After six-plus years, congressional Republicans have finally offered an ObamaCare-replacement plan. They should have taken longer. Perhaps we should not be surprised that House Republican leaders* who have thrown their support behind a presidential candidate who praises single-payer and ObamaCare’s individual mandate would not even realize that the plan cobbled together is just ObamaCare-lite. Don’t get me wrong. The plan is not all bad. Where it matters most, however, House Republicans would repeal ObamaCare only to replace it with slightly modified versions of that law’s worst provisions.

Here are some of ObamaCare’s core private-health insurance provisions that the House Republicans’ plan would retain or mimic.

1. ObamaCare offers refundable health-insurance tax credits to low- and middle-income taxpayers who don’t have access to qualified coverage from an employer, don’t qualify for Medicare or Medicaid, and who purchase health insurance through an Exchange. House Republicans would retain these tax credits. They would still only be available to people ineligible for qualified employer coverage, Medicare, or Medicaid. But Republicans would offer them to everyone, regardless of income or where they purchase coverage.
2. These expanded tax credits would therefore preserve much of ObamaCare’s new spending. The refundable part of “refundable tax credits” means that if you’re eligible for a tax credit that exceeds your income-tax liability, the government cuts you a check. That’s spending, not tax reduction. ObamaCare’s so-called “tax credits” spend $4 for every $1 of tax cuts. House Republicans know they are creating (preserving?) entitlement spending because they say things like, “this new payment would not be allowed to pay for abortion coverage or services,” and “Robust verification methods would be put in place to protect taxpayer dollars and quickly resolve any inconsistencies that occur,” and that their subsidies don’t grow as rapidly as the Democrats’ subsidies do. Maybe not, but they do something that Democrats’ subsidies don’t: give a bipartisan imprimatur to ObamaCare’s redistribution of income.
3. As I have tried to warn Republicans before, these and all health-insurance tax credits are indistinguishable from an individual mandate. Under either a tax credit or a mandate, the government requires you to buy health insurance or to pay more money to the IRS. John Goodman, the dean of conservative health policy wonks, supports health-insurance tax credits and calls them “a financial mandate.” Supporters protest that a mandate is a tax increase while credits—or at least, the non-refundable portion—are a tax cut. But that’s illusory. True, the credit may reduce the recipient’s tax liability. But it does nothing to reduce the overall tax burden imposed by the federal government, which is determined by how much the government spends. And wouldn’t you know, the refundable portion of the credit increases the overall tax burden because it increases government spending, which Congress ultimately must finance with additional taxes. So refundable tax credits do increase taxes, just like a mandate.
   
4. Health-insurance tax credits also give the federal government as much control over the content of your health plan as ObamaCare’s individual and employer mandates do. The government has to define both (a) how much coverage you must buy to qualify for the credit, and (b) whether your employer offers sufficient coverage to make you ineligible for the credit. What House Ways & Means Committee chairman Kevin Brady (R‑TX) said yesterday of the tax preference for employer-sponsored insurance–“You only get it if you do exactly what Washington says”–is also true of his proposed tax credit. Republicans may try to allow for flexibility in insurance design, but they would still be creating (preserving?) tools that future Congresses and unelected bureaucrats would use (a) to restrict choice and innovation in both the individual and employer markets, (b) to push consumers back and forth between these markets, and (c) to increase government spending.
5. Since House Republicans would offer tax credits for non-employer coverage without imposing an employer mandate to discourage employers from dropping coverage, their plan would do even more than ObamaCare to encourage employers to drop coverage. I don’t necessarily think that employers dropping coverage a bad thing–but wait until you see what happens next.
6. House Republicans appear to want to retain ObamaCare’s guaranteed-issue regulations: “No American should ever be denied coverage or face a coverage exclusion on the basis of a pre-existing condition,” they write. “Our plan ensures every American, healthy or sick, will have the comfort of knowing they can never be denied a plan from a health insurer.” (Emphases added.)
7. They also would modify, rather than repeal, ObamaCare’s community-rating price controls. A bit of explanation. Rather than allow reality-based (i.e., actuarially fair) premiums, ObamaCare requires insurers to charge everyone of a given age the same premium, and forbids insurers to charge their oldest enrollees more than three times what they charge their youngest enrollees. The centerpiece of ObamaCare, these government price controls literally punish insurers (like United Healthcare) who offer coverage the sick actually want, while rewarding insurers who offer coverage that’s unattractive to the sick. House Republicans propose not to repeal these price controls, but merely to increase the age-rating ratio to 5:1 (better, but still binding) and, more importantly, to preserve pure community rating in cases where consumers switch plans. That last part is a big problem. Imposing community rating for plan-switchers would create the same perverse penalties and rewards, and cause the same race to the bottom among health plans, that we observe in ObamaCare’s Exchanges. The race to the bottom might be even worse under the House Republicans’ plan than under ObamaCare. The GOP plan contains none of the mechanisms ObamaCare uses to slow down the degradation of coverage. And if the House Republicans’ tax credits and lack of employer mandate cause employers to drop coverage, which is a real concern, then House Republicans could trap tens of millions more Americans in an even quicker race to the bottom than ObamaCare does.
8. House Republicans would also keep ObamaCare’s millennial mandate.
9. Like ObamaCare, they would cap the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored coverage in a way that increases taxes on workers with expensive health benefits.

Expect howls from conservatives who protest that the House plan is not ObamaCare-lite. I mean, gosh, Chairman Brady promised it would create “health care freedom in a way Americans have never experienced”!

Please. The above similarities to ObamaCare include at least remnants of all three legs of ObamaCare’s three-legged stool. Conservatives, libertarians, and independents have spent seven years fighting ObamaCare…for this?

Moreover, this plan is downright dishonest. House Republicans say they want to “Repeal ObamaCare” and make “a clean start,” because they want to signal to their conservative base that they remain committed to full repeal. But then they too start down the same path ObamaCare has blazed. That is arguably worse than framing this plan as partial repeal and promising to finish the job later. Pretending to repeal all of ObamaCare but then reinstating some of its provisions with a Republican imprimatur would make those provisions completely repeal-proof.

To be fair, the plan includes some proposals that move in the right direction. It would modestly expand tax-free health savings accounts (HSAs) and health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). It would allow people to purchase health insurance licensed by states other than their own. It would limit federal spending on Medicaid by giving states the option of a fixed amount of federal dollars per enrollee or a block grant (except for the elderly and disabled). A pure lump-sum, block-grant approach would be better, but at least this would be a step in the right direction. The Medicare reforms would move that program ever so slightly in the direction of Social Security, where the government subsidizes enrollees’ health care simply by giving them cash. But there would have to be a lot–a lot–of Medicare and Medicaid cuts to make up for Republicans keeping an ObamaCare entitlement they are pretending to repeal.

And still other parts of this plan betray Republicans’ lack of seriousness about health care reform and/​or their own principles. Its authors claim, “ObamaCare set America on a path that leads to a larger government having a greater role in how health care decisions are made,” even though just a few paragraphs before they were lauding and promising to protect Medicare–a disaster of a program–and even boasting that it was Republicans who expanded it with a new, unfunded entitlement to prescription-drug coverage. They apparently see HSAs as a product to be promoted–or a nice way to shave a little off your tax bill–rather than as a mechanism for fundamental reform that gets the IRS out of your health care decisions entirely. Sen. Jeff Flake (R‑AZ) and Rep. Dave Brat (R‑VA) have introduced legislation that includes the basic elements of that approach. At press time, the House Republicans’ plan didn’t even include that bill among its list of health care proposals Republicans have offered this Congress. And then there are House Republicans’ wrong-headed, unconstitutional, anti-federalism, special-interest-pandering medical malpractice liability reforms. At a time when the estimated number of annual deaths due to medical errors in the United States (251,454) is seven and a half times the number of firearms deaths (33,636), these geniuses are proposing to reduce incentives for providers to invest patient safety–oh, and to abandon their principles along the way.

Health care reform should make health care better, more affordable, and more secure, particularly for the most vulnerable. ObamaCare does the opposite, and Republicans are right to oppose it. If they really care for patients, Republicans need to go back to the drawing board until they find a better way.

*One of the architects of this plan, House Committee on Energy and Commerce chairman Fred Upton (R‑MI), has refused to endorse presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.

The welfare state is so vast and complex that it often works against itself. Regulations and taxes kill jobs and work incentives, but EITC subsidies are supposed to boost incentives. The government tells women to breastfeed, but the federal WIC program subsidizes baby formula.

The food stamp program provides billions of dollars for people to buy junk food, but liberals are pressing governments to penalize junk food with special taxes. Philadelphia just passed the first special tax on soda.

May I suggest that health do-gooders wanting people to eat less junk food focus on cutting subsidies rather than imposing taxes?

At the same time as Philly is imposing this new tax, Maine Governor Paul LePage is fighting the federal government to cut junk food out of the food stamp program. He is not getting much help from the Obama administration.

The federal government won’t reveal what share of $78 billion a year in food stamps are spent on junk food, but one estimate put soda alone at $4 billion of the total.

The Feds: Drink soda! Philly: Don’t drink soda! Me: Drink whatever you want, but not on my dime!

Food subsidies should be ended altogether, and we should have a simple and neutral tax code. Imposing special taxes on things that liberal elites dislike is a dangerous trend. Much better if those elites rallied around LePage, and focused on cutting junk food subsidies.

[Note: Normally I have the good sense to keep my writing focused on trade policy topics. This blogpost is an exception. It would not be wise to place much confidence in my abilities as a political analyst. However, I lived in Minnesota and was politically active during the 1998 gubernatorial election. That experience left me with impressions that are shared below.]

Jesse Ventura is an intriguing individual. In 1998 he was nominated by the Reform Party of Minnesota as their candidate for governor. Among his several prior careers were: Navy special-forces diver; professional wrestler; screen actor; radio and TV personality; and mayor of Brooklyn Park, a suburb of Minneapolis. He has a disdain for “politics as usual,” especially when wrangling between Democrats and Republicans results in poor use of taxpayer funds. He has an outsized personality, a robust and brash sense humor, and enjoys the limelight. He also looks great in a feather boa.

Ventura described himself as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal,” a straightforward expression of his libertarian philosophy. He had considerable interest in policy issues, more than is the case for some candidates in the 2016 presidential campaign. His fiscal priorities included reforms in sales, property, and income taxes. On social issues, he supported the right for gays to serve in the military and to marry. He was quite open about not having all the answers, readily admitting that he hadn’t formed opinions on every aspect of state policy.

In sharp contrast to the likely Democratic and Republican nominees in the 2016 presidential race, Ventura ran against solid, mainstream nominees from both those parties. Hubert H. “Skip” Humphrey III, Minnesota’s attorney general and son of the former U.S. senator and vice president, was the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) choice. Norm Coleman, well regarded for his service as mayor of St. Paul, was selected by the Republicans. Neither of them had particularly high negative ratings. A poll conducted in late October 1998 showed 33 percent with an unfavorable view of Humphrey, and 26 percent taking a dim view of Coleman. Ventura’s unfavorable rating was 21 percent. (Such ratings would be envied by today’s major-party presidential candidates, both of whom are viewed negatively by some 50–60 percent of recent poll respondents.)

A June 1998 poll commissioned by Minnesota Public Radio (MPR), KARE 11 TV, and the Pioneer Press asked respondents for whom they likely would vote. The results:

• Humphrey 46 %
• Coleman 30 %
• Ventura 7 %
• Undecided 17 %

In contrast to Ventura’s 7 percent number from June 1998, recent polling shows Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson receiving support of 11–12 percent for his 2016 presidential bid. So Johnson’s candidacy as of June is doing relatively better than Ventura’s did.

A similar MPR/​KARE/​Pioneer Press poll conducted in late October, shortly before the election, showed:

• Humphrey 34 %
• Coleman 33 %
• Ventura 23 %
• Undecided 10 %

Ventura had increased his support by 16 percentage points, mostly coming at the expense of Humphrey (decline of 12 points). Coleman gained 3 points.

The final results on Election Day, Nov. 3, 1998, were:

• Ventura 37 %
• Coleman 34 %
• Humphrey 28 % 

Ventura gained 14 percentage points of support during the final ten days of the campaign to win election as the 38^th governor of Minnesota. This swing was aided by his performance in the debate on Oct. 24, along with creative advertising that featured a Jesse Ventura action figure and Ventura singing a campaign song to the theme from “Shaft.”

Ventura’s victory was remarkable. As a keen observer of Minnesota politics that summer and fall, I confess to having been dumbfounded. If I had been asked in June 1998 whether there was any chance Ventura actually would win the race, I simply would have said it was impossible. The real question was how much support his unconventional – albeit enjoyable – campaign would draw from Humphrey and Coleman. But Ventura did win, and he earned it. He presented ideas and attitude that were more engaging than those being offered by two other credible candidates.

Fast forward to 2016. Gary Johnson definitely is not a clone of Jesse Ventura. Johnson was a successful businessman who served two terms as a Republican governor of New Mexico. He is notably less flamboyant than Ventura, but probably more accustomed to explaining libertarian concepts to a broad audience. It’s clear that the odds are against an outright win by Johnson. Having lived through an “impossible” victory, though, I’d rate Johnson’s prospects as better than that – perhaps “highly improbable” would be the right term. 

Of course, the electoral college may make it feasible for Johnson to have a very meaningful effect on the outcome of the election, even if he doesn’t garner the most votes nationwide. Consider the hypothetical situation in which he wins his home state of New Mexico, which has five electoral votes. If the major party candidates split the remaining electors evenly, no one would receive the 270 votes needed for election. In that scenario, the outcome would be decided by state delegations in the House of Representatives. 

Ventura and Johnson know each other. Ventura endorsed Johnson’s candidacy when he ran for the White House as the Libertarian nominee in 2012, and has encouraged people to vote for him again this year. Ventura has a substantial following across the country, so may be in a position to take other steps on behalf of the Johnson campaign. Who knows? Perhaps that might include coaching him on proper use of a feather boa.

It should be an interesting campaign.

Daniel R. Pearson is a senior fellow in the Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies.

Terrorism has hijacked American foreign policy. First Al Qaeda and now the Islamic State have come to dominate thinking about international affairs so completely that there is hardly any issue that has not been “terrorized.” Issues that once had significance because they were important in their own right now only matter insofar as they affect the fight against terrorism. Russia? Now discussed primarily with respect to whether their air campaign affects ISIS in Syria. Syria? Important only because of ISIS and other jihadists who want to rule. Iraq? The birthplace of ISIS. Iran? A regional power broker who supports terrorism as whose support for Assad in Syria matters because of…ISIS. Libya, the latest concern du jour? You guessed it: concern for Libya is in fact concern for the growth of ISIS in the country.

The figures below illustrate just how deeply ISIS has infiltrated American foreign policy news. In the first figure, you can see that over the past three years almost every foreign policy topic has taken on a distinct ISIS flavor. As the second figure shows, after reaching a historical high after September 11, news coverage of terrorism dropped steadily in the following years until rebounding in 2013. Attention to ISIS only really took off after June 2014 when ISIS started calling itself ISIS and simultaneously announced the establishment of a global caliphate.

(News data from Factiva’s Top US newspaper file)

(News data from Factiva’s Top US newspaper file)

Why should the United States spend so much time talking about ISIS and terrorism? To be sure, the Islamic State is a disaster for the Middle East, but it presents a relatively modest terrorist threat to the United States. And to keep things in perspective, since 9/11, just 78 Americans have died from Islamist terrorist attacks including the 49 who died in Orlando on June 12. None of those, it should be pointed out, were killed directly by members of either Al Qaeda or ISIS. ISIS and the broader problem of Islamist-inspired terrorism certainly deserve attention from both the government and the news media, but at this point, a case can be made that the current hyper focus on it has become dangerously counterproductive.

First, it seems pretty clear that sustained American intervention in the Middle East – and the news coverage that follows – helps spur attacks like the one in San Bernardino and Orlando. If the United States weren’t so closely linked in people’s minds with ISIS, then self-radicalized jihadists like Omar Mateen in Orlando or Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik from San Bernardino would not have found meaning in killing Americans to further the cause of ISIS.

Second, the size of the government agenda is more or less fixed. Every hour the government spends thinking about ISIS is time not spent dealing with other foreign policy issues. Issues of greater importance to the United States than ISIS include the increasingly dangerous dance with China in the South China Sea, nuclear proliferation, the future of free trade, and global health security, just to name a few. Given how much effort the United States has expended since 9/11 to confront terrorism and most recently ISIS, it is staggering to think how much has been left undone on other critical issues.

Finally, the deafening roar of ISIS-flavored news is creating incentives for political leaders to keep doing stupid things in the name of the war on terrorism. To be clear, the news media did not create the ISIS problem. That blame falls at the feet of the bipartisan Washington foreign policy consensus that has dictated endless intervention since 9/11. Once in motion, however, the news media have dutifully amplified the rhetoric of our political leaders, and by now it is almost impossible for anyone to change the conversation or reframe the foreign policy debate. This reinforcing spiral of government overreaction and media hype have helped pave the way for a series of failed, unnecessary, and/​or counterproductive policies from the 2003 invasion of Iraq through the American support of the current efforts in Yemen and Libya. Most recently it has given rise to Trump’s nativist foreign policy screeds.

Much like communism did during the Cold War, terrorism has proven itself an extremely potent rhetorical resource. Political leaders are no more anxious to appear soft on terrorism than they were soft on communism. Afraid of losing votes for seeming unconcerned about the safety and security of the United States, politicians propose one costly and counterproductive strategy after another. Duly reported by the news media, these strategies and their fallout then start the next cycle, reinforcing the same pattern of behavior. Unfortunately, as with the Cold War, it is difficult to see this problem ending until the fires that stoke Islamist-inspired terrorism have burned themselves out.

It isn’t often that an SEC decision involves the star of a best seller, a “magic shoe box,” and fundamental questions about the meaning of words like “immediate” and “fair.” The SEC made such a decision on Friday. 

Last fall, the trading system IEX applied for designation as a stock exchange. IEX, and its CEO Brad Katsuyama, rose to fame several years ago with the publication of Michael Lewis’s popular book Flash Boys.  Lewis, ever the artful storyteller, cast Katsuyama as the likeable underdog, exposing and undermining high-frequency traders (HFTs) through the development of IEX. IEX, an alternative trading system, or in the more colorful industry jargon, a “dark pool,” has allowed investors to trade away from market scrutiny and the HFTs that populate “lit” exchanges. But there are advantages to being an exchange, and IEX wants in.

At issue in determining whether to approve the application was the meaning of the word “immediate” in an SEC regulation known as Regulation NMS. Regulation NMS, approved by the SEC in 2005, was intended to increase competition among trading exchanges, resulting in better execution of trades and better prices for investors. In furtherance of that goal, a part of the regulation requires that trades be made at the best price listed on any exchange and that exchanges make their quotations “immediately” and automatically available. In the past “immediate” has been defined as “immediately and automatically executable, without any programmed delay.” Seems clear enough, right?

Well, here’s where we get to the “magic shoe box.” IEX’s claim to fame is that it slows down the trading process, just a little, just enough to make it impossible for HFTs to get ahead of big orders. Because for those who dislike HFTs, it’s this very habit that makes them a problem. The argument is that HFTs see a trade coming and are fast enough to get ahead of it, buy up the shares, and then resell them immediately at a higher price. IEX introduces a 350-microsecond delay, a short enough time to be unnoticeable to any human, but long enough to make this type of trading unprofitable. The way that IEX introduces this delay is to run the orders through a long cable, which is kept coiled up in a box. The magic box is a shoebox-sized box of coiled cable. 

See the problem? “Immediate” has been defined as “without any programmed delay.” It seems that running the order through a length of cable with the intent of introducing a delay is, well, a “programmed delay.” If the delay is only 350 microseconds – less time, Katsuyama has said, than it takes to blink – does it count? It has to count. It doesn’t matter whether it’s essentially imperceptible to humans. If it didn’t make a difference to HFTs, IEX wouldn’t have introduced it via the shoebox.

Well, then that’s clear enough, right? If intentionally included, a delay is impermissible because it’s a “programmed delay.” Thus, IEX can’t use its magic shoebox and be in compliance with the rules. The SEC should have denied the application. 

Not so fast. Other exchanges also intentionally introduce delays through coiled cable. That’s where IEX likely got the idea. Except these other exchanges don’t delay everyone. It may seem that when you send an email to a friend in China, it arrives “instantly” in your friend’s inbox. But of course, it doesn’t. It’s really fast, but not instant. In the trading world, speed has become so essential that the difference between having a server pressed right up against the exchange’s servers means being faster (and better able to make money) than being located just on the other side of the same room. To even out these differences (entirely imperceptible to humans, but very visible to computers) exchanges will attach all the servers with the same length of cable, coiling the excess cable for the servers located closest to the front of the room. That is to say that many existing exchanges have their own shoeboxes, also filled with coiled cable. But those boxes are designed not to slow down the whole exchange, but to even the playing field within the exchange.

What should the SEC have done? Was it right in approving IEX’s application, allowing them to introduce an intentional exchange-wide delay? There are those who support that position, for very compelling reasons. Regulation NMS has caused more problems than it solved. Former SEC Commissioner Daniel Gallagher has dubbed it the “poster child of unintended consequences,” pointing to the fact it was Regulation NMS that essentially created high-frequency trading. If IEX’s 350-microsecond delay can starve out the HFTs, it will provide a market-based solution to any perceived problems posed by HFTs. (I am not, to be clear, saying that HFTs are problematic. There is evidence that they improve market quality.) 

To make the approval work within the strictures of Regulation NMS, the SEC simultaneously released updated guidance stating that any delay of less than one millisecond will be considered de minimis. In legal terms, Black’s Law Dictionary defines de minimis as “trifling” or “so insignificant that a court may overlook it in deciding an issue or case.” As a microsecond is significantly shorter than a millisecond, IEX’s 350-microsecond delay fits neatly into the new guidance. 

But is the solution to bad regulation to create one-off exemptions, essentially regulating by fiat? Another former commissioner, Paul Atkins, who voted against the regulation when it came up for a vote during his tenure, has argued that the real solution is to fix Regulation NMS. Not surprisingly, many existing exchanges have also voiced their opposition to approval of the application. While much of this may be chalked up to their aversion to increased competition, several have raised credible arguments about the unfairness of creating loopholes for specific parties, while also highlighting potential technical problems with designating IEX as an exchange. These technical problems, of course, would not exist but for Regulation NMS.

Ultimately the SEC’s solution is a band-aid, and a poor one at that. While 350 microseconds, or even 1 millisecond, is truly less than a blink of an eye, no one spending the kind of fortune IEX must have spent in not only its application but in the attendant lobbying efforts would view the delay as de minimis. The delay is the issue. Deciding that it’s too trivial to be worth considering is simply disingenuous. Introducing competition into a marketplace is good. But creating regulatory carve-outs for special interests is not. The solution is to fix Regulation NMS.

Imagine living in a country in which the two major parties had nominated a couple of candidates not to be trusted on the town council. Imagine deciding to stay home on Election Day.

But then imagine government officials showing up at your door, demanding that you accompany them to the polling place to vote for one of the candidates who you can’t stand even to listen speak. That is the world which some high-minded “civic activists” desire.

Every election can be expected to unleash ponderous commentaries bemoaning low voter turnout. Many Americans don’t register, let alone cast ballots. Why, oh why, won’t they get out and participate?

It is so unfair, we are told. The wealthy, elderly, and well-educated disproportionately participate, which “skews policymaking,” complained the Economist. Just think of all the government programs the underrepresented could vote for themselves if only they showed up on Election Day.

Of course, there is another way of looking at the process. Those most likely to follow politics, understand policy issues, watch the news, and know the candidates vote disproportionately. This might “skew” policy, but presumably in a very good way. Those choosing America’s leaders are actually more likely to know something.

For those determined to drive more people to the polls, the options seem few. Civic propaganda and celebrity endorsements don’t do much. Postal ballots actually may reinforce existing voting patterns. Election Day registration has limited effect. Treating Election Day as a holiday is a bust.

So, as one would expect, left-wing minds turn to coercion. Make people vote. Force them to act on their ignorance and prejudice. All that matters is pushing up turnout numbers.

Mandatory voting isn’t a new idea. Both Australia and Belgium penalize non-voters. Down Under you get hit with a roughly $14 fine if you don’t have a good excuse for staying home. (A bit like having a parent’s note for missing a day of school.)

Those in favor of a coerced ballot emphasize that you are free to do what you want once you are in the polling place, including choose no one. At least the authorities don’t look over your shoulder to ensure that you marking an officially approved selection.

Of course, there are worse impositions in life. Governments shoot people for resisting their authority, send people off to die in foolish foreign wars, invade people’s homes to punish them for conduct which threatens no one, confiscate property on the claim that it is drug-related, seize workers’ incomes to spread among political supporters and other influential interest groups, and much more. Requiring you to show up on Election Day appears, well, minor compared to so much else that government does!

However, as I wrote for Fee​.org, “seemingly small exactions reinforce the presumption that the state determines and sanctions individual rights. A refusal to vote, thereby encouraging those who compete to dominate and control the lives of others, is a matter of basic conscience.”

Of course, one can argue that such staying home is irresponsible. Voting for a third party also registers dissent, but in most elections the numbers are barely noticed. This election might be different, but who knows? As for choosing the lesser of two evils, the likelihood that any one vote will make a difference is so small as to be a strong argument against wasting time trooping down to the polls.

Moreover, if those committed to liberty are unable to defeat the sort of big-spending, war-friendly candidates nominated of late, the best tactic might be withdrawing legitimacy from those who win. A steadily increasing share of the population abstaining from a process which yields choices between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee might spark a serious conversation about the state of American democracy.

Ultimately, the issue of voting comes down to conscience. Simply saying no and refusing to cast a ballot is a powerful form of dissent. A decision not to vote deserves the same respect as one to participate.