would NOT vote for any Republican outside of Amash, Paul, and a few others. Cuccinelli may read Mises, but he's a moralizing authoritarian with Religious Right views and every bit as unpalatable (for different reasons) as McAuliffe. Good luck to you Virginians in sorting out your... uh... future!

[The Uncooperative Blogger]

I read the Libertarian party platform & they seem to be globalists, I am not for open borders, or Global anything. A Shame because this is not how the movement started