Libertarianism and libertarians . . .

104
2464
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Part of the problem – as regards libertarianism – is that it’s a philosophy or moral code rather than a political movement. Which it probably can never be – because the libertarian moral system is foundationally anti-political. It does not seek office anymore than a fish seeks the desert.

But that doesn’t mean – should not mean – that libertarians ought to retire from politics. That would be like a fish retiring from water.

We live in an imperfect – a political – world. People are going to vote. If libertarians abstain from voting on the moral principle that it is wrong to participate in a morally imperfect (even a deeply flawed) system, then the votes of people who are not libertarians will count more.

If libertarians abstain from putting themselves – and libertarian ideas – forward as alternatives to ideas (and people seeking office) who are not libertarians, they have helped to ensure that libertarian ideas will not be heard (and possibly listened to) and that people who are decidedly not libertarians – or even “small government conservatives” – will end up holding the political offices that will determine whose ideas guide and determine policy.

The libertarian’s moral dilemma is a thing of his own construction. It is the false dilemma presented in the form of refusing to have anything to do with the imperfect (politically) for the sake of the perfect (which will never be) and which necessarily results in the worse-than-imperfect.

It drapes an unearned moral sanction on the libertarian who votes for the office-seeker who is less-worse than the alternative – who is assured of winning the office if enough people refuse to vote for the less-worse alternative. Their refusal stems from an understandable distaste arising from what they consider to be sanctioning the evil and thereby both enabling and perpetuating it.

But the hard fact is the evil isn’t going to lessen – much less go away – by not seeking less of it. And if one can vote to cause the mugger who is holding a gun on you and demanding money to lessen his demands, is that not preferable to being forced to hand over all of your money? Does voting for the former amount to sanctioning the mugging?

Naturally, we who are libertarians would rather not be mugged at all. And would prefer no one else gets mugged, either. Libertarian moral philosophy is the only secular philosophy that says thou shall not steal. It makes no exception for stealing when it is called “taxes.” Every human being has a natural right to that which is theirs, which no other human being has any “right” to take the smallest portion of. Libertarians hold that the ultimate form of property is that which we possess in ourselves. That to assert the smallest degree of ownership over another person’s person is to assert a master-slave relationship, irrespective of whatever relative freedom the slave is permitted by the master. The existence of the relationship is established by the fact of the relationship.

Libertarians support all that flows from the above, including the right to be let alone – no matter how much someone else might not like whatever it is you are doing – or not doing. So long as whatever you are doing (and not doing) cannot be shown to have caused material harm to another person, libertarians say the right to do as you like is a moral absolute. It does not mean anyone else is obliged to like it – much less support it.

Libertarians like the idea of voluntaryism – which means just that. People should be free, by right, to deal with one another (or not) on a purely (and mutually) voluntary basis. That it is morally wrong to force anyone to have to deal with anyone else he’d otherwise prefer to avoid dealing with – for whatever reason. Avoiding someone is not harming that someone. To say otherwise is to say the person who is avoiding somehow owes the person he wishes to avoid a positive good of some kind, such as in the context of being compelled to do business with him.

This is morally absurd – unless you believe in slavery. We are each owed nothing more (or less) than that our rights be equally respected. Persuasion and freely-given cooperation are the only moral basis for human interactions – not coercion. You are responsible for your actions. No one is responsible for the actions of others.

These are all excellent ideas.

But how will such ideas be propagated by refusing to participate? Is it immoral to make common cause with people who agree with many of the things libertarians agree on, if they do not agree with everything libertarians insist on?

Principles are important – and should always be defended as principles. Stealing is always wrong, as a moral principle. We each have an absolute and inviolable right to our property, including our physical bodies. And the corollary – which is the principle that no one has any right to assert ownership to the smallest degree over anyone else’s body. These are appealing principles because they respect and benefit everyone to the same degree.

Do we who esteem such principles compromise them by establishing common cause with people who do not share them entirely? There is an almost religious aspect to such an insistence in that it is an insistence upon moral perfection. That may apply in heaven, but we live in this imperfect world where the best that can be hoped for is the better rather than the worse.

Arguably – ironically – we strengthen the much-worse by refusing to find common cause with the better, wherever such is possible. This does not mean we endorse the less-than-perfect. Especially if we continue to defend the principles. Theft is theft, no matter what it is called. No matter how many vote for it. No one owns anyone else and – thus – no one has any right to tell anyone else how to live their life.

So long as these principles aren’t compromised, libertarians are not compromised by finding common cause with people who are not entirely libertarian where they can.

Ronald Reagan – who wasn’t a libertarian – said a wise thing once about “the man who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and ally, not a 20 percent traitor.” This is wise politics without compromising one’s moral philosophy.

And the more “80 percenters” we libertarians find common cause with, the closer we may get to 100 percent.

. . .

Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in! Or email me at [email protected] if the @!** “ask Eric” button doesn’t work!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  If that fails, email me at [email protected] and I will send you a copy directly!

 

Share Button

104 COMMENTS

  1. The problem with your “taxation is theft” argument is that it begs the question. If the government has a right to impose taxes on you, then not only is it not theft for them to do so, but you would be a thief if you refuse to pay them. You assert without making any attempt to prove that the government has no right to tax. I hold the position that government is established by God, and that His ministers have a right to their wages. That is not a blanket endorsement of taxation, but it does mean that taxation is licit in principle. If you hire a worker and then refuse to pay him after he has done his work, he has the right to redress the theft of his wages, and yes, that includes sending men with guns to seize what is rightfully his if you refuse to tender it in the face of court order. And yes, they are completely justified in shooting you if you try to fight them.Clover

    • Hi Andrew,

      How does the government “have the right to impose taxes” … on anyone?

      You “hold” that ” government is established by God, and that His ministers have a right to their wages.”

      This is not an argument. It is an assertion. A bizarre one, at that.

      “Their wages”? An interesting concept given it wasn’t government that earned them. The person who worked for them did. Government (in your view) somehow has a “right” to these wages? Because – essentially – God is the state on Earth.

      And he – and his agents – have the “licit” right to shoot you if you refuse to hand over what isn’t theirs.

      Stalin would approve.

      What is government? It is a rhetorical device for the people who control the apparatus of legalized (by themselves) force. How does this differ in principle from a gang that asserts you “owe” it money (and obedience)? Because the “Don” is God’s man on Earth?

      Libertarians have this crazy – to people such as yourself – idea that each human being is sovereign over himself. That no other human being owns a piece of him. That the only moral interactions are voluntary ones, between freely consenting adults. Government, if it has any legitimate purpose, ought to serve to protect these rights and nothing else.

    • Andrew,
      As a Christian, I find your assertion that “Government is established by God” [‘government, in the sense of the modern meaning of the word] absurd! Hint: “Government” in the Bible is never used in the sense of which we use the term today, i.e. to refer to a secular state or man ruling over man. It would be properly translated Dominioon– as in the dominion established by God and belonging to God and the spiritual entities to which He delegates it, and to every man over what is his own.

      Have you never read 1 Samuel chapter 8? Israel desires to be like the nations and have a king. God warns them of the consequences, yet they persist and God grants them their wish- and that says that they have rejected Him by doing so (And that is just a king- something far less intrusive than the many layers of beastly governance by secular gods which we call ‘government’ today- which replace the true God.
      1Sam 8:7 “Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.”

      Do you actually think that the man-created state which has always persecuted the prophets and Apostles; which crucified Christ; which executed people for publishing the word of God; which has killed more people in it’s endless wars and other aggressions than have died by every other cause under the sun; which promotes and practices injustice and corruption and evil at every level; which promotes and legitimizes homosexuality and transgenderism; which is conspiring to, and by whose auspices the Mark Of The Beast will be implemented….YOU think that those who comprise this false antichrist god are somehow the ministers of God?!

      They are even breaking their own laws, as most of these so-called taxes are blatantly unconstitutional.

      Sorry dude, but if you think “government” is refering to the secular state, and have missed the fact that the prophets, Apostles and Jesus Christ were enemies of the secular state- and that they in fact warned us that all who followed Christ also would be such, then I’d say that you missed a few things…or perhaps never noticed the contradiction that your belief creates.

      And that is from a Christian standpoint. From a secular standpoint, there is also no justification for taxation, which is nothing more than certain men arrogating to themselves at the signaling of certain other men that they are somehow empowered to make decisions for everyone or anyone, and to decree that it is ‘legal’ for them to forcibly take the property of another man who has created no debt for himself. That is robbery, no matter what words you use to couch it.

  2. My biggest problem with the libertarian party is their stupid stance on immigration. No, it is not a human right to migrate where ever you want. This is not the early 19th century.

    And yes, the reality is that race, IQ, and culture matter. Libertarianism was an idea based on White Christian European culture and norms. So, no, more non-whites are not the solution. Sure, there is maybe a less than 1% libertarian black, brown, or yellow, but that is rare.

    • Hi Texan,

      The proper libertarian solution to “open borders” is closed wallets. Eliminate all “free” benefits and then the problem largely goes away. I have no issue with anyone who wants to work to support himself and his family- because why would I? Why would anyone? But I have a big problem with freeloaders, whether imported or domestic.

      • Galt’s Gulch was possible only because of two advantages: an impenetrable defensive screen (in their case, a perfect cloak), and a unanimous agreement among the residents to abide by the crucial philosophy and maintain the secret of the group’s location. Lack either of these, and the locusts take over by sheer numbers. Uncontrolled immigration is just mail-ordering your own locusts. (And there’s the inevitable tendency of children to oppose their parents beliefs, “because,” but that’s a different point of failure.)

        Constitutional America was designed such that “One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights, may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” This hasn’t been the case for some time — and the more people we allow to immigrate and vote who don’t share this same philosophy, the sooner it dissolves entirely.

        • I agree Henry –

          The flooding of the country with “migrants” and “refugees” is deliberate policy. It is designed to “tip” the areas of the country not already blue into that condition and to deepen the blue of those that already are. The assumption is that these “migrants” and “refugees” will reliably vote government. And the Republicans? Largely, the party is controlled by Chamber of Commerce types who won’t do anything to stop it out of fear of being called “racists” and because they like the way “immigration” depresses labor costs.

          On the upside, it is possible a significant percentage of the “migrants” from Mexico and Central/South America will end up being allies rather than enemies. This is in fact happening in some (a few) areas. However, I am not optimistic overall as I agree with Jefferson that density correlates inversely with liberty.

          • I don’t disagree entirely with your assumption, but I believe it is a catalyst other then changing the electorate. One, it is provide the same level of service for jobs that are not being filled. We need to realize that the US citizen is not having the amount of children that previous generations did. Ten thousand baby boomers are retiring daily in the USSA. These baby boomers held jobs. There are not enough millennials, Gen Xers, or Gen Yers to offset the amount of people retiring. Who takes the jobs that no one else wants? Nursing care assistants, janitors, tradesmen, the restaurant industry, the agricultural industry, etc? Americans still want to partake using these services. Who fills them?

            Secondly, we need to address the elephant in the room that people are dying off faster over the last three years than in previous years. These people are younger, many held occupations, and paid in taxes. The influx in migrants are helping to hide this fact without destabilizing the economy by greater numbers.

            • Hi RG,

              I have an interesting little story in re that. Yesterday, we stopped at a CVS to get a few things. I had not been to one since before the “pandemic.” There used to be cashiers. Now there are machines. I tried using one of these and got quickly annoyed by the computer-bitch voice attempting to parent me along, so I waved over one of the few clerks in the store and told him, here’s $24. The bill is $23 something. Keep the change, I’m done dealing with these goddamn machines and – further – resent the hell out of being made to check myself out so they can fire guys like you and then not give me a discount for the store not having to pay guys like you to work a register.

              He said: We can’t get people to work here. We are understaffed. What the hell? How good are government benefits these days that jobs such as these go unfilled? Apparently, pretty damned good. I know the owner of my gym, who is also the owner of a Mellow Mushroom pizza place. She can’t get people to work there, either.

              Sometimes, I feel like an idiot getting out of bed at 4 in the morning to work most of the day when I, too, could probably just get a check from the government and beat off all day to Internet porn, like everyone else is apparently doing.

              • Hi Eric,

                The checks from the government have pretty much stopped in relation to unemployment, the child tax credit advances, and COVID money. Sure, there are always going to be the “welfare” bums in any system, but that is not what we are facing today.

                We are facing a shortage of people, a lot of people. I deal with over 200 clients throughout the year. It is in every industry. My clients are desperate for any competent person to walk through the door. The recruiters that are participating in the college job fairs is extraordinary. They will pretty much hire any college student with zero experience.

                My business cannot even maintain the amount of work on my desk. I am regrettably turning down new clients because I don’t have the manpower to take them on.

                The only people that I know that are not working are either a) retired, b) parents raising kids, c) students, or d) dead.

                Something isn’t right in the market. I don’t know if it the influx of retirees or something much more sinister.

    • Re: A Texan September 21, 2022 At 6:06 am

      So many people think that any step towards liberty in whatever order is good. This is how libertarians are played by the establishment time and time again. The establishment understands net effect. So it will move some small aspect toward liberty but leave everything else the way it is and that small thing is something that should be done roughly 3rd if not tenth but doing it first then sets up a disaster for a lot of people. End result more people turn against liberty as the media blames it on ‘deregulation’ when there was nothing of the sort, but rather different regulation by pulling only a piece or two.

      Immigration is one of those problems. All these libertarians want open borders but without touching the welfare state or the huge amount of government services. End result is a disaster of tax burdens on the productive. Exactly what the left establishment wants. To break the productive.

  3. Leo Strauss’ birthday is today, September 20th. He’s dead now, which is much better for humanity, when he was alive, life itself was painful, just plain miserable no matter what.

    The Straussians are weeping, wailing, gnashing their teeth today.

    Another crazy kyke who thought his philosophy was correct, human behavior by nature always has conflict or something.

    I’ll shed a few crocodile tears for the stupid numbskull. Nothing but a criminal committing crimes against humanity all of the time. Good riddance to the bum.

    What a maroon, the Neocons love him, conflict pays big time.

  4. The Force of Evil cajoles the good into participating and supporting Its devious aims with the feeble suggestion that some marginal good can be done, even within an evil system.

    But it can’t. Evil is a one-way ratchet. When a good man adds his arm’s power to the ratchet of evil, it just goes, click….click….click.

    There’s no “vote” to refrain from the clicking. There is only the clicking. It is a metaphysical, teleological current that determines the flow of all natural processes in the Universe. All action—however “well-intentioned”—leads only to greater and more horrific calamity, catastrophe, suffering, and injustice. The only choices are to “go with the flow” (by voting, breeding, etc.), or to refrain and repudiate altogether, as a matter of principle and conscience.

    The utilitarian thinking motivating the dissident-who-votes is based on the fundamental lie and misperception that problems can be solved, or mitigated, or retarded.

    But they cannot. All of the important problems of bodily existence in the physical realm are

    intractable.

    When a good man enters the fray of politics, this effort does not make an evil state of affairs less evil: it only makes the good man less good.

    This is not a “practical” realization. It doesn’t solve any of the practical “problems” Eric cites (which are pretty attenuated to begin with). Like I said, there is no solution to those problems.

    The realization that all important problems are intractable does, however, point to the only way of avoiding becoming an instrumentality of our fundamentally wicked society, of our immutably wretched species, or of the malignantly useless Universe Itself, which aims for nothing but to torture Its hapless meat puppets to the maximum degree, filling Its captives with false hopes and vain dreams, and to pit Its meat puppetes against each other in intractably futile, but miserable, contests and rivalries, be they political, military, or just plain jungle barbarism. It’s all the same…and it’ll always be the same.

    • Now, there’s a thought!: “The Force of Evil cajoles the good into participating and supporting Its devious aims”

      I see that in some comments, the commenters, not-so-much. Much as I might wish it, there does not seem to be any way to redirect things, from here.

      It’s as If, the good in this world, wasn’t: “of our fundamentally wicked society, of our immutably wretched species, or of the malignantly useless Universe Itself, which aims for nothing but to torture”

      All that’s very much aligned with ‘The Meaning Crisis’.

      … “Christian or not, “up” is the direction of progress, perfection, improvement, liberty. “down” is the opposite.”…

      https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/09/bionic-mosquito/the-soul-impelled-by-gravity/

  5. I echo others here who only ever saw their president in Ron Paul, who advocated bringing our troops home, shrinking government, ending the fed, returning to constitutional money, God what’s not to like. This when all of the other candidates for the Republican party agreed that “You can’t take options off the table” when it came to nuking Iran. And then whoever voted for Ron Paul was accused and guilty of dilluting the vote so that a Republican war-monger couldn’t win. The two parties as presented to us are both big government parties, their only difference being in who gets the hand-outs. People like me believe the government has no business interfering in a free market, picking winners and losers, etc., and Ron Paul was the only person in my lifetime to make it on television to even spread these ideas. There’s also the cold hard fact that our government is so obese now that many millions of people work in it, and will always vote to protect it.
    I also echo others here who say that voting is giving your consent to be ruled by fallible man. These last few years have shown us that those in power require our consent for the evil that they do, for arcane reasons of their own. That’s why I’m proud to say that I have never voted, though I did attempt to vote for Ron Paul (turned away for being in the wrong district) and leafleted cars and spread the message of liberty to anyone who would listen.
    He currently broadcasts “The Liberty Report” on Bitchute, Odysee and Youtube. He’s as sensible and sharp as ever.

    • Re: Max Overhead September 19, 2022 At 11:45 am

      If there were only a way to determine the total of people who depend on a government check. I think it may constitute a voting majority now.
      1) People who get a government check, services, etc that depend on them or will vote to preserve them.
      2) People employed by all levels of government including military.
      3) People employed by corporations dependent on government contracts and legislation.

      The people remaining working in productive industries has to be a minority now. Thus there is no way to ever vote our way out.

      Politicians and others feel absolutely no risk in dehumanizing the people who make civilization function. This indicates to me that they know the productive people are in a large minority.

  6. Elections have long tail consequences across society. The state shouldn’t have any say when it comes to marriage, the institution predated the state. However once there was legal framework around spouses’ rights laws were passed to codifiy tradition.

    At some point there was a large secular tradition around marriage that effectively discriminated against non-married couples, including same-sex and wildcards. The state, having the inability to discrimate by law, was able to redifine marriage in order to correct the discrimination.

    I mention this because this week I found out that the Methodist Church is splitting.

    https://reason.com/2022/08/10/what-the-methodist-split-tells-us-about-american-political-polarization/

    None of this would be necessary if the state wasn’t sticking its nose into places it has no business. Playing favorites with the tax code (remember the “controversy” over the marriage penalty during the Clinton adminstration?), now forcing the term marriage to apply to sinners (all because of closeted gays contracting aids and their boyfriends not allowed to see them die), trying to force business owners to cater gay weddings, all that has nothing to do with religion. But now that’s all changed and the sinners are taking over the church.

    Of course I left the church long ago, when this sort of thing was getting a toehold, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised but still very disturbing to see.

    • Sad thing is, RK, that the state really has no say over marriage- which is a religious institution- as there is no law forcing one to make the state a party to their marriage by applying for a ‘license’. It is something people just do voluntarily…mostly through ignorance, not caring, and or to get a tax break/insurance benefits -In exchange for being subject to “Family courts”; the state’s rules aboutdivorce; etc.

      I knew a pastor once, who wouldn’t officiate at any marriage in which a state marriage license was involved. (Actually…don’t even need a pastor…one’s vows before God and to each other are just as binding in the eyes of God. Probably a good idea to put ’em in writing, with both parties agreeing to it, to avert future trouble)

  7. Re: Ron DeSantis
    Chuck Baldwin:
    “If Trump is eliminated from competition for any reason, Florida’s Ron DeSantis would probably emerge as the strongest candidate for the White House. His main asset is his strong anti-Covid mandates position. And that is no small matter.”

    But DeSantis has done nothing to repeal or, at the least, refuse to enforce the State of Florida’s Red Flag gun confiscation law, which is extremely troubling. And he is another bought-and-paid-for Zionist who signed a draconian anti-First Amendment State law prohibiting the criticism of Israel in Florida’s schools and colleges.

    So, DeSantis is a mixed bag.”

    • I agree, liberty –

      All politicians are a mixed bag. Until we can be done with politics, however, we’re stuck with what we’ve got. I say it’s worth trying to make it better. I’d rather Ron Paul than Joe Biden. Or Franco rather than Stalin.

      • Just pointing out that just about 100% of Republican politicians have inexcusable, serious, Constitutional faults. They’re pro imprisoning individuals over a plant, unless it’s their kid, and pro war. In 1971 there was a split, the true Republican Party became the Libertarian Party and the Republican Party became what we have today.

        • I remember back in the 80’s when the Dumbocraps were pushing ‘socialized medicine’ and the Republicants were opposed to it. [In fine print: But the R’s helped to create the gov’t-pharma-insurance cartel which has caused so many plebes to desire the socialized crap].

          Now the only difference is that R’s want top replace the D’s commie medical BS with their alternative commie medical plan. Seems to be how it works on many things- the R’s play ‘good cop’ while of course both the ‘good cop’ and the bad cop are working for the same team/same objective- and after the R assures you of how much he is on your side, he kneels down behind you so the ‘bad cop’ and push you over him.

          And that’s not even to mention how it is that the “issues” that are discussed in any election are just eye candy, and have nothing to do with the real agendas, which 99% of the voters are completely ignorant of…like someone singing Ring Around The Rosie to a kid, and the kid thinking it’s a fun song, while being completely unaware that it is a song referring to the Plague.

          • A quick search, I only saw one political/relevant image for, ‘two wings of the same bird of prey’.

            I’d post the link, but it’s gigantic.

          • Re: Nunzio September 19, 2022 At 7:33 pm

            The US version of “socialized medicine” is government stealing from all of us to pay the medical cartel’s high prices. Once the government is the ‘single payer’ we can expect high priced mediocre outdated treatment that causes more problems which government will pay out on with our wealth.

            And yes I recognize the pattern with the covid jabs. Too much like what I learned 20 years ago working in medical devices at a company that aimed to disrupt the status-quo. The government sets things up to ‘save money’ but that causes people more problems and that’s where the money is made.

            • Too true, Brent.
              I was talking to a girl the other day who turned out to be a nurse at the local hospi’l- She was telling me about this lady who had come into the ER just as she was getting off duty, because she had a slight ear ache! I knew the deal- I said “Has to be on the dole, because what normal person is going to suander $1200 or more on such nonsense? She said “Yep! I work there and have insurance, but if I were to go to the ER, I’d have a $500 co-pay…but these people don’t have to pay a dime, so they go for every little thing at the drop of a hat!”.

              Then they tell us that “Oh, woe, the poor can’t afford healthcare! We need socialized medicine for the poor!”. Well, we already have socialized medicine for the poor- it’s the working class that can’t afford healthcare precisely because they have to pay for the everything-free-for-the-rabble socialized medicine for the “poor”.

    • I wouldn’t call a politician who BLATANTLY tramples the 1st. amendment; 2nd amendment and 4th Amendment a “mixed bag”; I’d call him a sack of……..

      THIS is the problem with the idea of supposedly voting for “the lesser evil”- People pick ONE positive (The dude had the sense to rebuff some of the COVID BS- no doubt to keep his tourist/snowbird-dependent state viable, and grow the loot, at a time when all the other states around him were verboten) and use that one positive as some kind of blinder to ignore the absolutely egregious and atrocious TERRIBLE evils which the same pol heartily embraces.

  8. I mostly agree in spirit with the article — I don’t believe it is immoral to vote for the lesser of two evils — and if it wasn’t for Ron Paul running for president in 2007, I wouldn’t have become a libertarian as soon as I did, so I can’t deny there are pro-freedom benefits to the political system, and using it as a messaging platform. And on a local government level, there are certainly countless examples of tyranny being scaled back thanks to freedom friendly politicos.

    That being said, I think the net positives of political engagement are outweighed by the net negatives, and if you’re going to do a cost-benefit analysis, I think political campaigns (be they local or national) are a waste of time and resources — on the whole.

    If a small percentage of libertarians, like Ron Paul, feel called to run for office, then I certainly think that’s fine, and I would never discourage them, but I also don’t feel like most libertarians should waste their time and energy focusing on politics and thereby spinning their wheels. Especially when the system is so heavily rigged against libertarians (even Faux News — those 80 percenters — infamously redacted Ron Paul when he was second or third in the polls), and there’s literally no way to verify the good faith of those who count the votes (this was true long before 2020; it’s not your vote that counts, it’s who counts the votes).

    Corruption and conspiracy seem to be the default in politics, and I fail to see the point in investing time and resources in such an enterprise if the end result is quite possibly predetermined in the favor of our opponents. It seems as pointless to me as drinking decaf coffee or non-alcoholic beer, or catch-and-release fishing.

    Still, I whole-heartedly agree that we should vote for the lesser of two evils, just not in the realm of politics. Rather, I think we should vote with our wallets and vote with our feet, et cetera, by supporting businesses and the like who are mostly (or completely) on our side.

    For example, during the scamdemic, I supported businesses who did not require face-diapers, even though they still did unlibertarian things like charge sales tax and in some cases lick boots by catering to cops. I would rather rub elbows with a mask-free cop than wear a face-diaper all day long with a fellow libertarian, even though both scenarios stink. I have no problem supporting the imperfect, because, as you say, we live in an imperfect world. I simply think that politics is generally a waste of time, and there are other ways of “voting” and getting the message out, especially in the internet age.

  9. I think you guys might enjoy this one: I label it “The American Nightmare”!

    Diesel Ram Owner Forced to Scrap Truck Over Deleted Emissions Equipment (UPDATED)
    Mike Sebold says it wasn’t enough that he turned his plates in at the DMV. Now, it’s got to be crushed.

    BY
    CALEB JACOBS
    SEP 14, 2022 1:31 PM

    diesel truck owner’s battle with the state of New Jersey is leading to the scrapyard. Mike Sebold initially received a letter from the state’s Department of Environmental Protection after listing his modified 2008 Ram 2500 on Facebook Marketplace. Officials took issue with the pickup’s deleted emissions equipment and, in turn, told Sebold his truck must be returned to stock or taken off the road. But after he decided to turn in his plates and keep it for off-road use, Sebold claims they’ve forced him to make an appointment with the crusher.

    Updated at 1:30 p.m. ET on 09/14/2022: Sebold forwarded screenshots of his email correspondence with the NJ DEP after this article was published. One states that he cannot transfer the truck’s title in any way without returning it to stock. This includes giving it away.

    In the other, a department representative explicitly says, “You stated during our conversation that you are unwilling to make repairs to your vehicle. The only other option you have to come into compliance with the NOV and avoid occurring monetary penalties in this matter is to have the truck destroyed at a scrap yard. As I stated in our phone conversation this is not my preferred option as the Department is more interested in having your truck be emissions complaint [sic] than see it destroyed, but nevertheless it’s your property to handle as you see fit.”
    The saga started in late July when the New Jersey DEP officially opened correspondence with Sebold. He quickly replied and after a few days of back and forth, he decided against returning the Ram to stock. According to him, it would’ve cost more than $10,000 to do so, which was more than he felt comfortable spending—especially with the 60-day timeframe the DEP gave him. Sebold says he then de-registered the truck and ran it at a sled pull in Warren County, which convinced him to use it strictly for competition.

    It appears that still wasn’t enough to satisfy the DEP. Sebold tells me they gave him a deadline of September 25 to add emissions components like the diesel particulate filter back to the truck or have it destroyed. After exhausting seemingly every option to save his pickup without spending thousands on repairs, he elected to comply. At the time of publishing, the truck is set to be crushed Friday, September 16.
    source: https://www.thedrive.com/news/diesel-ram-owner-forced-to-scrap-truck-over-deleted-emissions-equipment

    • Hi voza,

      I am always amazed how people won’t rebuff rules. What Jersey is doing is ridiculous and why Mr. Sebold doesn’t just give Jersey the finger and move him and his truck out of the state is beyond me. I promise SC or TN wouldn’t care about his emissions.

      My favorite is how he declares the state forced him to make a date with the crusher. I got an idea don’t call the crusher, take the tires off the truck, put it up on concrete blocks, and tell them if they want it to come get it. Why people feel the need to “obey” is revolting.

    • This is absolutely happening Voza. A friend of my sons, was pretty dumb by posting his ‘deleted’ truck on social media and they came after him just like your story.
      He asked my advice and I said, take it to middle america and sell it. He did not listen to my advice and crushed it. He said it was his protest to them. ahhhh, not so much dude. So sad it has come to this. I’m guessing his truck was worth 10-15K?
      I heard that the state has a ‘task’ force for this, even if you just get stopped for a moving violation, if you have a deleted diesel, you better be moving, or driving to middle america asap with title in hand.
      I agree with RG below.

      • Hi Chris,

        Wouldn’t it have been better to sell it for parts? The engine on Sebold’s Ram 2500 would have easily gone for $10k. I would sell the tires, engine, whatever else I could and tell the state to kiss my ass. Sure they could take it but all of the good stuff would be gone and and money pocketed.

        • Hi RG, I saw another article about the same guy that he did ‘try’ and part it out, or is now. Not sure if he did or not. But I’d be taking everything off it. Everything.
          Leave the frame and shell with the VIn number. Here ya go……………………………

  10. Nice article Eric, and I wonder if voting matters. Reason, because we have owners and the illusion of choice. In fact that illusion was shattered in 2020 when they installed Biden with blatant ballot stuffing. George Carlin tells it like it is, and offers some sound advice, be happy with what you got.

    George Carlin – It’s a big club and you ain’t in it
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5dBZDSSky0

    “But there’s a reason. There’s a reason. There’s a reason for this, there’s a reason education sucks, and it’s the same reason that it will never, ever, ever be fixed. It’s never gonna get any better. Don’t look for it. Be happy with what you got. Because the owners of this country don’t want that.

    I’m talking about the real owners now, the real owners, the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the senate, the congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying, to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I’ll tell you what they don’t want: They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. Thats against their interests. Thats right. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table to figure out how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago. They don’t want that.

    You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers. People who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork, and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all from you, sooner or later, ’cause they own this fucking place.

    It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. You and I are not in the big club. And by the way, it’s the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head in their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table is tilted folks. The game is rigged, and nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care. Good honest hard-working people — white collar, blue collar, it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on — good honest hard-working people continue — these are people of modest means — continue to elect these rich cocksuckers who don’t give a fuck about them. They don’t give a fuck about you. They don’t give a fuck about you. They don’t care about you at all — at all — at all. And nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care. That’s what the owners count on; the fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that’s being jammed up their assholes everyday. Because the owners of this country know the truth: it’s called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it.” ― George Carlin

  11. To vote or not to vote, that is the question.

    To me this issue is the little brother of the anarchy vs minarchism debate. “Wouldn’t it be nice,” says the anarchist, “if we could have a society without any govt at all. Think how free we would be!” The idea here is that we must have a pure & undiluted electorate. Everyone must be on the same page and we won’t accept anything less, they’ll tell you. And that of course goes for voting too. “Watch out I tell you, one must remain pure and never vote else you’ll deserve the bad guy label if you do” says the anarchist advocate.

    I have to go along with the great Libertarian writer & philosopher Robert Ringer who said in a 2010 interview, “in a perfect world anarchist libertarianism would be fine, the problem is we don’t live in a perfect world and we have to have a generally accepted code of conduct in order for everything else to work.”

    Obviously Ringer’s argument is not a perfect solution to our dilemma of govt & voting – it’s probably not even a good solution — but as a practical matter this is the solution “I’m voting for.” As I see it, I have 3 choices. Don’t vote, always vote, or vote rarely & selectively. This means most of the time I simply refuse to vote as when it is clearly futile (which is most of the time as I live in a hugely fascist populated state) or when the candidates are both similarly tyrannical. Now, will voting in every election, on every or even most issues, then solve all our problems?…not one bit. Not a chance in hell. But…can it make a tiny, small, or even make any difference at all? Maybe. A few examples might explain why.

    It seems to me that many here seem to be making the following point regarding voting: “I have a choice between a hard-core statist and a soft-core statist. They’re both evil, so I’ll just stay home & not vote (or vote for a 3rd party loser).” You’re now admitting that you’re trying to punish those who vote republican, who want freedom & liberty, just like you, by making them pay for not supporting a pure ideological candidate. I have to tell you, that ain’t working. And it’s not working in exactly the same vein that most anarchist will ask you, “how did your voting in the last election work our for you?” And here’s a good example of what I’m talking about.

    In the 2010 Oregon election for governor (are you listening Bill Meyer?), Chris Dudley® an ex-NBA star and a seemingly nice guy and typical mainstream Republican, lost the governor’s race to past Oregon governor John Kitzhaber (D)-Fascist and Obama clone — by the slimmest of margins. Had the votes for the Libertarians and Constitutional Party, and non-voting Libertarians, gone to Dudley (one could reasonably argue that most of those votes would have gone to him), he would have won the election. Here are the stats:

    Party Candidate Votes Percentage
    Democrat John Kitzhaber 716,525 49.29%
    Republican Chris Dudley 694,287 47.77%
    Constitution Greg Kord 20,475 1.41%
    Libertarian Wes Wagner 19,048 1.31%

    Now, I don’t know about you, but I’d much much rather have to tolerate a Neo-con republican like Dudley than a Kitzhaber hardcore statist. Does this mean that your vote could sway the election? Not a chance. But combine your lowly one vote with potentially millions of other non-voter or idealistic 3rd party voters and it sure in hell could.

    Another example would be the 2020 senate races in Georgia. In both races had the Libertarian candidates not run, or their voters had voted republican, the senate would now be controlled by the R’s. Think that would have made a difference? Hmm.

    • Dave,
      I do believe that the “perfect world” argument is facetious/a red herring.

      Virtually no one is saying “Well, if we can’t vote for anarchism/libertarianism then I won’t vote at all!”. What we are saying is that a)your vote doesn’t matter. b)Your vote is not going to accomplish anything on the state/national level, as there truly are no “lesser evil” candidates. c)The candidates are not bound in any way to do what they promise. d)(Even if elections and politicians were perfectly honest) at most, they are the representatives of the people who voted for them and [supposedly] obligated to carry out their will, and the majority of people who vote are opposed to what we stand for; abhor it; and want the diametric opposite- so why would a politician carry out our will?

      We ought to be glad that voting doesn’t accomplish anything at this point, because we are far out-numbered by even the unabashed socialists- so if our paltry votes could matter, imagine what THEIRS would do?!

      • Why I vote…

        https://www.theepochtimes.com/virginia-overhauls-transgender-student-policies-on-pronouns-bathrooms-and-sports_4737553.html?utm_source=morningbriefnoe-ai&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2022-09-19-ai-29&est=0U7b7IRmKAsn0WRLEuE0QxqfvZcZdn0OetcEzIDPVi5LtDGCcgKKxH49yKsVl0PiMg%3D%3D

        Does my one vote matter? As an individual, no it doesn’t. As a group…sometimes change can be made. Last November my state elected our governor. Virginia will only allow one term as governor. The same person cannot be re-elected to consecutive terms which is where a lot of corruption takes place. Many would say there is no difference between Youngkin and McAulifee. I disagree.

        Is Youngkin a savior? Absolutely not. Is he less worse than McAulifee. A resounding yes! So far he zeroed out sales tax on groceries, passed a parental Bill of Rights, signed legislation that made mask wearing a parental choice, and doubled the state’s income tax deduction. He is also trying to get the state out of California auto regulations. Would McAulifee have done this? Not by a long shot. Is this enough? No, but some liberty is better than no liberty which is what Terry would have given us.

        If I have a choice of Thomas Massie vs AOC it is a pretty easy decision to make for me. I may still have a noose around my neck, but AOC would strangle me and Massie would at least loosen the knot so I can breathe.

        • Picture this, RG:

          A guy comes up to you and says, “Im-a give you a vote. I’m either gonna rape your daughter, or…

          Im-a rape your daughter and your son.”

          Now….there are some things to observe when the situation is distilled down to this baseline-simple level. First: well, there is obviously a “lesser-of-two evils”. It is categaorically “less-evil” to have only your daughter raped than to have both your children raped. So…I guess that means you would “vote” for your daughter to be raped, based on the prevailing lesser-of-two-evils rationalizaiton sweeping this chat board.

          However, clearly, both outcomes are intolerable, and by casting your “vote” it is quite obvious that you are only debasing yourself, and allowing yourself to be perversely implicated in the cruel crime against your own daughter.

          Also, notice that there really isn’t even a “choice”. Once one has accepted the “lesser-of-two-evils” principle, then your choice is actually made for you based on the “choices” that are presented to you. Basically, the set-up of the choices, by whoever it is that sets up choices like that, has simply controlled your behavior, so as to coerce you into granting “cover” or “consent” to the crime he was going to commit anyway.

          “Lesser-of-the-two-evils” is nothing more than dancing to a tune that’s been written for you, by people who do not have your interests in mind at all. In fact, they are looking to do you harm, one way or another. And by “choosing” which way that harm is done to you, it debases, dehumanizes, and humiliates you. It makes you an accomplice to your own destruction.

          That’s democracy.

          • That is a dumb analogy, FP. First and foremost I carry (we can do that in VA). So the asshole would be dead before he laid a hand on either one of my children. I also own a backhoe.

            Voting is a choice. Just as you choose to live in your prison cell called California. Out of curiosity do they permit you to leave the state? I would assume not which is why you are still there. Maybe you suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. Is that why you won’t leave? I am afraid you have resided there so long that everything must feel like communism to you.

            Actually when I marched into the poll booth last November and pulled the lever “for the guy who wasn’t a Clinton operative” I didn’t feel humiliated or dehumanized. I said a small prayer “please don’t eff up my life” and crossed my fingers. I don’t regret my vote. I pay less to the state coffers and I have a governor that believes a parent should make their child’s decisions. Crazy, huh?

            • Why don’t you bust out your 45 and just blast the whole government, then, pistol-packin’ momma?

              “I didn’t feel humiliated or dehumanized.”

              That’s just the abject brainwashing talking. Whether you “feel” it or not, you are indeed humiliated and dehumanized, by “voting” for your oppressor. I’m not sure what position you’re even talking about with your vote for the “non-Clinton operative”…but it doesn’t really matter. Since that “vote” you’ve still been divested of your livelihood by an administrative action that would have taken place regardless of which “operative” you voted for….

              Again, that’s democracy.

              • Doesn’t that go against the NAP, FP? One should only use force when threatened.

                What administrative action am I being divested of? Are there things I don’t agree with? Of course. But we are subject to that everyday with our spouse, children, friends, boss, clients, etc. I will let karma take care of the other 535 of them. That is what you are hoping for, right? I can see how allowing the Progressive Liberals take over Cali was the best strategic move one could make. Yeah, let’s sit back and wait. Soft on crime, high on taxes. Registering one’s ammo. Universal basic income for those that don’t wish to work. Unaffordable housing. It sounds swell. Pardon me if I try to delay this outcome for as long as possible.

        • RG, THAT mentality is exactly what I was talking about in another post a while back: They use popular social issues to attract and energize participants, while taking the emphasis off of other more important things, or the real agendas which the public are clueless about, but which are in reality the brunt of their actions.

          Secondly, it’s a zero-net-sum game. So even pertaining to these little crumbs which they distract us with, for the one or two that sound good, there are 30 others which are NOT what you would want- such as Bumpkin’s refusal to commit on a 2A stance, or the fact that he desires to recriminalize marry-jew-wanna possession.

          One can just as easily find pros and cons pertaining to the crumbs on the opponent’s side. This is exactly how they keep the majority interested- “Vote for what matters to you” (and so the tyranny is maintained and grows, because there is no option for no tyranny- just tyranny with blue sprinkles or tyranny with red sprinkles…but either way everyone gets pissed on.

          • Nunz

            This is my problem with libertarianism. Everything is black or white. It is 100% or 0%. Should us Independents stand back and let the McAuliffe and Clinton’s of the world takeover? I am sure AOC will make a fine President. 😒

            Your view is my way or the highway. That doesn’t even work in the closest of relationships but is supposed to work in politics? You are right. If I can get half of what I want that is better than getting nothing. If hubby comes home with an extra $500 from a side job and hands me half of it should my response be “I want all of it or you keep it.” The response from the other side will be “Okay, hand it back. I will take it all.” Tell me how do I win in this scenario? A choice has been made, but my demands were not met. Well, I showed him, didn’t I? He walks away with it all and I have an empty wallet.

            • Not at all, RG. The real problem is that government should not even be involved in such “issues”- but by appointing itself the arbiters of such matters and then ‘just coincidentally’ having candidates who favor handling the tyranny one way vs. the other, they are doing nothing but but offering two choices which ultimately just support tyranny.

              But in what way am I saying “My way or the highway”? I am actually on your side wi9th regard to the perv-pronoun issue- but in short, I’m saying that when you add everything up, it all cancels itself out because for every positive there is a negative, and ultimately it’s not about such “issues”, but rather about values- and while a candidate may come down on ‘our side’ of some issues once in a while, ultimately 4 years later we’ll have lost much more than we’ll have gained- viz-a-viz DJT.

              • I agree Nunz that government shouldn’t be involved in any issues, but they are. When my aunt decides to butt her nose into a private matter do I allow her to do it or tell her to back the hell off? I see the same scenario in voting. It is none of their damn business, but they are there anyway. Do I stand on the sidelines and hope they won’t cause more drama?

                • Trouble is, RG, since we can not vote on “the issues”, when we vote for a candidate, we get all that comes along with him/her/it- such as enlargement of the military; more ‘law enforcement’ ; a pig in every school….etc. So as far as working to further liberty, no matter which side one votes for because they may just happen to be on the right side of on small social issue or may ostensibly hold a position which is friendly to liberty in one or two small areas, the fact is that both sides still are ultimately about the preservation and expansion of tyranny/government/power- so it ultimately makes zero difference who you vote for- any more than if you voted for the candidate who wears the nicest shirts…..

              • Nunz

                I think we agree one should never vote for a politician based on values, because they have none. I have no love for The Donald, but would Hillary have been better? I am not voting believing the politician who I pull the lever for is a savior or has any integrity. I view lawyers and doctors the same way. We are buying time. That’s it. The lesser of two evils allows the rest of us the time to prepare for what is coming. DJT slowed down the handcart, he didn’t stop it. Hillary was the Cat 5 hurricane, Trump was the Cat 1. I don’t want a hurricane, but that isn’t a choice. So I hope for the one that will cause the less damage.

                • Excellently said, RG!

                  Voting can be viewed as a kind of combat. You don’t want to fight, but you have no choice – unless you want to lose the fight. So you duck and swing. You try to kick them in the balls, if you can. Whatever it takes. A man told me when I was young that there is no such things as a “fair” fight. You fight to win. That is the sum of wisdom when it comes to dealing with the system we are forced to deal with.

  12. Republicans can accomplish something by voting, because all they have to do is defeat the Democrats. if they get just enough members to tip the scales, their champion wins.

    Democrats can vote for the same reason.

    Two parties (Different sides of the same coin) who may have slightly differing personal and social views, but they both applaud state-sanctioned theft, violence, coercion and general tyranny to force their neighbors to abide by their dictates.

    WE, on the other hand, to accomplish anything, would have to vote against BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats (Yeah, lemme know how that works out)….since a vote against one party is a vote for the other party- and ultimately it doesn’t matter, because they both thrive on tyranny, and ultimately both do the same things.

  13. If you vote you have no right to complain!

    By voting, you are participating in an adhesion contract [No, this is not some pie-in-the-sky sovereign citizen crapola]. By your participation, you are agreeing to the terms of democratically-elected system of political representation. You are formally delegating your your natural rights and responsibilities conveyed by natural law, to other men; thus investing them with the collective power which should normally belong to free men acting alone or in the community.

    You registering to vote, and voting, is tacit agreement to be bound by the results of the electoral process- no matter who wins- thus bestowing legitimacy upon any office for which you vote.

    You may say “But if I refrain from voting, will not the will of the electards ( 😀 ) be forced upon me anyway?”- and of course, the answer is yes- but knowing that whether you vote or don’t vote, the result will be exactly the same, isn’t it better to at least protest such a system by refusing to participate; by refusing to legitimize it; by agreeing to delegate your natural power; by refusing to give formal approval and consent to such a system, rather than being among those give their FORMAL consent?

    Even disregarding the above, your vote does not matter, in a society where the minds of the vast majority are controlled by the media and government schools, in a system where candidates can say anything they want, and do the diametric opposite once elected, or nothing at all. In a system where only those who have been pre-selected and are members of the club will even make it through the primaries, and all others will be ignored by the media which controls the minds of the masses (Just look at what they did to Ron Paul).

    If you voted in 2016 or 2020, did your vote make any difference?

    If you voted for the “lesser evil” in ’16, did you get less evil, or the greatest destruction of liberty experienced in most of our lifetimes, and a genocidal globalist-approved clot-shot?

    If you hadn’t voted, would things be worse?

    Your vote accomplishes exactly as much as the vote of a former-USSR citizen or North Korean- other than the giving of your sanction to the very thing which we as Libertarians claim to oppose, and by taking away your right to complain, since participating in the “democratic process” entails agreeing to labide by the results of those elections.

  14. Eric, I understand your argument. If we were actually voting for issues or principles in law instead of people, then I would agree. We do not have that option.

    This is a representative republic. We only get to vote for a person to represent…me. I gave my sanction to Ron Paul, because he has proven to be a true representative of my own views.

    I will not any longer give my sanction to someone marginally less evil than my other choice. It is not futile to withhold my sanction; not voting is the only message they care about. Not voting means the politicians are not receiving what they crave. Now, if there were an ‘against’ box on the ballot, that would be totally different. Then I would certainly vote every chance I got. My withholding my vote is my ‘against’ vote. Until I am allowed to choose a candidate that represents me more than being against me, I will continue to vote against.

  15. There are several small Carribean countries like Dominica that if enough of us moved there – say 50,000 or so – we could have our own country. Pretty sure globalists would NEVER allow that though.

  16. The NAP is so simple and profound. Ask a lefty or a neo-con for a single sentence to describe the tenant of their political faith & you’ll get page after page of bs.

  17. You are right, Eric, we can’t limit ourselves to only “those that agree with libertarianism 100%.

    Why?

    Because some of the most volatile arguments I’ve ever witnessed were between people at Libertarian Party meetings. The LP is little more than a debating society. When I was a part of it and ran for office, as many others did, I’d try to appear as appealing to the majority of voters as possible. Other were of the mind that, “screw you, this is who I am, vote for me. If you don’t like it, too bad.” They were often their own worst enemy.

    What I did learn in my three failed attempts at office was, people don’t want to hear what you think. They want to hear what THEY think coming out of YOUR mouth.

      • “You are correct, Sir.” – Ed McMahon

        “Go to the head of the class.” – Walter E. Williams

        “Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.” – HL Mencken

      • Yes, Anon1. Same as Trump. Same as Biden. Same as Obama. Same as Bush I & II. Same as Clinton. Same As Reagan. Same as Carter. Same as Nixon…well…you get the idea.

        My favorite president? Millard Fillmore. You know what he did? Nothing. Absolutely, nothing.

        • “Oh, we are the mediocre presidents,
          You won’t our faces on dollars and cents.
          There’s Taylor, there’s Tyler, There’s Fillmore, there’s Hayes.
          There’s William Henry Harrison -‘I died in 30 days!’. ”

          [I saw it in a cartoon]

  18. Ugghhh… Reagan. D-fens! Deficits don’t matta! Just say no! The template for the Orange Man.

    Regarding that quote, it really depends on whether the 20% disagreement pertains to the root premise of your doctrine or something picayune. For example, someone who says XYZ drug should be illegal but not ZYX. Or, the one virus is real but every “measure” taken by the the gov’t to “fight” it was wrong. These folks have accepted root premises that have unavoidable follow on consequences. I don’t consider them allies, generally, even if we agree on some other things. Perhaps we could be allies if an issue were decided in a vacuum, so to speak, but that is rarely the case in real life.

    Libertarianism is a doctrine, which can be used as a lens through which to view various topics that fall outside the scope of the doctrine, like voting. Folks are entitled to their opinion of it but, as has been noted on here time and again, it is what it is. It is not a popular or majority philosophy because most people have no problem being unprincipled, inconsistent, and self-contradictory in order to benefit, get their way, and boss around others. The very essence of politics.

  19. I do get the purity spirals of those such as Larkin Rose and Mark Passio to name a couple. Philosophically I agree with them in the matter of Anarchism and self ownership. However even Passio admitted in a podcast “although a (constitutional Republic) was illegitimate authority he would feel like he was in paradise with the government we had at the time of the founders compared to what it is now.”

    Government exists whether it is a fiction within our minds or not, it will impact you. I’d recommend influencing the school boards, local offices, sherrifs, mayors, aldermen, maybe up to state level. Past that I think it’s mostly pointless to get too involved.

    Ask yourself:

    Who masked the kids at the schools?
    Who issued executive orders to shut down businesses?
    Who set loose the health dept. bureau-rats on businesses who refused?

    It wasn’t on the federal level for the most part.
    Enforcement of almost anything is local. Hell msot of it is social ostracism and corporate entities. The feds are so limited on what they are capable of through blunt force. Most of it is financial incentives, and vague carrot/stick mind games.

    I’d compare totally “checking out politicially” to people who refuse to have children because “the world is so screwed up.” Generally a statement made by people I find to be reasonably moral and level headed. They just sit back and let all the worst people in the world have all the children, hence letting others raise even more terrible people into the realm we call earth.
    I understand why they do It (I used to feel the same) but they are taking part in a self fulfilling prophecy.

    • Interesting you bring up masking kids in the context of voting locally. In my county last year, the school board initially let the parents vote on whether the kids should wear masks. The parents voted overwhelmingly against masking. Then the governor subtly threaten extra school funding tied to the Feds coof “relief” and compliance with the “measures.” The next day the kids were masked and most parents went along with it.

      • At that point the parents should have vacated the system and emptied out the school. The main problem with voting I see is it is still begging for permission.
        On a side note we now have Marijuana decriminalization/legalization and constitutional carry in a number of states. Something that would have been fantasy 15-20 years ago. I understand these rights exist whether the local crime synicate agrees or not , but most people don’t. The feds ability to enforce against the wishes of these local codes and statutes is near zero. We can take this all the way to its logical conclusion of actual self governance which currently most people are not mentally capable and/or are finacially incetivized to be ruled over for gibs and false security.

  20. Article is well timed. There are certain people who wanted us all to be locked down indefinitely for a cold.
    There are certain people who are currently calling anyone not worshipping at the D playbook as domestic terrorists, and using law enforcement to spy and threaten us.

    Some may want to live in their ancapistan and refrain from the system, but the system exists, and that machine seeks to grind you into submission.

    Voting, even as a defensive measure, is one of the few ways we have to resist.

    We will never have a system where honorable people respect the limits of law and rights. Best to accept that and find allies where we can.

  21. Great article, Eric.

    George Washington argued against the establishment of political parties. He understood how they would diminish the rights of the individual by creating groups and “majorities” who would force their sentiments onto others. People disregarded his warning and we see how the political institution has destroyed the lives of every person today.

    Why must we have labels? Why must we identify as any political structure? Shouldn’t the focus be on dismantling the political party system and the individual be the only voice that bears hearing? Would heads explode if we had a selection of 7 or 8 (or even more) candidates to elect with no R, D, or I next to their names? If nothing else the money (and ultimately control) would diminish. It wouldn’t be a perfect system no government is.

    I know a few are reading this and going “RG you are an idiot. The individual does not need government and one shall not be established.” The naysayers are right. In a utopian world this would be the perfect arrangement. But we don’t live in a utopia. Even if our current institutions breakdown (and they will) new collective federations will take over. I much rather be an individual voting for another individual than voting for a unified and corrupted party.

    • I happen to agree RG. There could still be political parties but the party the candidate belongs to shouldn’t be on the ballot. If labels weren’t attached to names, people would actually need to inform themselves about who they’re voting for instead of party line voting. Would be a gigantic step in the right direction. Which is why it will never happen of course.

    • Power is one of the few things in this world that is truly a zero-sum game.

      To the extent to which you own and control your own actions, others(including the government) are denied that power.

      To the extent to which your actions are constrained or controlled by others / the government, you no longer have that power.

      To reclaim power from the government, one must first gain control of oneself. Everything else flows from that.

      Realistically, there will always be some kind of government. But, it will only have the power we allow it to have. This, I am convinced, is the true meaning of “consent of the governed.”

  22. I’ll paraphrase Mark Twain, “If elections mattered, we wouldn’t be allowed to vote”.
    Which has been my experience in my 50 years of voting age. Some “elected” officials will slow down the handcart to hell we ride on (Reagan), others will speed it up (Obama). It keeps on rolling, and the destination remains the same. I have not seen any election produce otherwise. Every government is, and always has been, founded on its assumed authority to kill you if you disobey. Sane people do not seek such power. The insane do, in proportion to their degree of insanity. Only socio/psychopaths are allowed to run for office, and those not insane in very few cases attempt to do so, and never win. I can count on one hand the candidates I MIGHT vote for. The other thing is, whatever or whomever you vote for is temporary. Subject to the next election. Voting is a government auction of stolen resources. I no longer place a bid. Rothbard, the libertarian, supported the election of Reagan. How are things better now than in 1980? How were they better in 1988? Elections simply don’t work for the great unwashed, and for only a select few of the washed.

    • Hi John,

      I don’t disagree with anything you’ve stated. That said Ron Paul has done a great deal to get probably millions who would otherwise never heard of “libertarians” interested in libertarian ideas. I would certainly vote for him – or anyone even like him. Such as his son, for instance.

      Neither are perfectly libertarian. But they are whole lot better than the alternatives!

      It is immensely frustrating to have to deal with shoddy goods, so to speak. But one can advocate for better goods without having to refuse all goods, on account of them not being optimum.

      That’s my view, anyhow.

      • Eric,
        The last time Ron Paul ran for POTUS, I told my son, “he’s our last chance”.
        I don’t look for optimum, since even a pure libertarian NAP government would not produce optimum results. I’m only looking for acceptable, which no candidate is so far offering. Desantis is close, but I wonder. If not for the outright insanity of the rest, how close would he appear to be? The only thing any government is truly good at is killing people, and very good at it they are.

  23. This seems like a pretty good saying: “the man who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and ally, not a 20 percent traitor.”

    I had not heard that one before, fits right in with, “Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good”.

    Not sure how it fits with this:

    ‘Why I Am a Panarchist’

    “… Why am I expected to bow down before others? Why should anyone bow down who does not want to? Why should I be ruled by others? Why should anyone be ruled by others who does not want to be so ruled?

    If you ever hear a good answer, let me know. I have not yet heard a good answer. The force and power to make me bow down is not an answer.” …

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/01/michael-s-rozeff/why-i-am-a-panarchist/

      • Publius,
        The upper case Libertarian party makes the mistake all political parties make. That every thing would be just peachy if our psychopath was elected. If our guy was the guy holding a gun to our head.

        • Hi John,

          Yes, but the leader of a movement – of ideas – need not be a psychopath. Ron Paul does not appear to be one. There are certainly others. At least there might be…. people who are capable of articulating and defending ideas but who do not want power over others. Vote for me – and I promise to leave you alone!

          • Eric,
            “Vote for me – and I promise to leave you alone!”
            Or, “vote for me and I’ll give you a basket of stolen goodies”
            Who wins that election? Especially considering what public education has done to us.
            Ron Paul is definitely a candidate for sainthood. In a sane world.

      • Hi Publius,

        It’s defeating, I submit, to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. More, it does not mean we cease striving for the better – by advocating for the perfect.

        I get the frustration. I share it.

        But “shrugging” only atomizes and defeats us. We may, individually be able to withdraw to one degree or another and do out best to avoid/evade the ugliness. But it pursues us, relentlessly. I say we fight it with any and all tools that come to hand.

        • Actually, for practical purposes, I’m more of a monarchist. More stable over the long term, occasionally you might get a good one, more often you get one who just wants to live lavishly and have fun—leaving you to your own devices. The arbitrary nature of their position is so blatant they pretty much have to leave the peasants alone past a certain point. And the bigger the realm, the easier it is to move away from them…their power and influence diminishes quite nicely with distance.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here