Uncle seems to have taken my admonishment in stride, but Publicola is fit to be tied. Rather than respond line by line to a long post, I’ve distilled what seem to be the basic assumptions from his post, and then addressed them separately below.

1. No one should ever be criticized for adhering to his principles.
2. Something incoherent about the Fifth Amendment.
3. The only way to “throw your vote” away is not to vote at all.
4. It’s OK to break laws, as long as you honestly believe that it is immoral for the government to enforce them against you.
5. Alternatively, if that’s not OK, then anyone who breaks some laws is morally indistinguishable from anyone who has ever broken any others.
6. Publicola probably packs heat without a permit, but adheres rigidly to speed laws. Presumably, this has something to do with whether or not it is a good idea to vote for Michael Badnarik.
7. Anyone who violates a law they disagree with is next Rosa Parks or the next Martin Luther King, Jr.
8. The word right is a proper noun.

The problem with the first assumption #1 is that it overlooks the fact that adherence to one’s principles is only as good as the principles themselves. In a race where the Democrat is barely distinguishable from the Republican, and where the Libertarian candidate offers a reasonable alternative, voting for the Libertarian candidate might make sense, in principle. But in a race like this one, which pits an imperfect libertarian incumbent against a perfectly socialist challenger, that principle might not be such a great one to adhere to after all. And where, as here, the Libertarian challenger is certifiable nut, then I must question what on earth kind of principle would possess anyone to cast even a protest vote for him.

Assumption 2 is really not an assumption at all, just some incoherent ramblings about the Fifth Amendment which have nothing to do with the topic of my post. There’s little to say here, beyond the fact that Publicola made a pointless effort to “debunk” a statement that was obviously tongue in cheek, or so I thought.

Assumption 3 is simply divorced from reality. Come November 2, either George W. Bush or John F. Kerry will be elected President. The chances of anybody else winning, be it Ralph Nader, Michael Badnarik, the Easter Bunny, or your own name as a write-in, are infinitesimal. If you insist on casting a vote for anyone not in the running, you are casting a protest vote, nothing more. You might as well just leave the presidential entry blank, or stay home on Election Day. Either course of action will make just as big of a statement as voting for a non-serious candidate will.

Assumption 4 is a variant of what I like to call Galileo’s fallacy, which is that Galileo was thought a crackpot in his day but turned out to be right, therefore, my crackpot theories must be right, too. Here, similar reasoning is applied to the concept of civil disobedience: it is sometimes appropriate to disobey immoral laws rather than work through the normal, above-board channels to change them. Therefore, it is generally appropriate and wise to flout laws you don’t like. Sorry, it’s not. Breaking the law should be a last resort, not the first. Want to lower your taxes? Then vote Republican, don’t help yourself to a private 100% tax cut while everyone else has to pay more.

Assumption 5 draws a false moral equivalence, assuming that if it’s generally not OK to break any laws, it must be equally not-OK to break all laws. Thus, the possibility that Dubya may have tried coke in his 20s is supposed to count for just as much as the fact that Michael Badnarik willfully and deliberately flouts the law today, and even encourages others to do so. Sorry, I call bullshit on this. I may not be completely without sin, but I’m picking up the stone anyway. Nobody’s perfect, but that doesn’t mean we’re all equally imperfect, nor even close.

Assumption 6 is a bit hard to follow. Publicola hints, but does not actually come out and say, that he carries without a permit. He also doesn’t say what state he lives in, so it’s tough to evaluate whether he is flouting a law he could reasonably have complied with by obtaining a permit, or if he has the misfortune of living in a state that requires him to make a Hobson’s choice between being safe or being legal. [I assume he doesn't live in Alaska or Vermont, the two states that permit concealed carry without a permit.] In any event, I’m not clear what this issue has to do with the wisdom of voting for Michael Badnarik.

Assumption 7 should be self-fisking, but in case it’s not, flouting an allegedly unfair tax is not even remotely comparable to fighting Jim Crow. For one thing, the Jim Crow laws were on completely plane from the tax code, making such comparisons borderline insulting. For another, the Jim Crow laws were also unconstitutional, thereby making them invalid as a matter of law. Citizens have a duty to obey the law; they have no duty to obey “color of law,” especially under circumstances where openly setting out to get caught, and then fighting a bogus prosecution may be the only way to get a legitimate issue into court. Not so for the tax “honesty” liars, whose frivilous “legal” arguments have already been dealt with by too many courts, too many times.

Asumption 8: it’s not. It’s a common noun like any other. Whatever point you were trying to make by capitalize it, you just end up looking silly.