The Strategic Libertarian Case For Supporting Hillary Clinton

[Sola_Fide]

https://reece.liberty.me/the-strategic-libertarian-case-for-supporting-hillary-clinton/

Go Hillary!

https://i1.wp.com/s3.amazonaws.com/liberty-uploads/wp-content/uploads/sites/1535/2016/10/siegheillary.jpg

[AuH20]

The only logical reason to vote for Hillary is to hope that she overreaches to such a degree that the public retaliates. Beyond that, there is no libertarian reason to vote for her.

[seapilot]

I think the title would be better like this: The Strategic Libertarian Case For Supporting Hillary Clinton during an Extraterrestrial Alien Invasion

[Ender]

I think the title would be better like this: The Strategic Libertarian Case For Supporting Hillary Clinton during an Extraterrestrial Alien Invasion

WAIT.

I thought that's what we were having! :eek::confused::p

[undergroundrr]

The only logical reason to vote for Hillary is to hope that she overreaches to such a degree that the public retaliates. Beyond that, there is no libertarian reason to vote for her.

The majority of the public hates both candidates. The retaliation against whichever wins (and whatever he or she supposedly represents) will be tangible and clearly manifested in the 2018 and 2020 elections.

[AuH20]

The majority of the public hates both candidates. The retaliation against whichever wins (and whatever he or she supposedly represents) will be tangible and clearly manifested in the 2018 and 2020 elections.

Hillary has been proven to use terrorist acts to reinforce governmental authority. That's the type of stimuli that promotes unrest.

[Jamesiv1]

If your opinion is "sooner the better" (World destruction), then vote Hillary.

[Spikender]

The Strategic Crackpot Case For Losing Sleep Over Voting For A Corrupt Demonic Corporate Statist.

[Athan]

If your opinion is "sooner the better" (World destruction), then vote Hillary.

I agree with this. There are those that think the system can't be reformed and needs to collapse. In such an event, Hillary may be the ideal choice.

[alucard13mm]

You all should realize that the economy will not tank when "one of their own" is POTUS. They are using voodoo magic to keep the economy alive.

[Athan]

You all should realize that the economy will not tank when "one of their own" is POTUS. They are using voodoo magic to keep the economy alive.

When I referred to crash, I meant WW3 and nuclear winter. Wikileaks confirmed that they new Hillary wants to start a war with Russia.

[undergroundrr]

Interesting that this was written by somebody who is concerned about immigration, making the assumption that "...a Trump presidency would offer much less immediate relief but address concerns over demographic shifts which are hostile to liberty."

The key point made in the article is that "A Clinton loss will have the effect of opening a pressure valve on populist and nationalist resentment." In other words, right-wing/conservative voters will largely feel that things have swung their way. Complacency ensues.

Really, the article isn't just about voting for Clinton, but about always voting for the worst, most anti-liberty candidate who has a chance of winning as a matter of libertarian principle. If you believe democracy is always a force for evil, it makes sense. I couldn't do it though, because of the first objection brought up - innocent people dying.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Interesting that this was written by somebody who is concerned about immigration, making the assumption that "...a Trump presidency would offer much less immediate relief but address concerns over demographic shifts which are hostile to liberty."

The key point made in the article is that "A Clinton loss will have the effect of opening a pressure valve on populist and nationalist resentment." In other words, right-wing/conservative voters will largely feel that things have swung their way. Complacency ensues.

Really, the article isn't just about voting for Clinton, but about always voting for the worst, most anti-liberty candidate who has a chance of winning as a matter of libertarian principle. If you believe democracy is always a force for evil, it makes sense. I couldn't do it though, because of the first objection brought up - innocent people dying.

^^

It was the reason I initially was supportive of Trump after Rand left. Then I realized no one else was going to stand up to prevent the harm. Squeezing people's liberty to get desired results is the kind of shit the fed does.

[misterx]

Wasn't this the same argument for Obama? How did that work out?

[Bruehound]

Financial bubbles have been bursting approximately every 8 years.

S & L 1987
Asian currency markets 1995
dot com 2001
Housing 2008

so we are due and this next one will be of incredible magnitude. The Dems will have had 8+ years in the WH and they will own this one. Not sure if it matters a whit who is in the WH as this crash will render the FedGov impotent and irrelevant. SO from this perspective I can see a rationale. Not saying I agree with it but there is some merit to letting the Dem's own it.

[undergroundrr]

Wasn't this the same argument for Obama? How did that work out?

The author addresses the reasons it might not work. I have a lot of respect this author, who is anti-immigration, anti-cuckservatism, anti-SJW, for thinking this through so thoroughly.

I don't agree with the conclusion, though. People are way over-thinking things if they conclude that voting for evil is going to make them more free.

[Madison320]

Financial bubbles have been bursting approximately every 8 years.

S & L 1987
Asian currency markets 1995
dot com 2001
Housing 2008

so we are due and this next one will be of incredible magnitude. The Dems will have had 8+ years in the WH and they will own this one. Not sure if it matters a whit who is in the WH as this crash will render the FedGov impotent and irrelevant. SO from this perspective I can see a rationale. Not saying I agree with it but there is some merit to letting the Dem's own it.

I totally agree and have been posting something similar many times here. At least starting in the mid 1990s, we're in a cycle of stimulus-crash-bigger stimulus-bigger crash-etc. Judging by the amount of this latest stimulus, 10 trillion borrowed, 3.5 trillion printed, 8 years of ZIRP, plus huge trade deficits, we're in for the mother of all crashes no matter who is in office. I actually think Hillary will delay the day of reckoning more than Trump or Johnson because she'll keep stimulating. The problem is the longer you delay by stimulating the bigger the problem gets and the bigger the crash.

I realize that a big crash could lead to a big power grab, but it could also lead to the opposite. I think the chances of us doing the right thing, which is decreasing the size and scope of government are almost zero, UNTIL we get a dollar crash where we can't keep living above our means.

[The Gold Standard]

I totally agree and have been posting something similar many times here. At least starting in the mid 1990s, we're in a cycle of stimulus-crash-bigger stimulus-bigger crash-etc. Judging by the amount of this latest stimulus, 10 trillion borrowed, 3.5 trillion printed, 8 years of ZIRP, plus huge trade deficits, we're in for the mother of all crashes no matter who is in office. I actually think Hillary will delay the day of reckoning more than Trump or Johnson because she'll keep stimulating. The problem is the longer you delay by stimulating the bigger the problem gets and the bigger the crash.

I realize that a big crash could lead to a big power grab, but it could also lead to the opposite. I think the chances of us doing the right thing, which is decreasing the size and scope of government are almost zero, UNTIL we get a dollar crash where we can't keep living above our means.

If Trump were to win, they would give him some time to claim ownership of the economy before the Fed popped the stock market and started unraveling things. Donald would go to his Keynesian playbook, spend his ass off, negative interest rates, etc., but the economy would still be dead in 2020 when Elizabeth Warren or some similar piece of shit promises to ride in and save the day. Boobus will eat it up.

[undergroundrr]

These are compelling points about a bubble.

[otherone]

The Dems will have had 8+ years in the WH and they will own this one.

"OBSTRUCTIONIST REPUBLICANS"

[Madison320]

If Trump were to win, they would give him some time to claim ownership of the economy before the Fed popped the stock market and started unraveling things. Donald would go to his Keynesian playbook, spend his ass off, negative interest rates, etc., but the economy would still be dead in 2020 when Elizabeth Warren or some similar piece of $#@! promises to ride in and save the day. Boobus will eat it up.

Every "news" story would talk about the Failure of Capitalism! Despite the fact that A) the crash was baked in the cake and B) Hillary is Socialism but Trump is Socialism Lite.

I could be wrong, but I want the crash to occur on Hillary's watch.

Plus my investments depend on government continuing to do the wrong thing.:cool:

[eleganz]

Online content is just so shitty and getting shittier with time.

[misterx]

The author addresses the reasons it might not work. I have a lot of respect this author, who is anti-immigration, anti-cuckservatism, anti-SJW, for thinking this through so thoroughly.

I don't agree with the conclusion, though. People are way over-thinking things if they conclude that voting for evil is going to make them more free.

There is a certain logic to it, and I once leaned that way myself. Looking at history though, the liberal strategy of incrementalism has been incredibly successful, and 8 years of Obama only made things more difficult. Not to mention, when things collapse the people in power generally get to decide how you're going to rebuild.

[Peace&Freedom]

The Strategic Case for Supporting Madame Doomsday, Because One Despises the Grassroots So Much

The choice of the grassroots, populist, alternative or outsider movement in this election, Trump, is demonized by the inflexible remnants of the thrice defeated Paul supporters, who prefer to make the perfect the enemy of the good. While the concept that Hillary will over reach is good in theory (yes, a Hillary White House would lead to the GOP gaining a filibuster proof Senate in 2018, when a lot of vulnerable Democratic seats will be at take), in reality, we have plain run out of time.

The Hillary gambit represents a complete loss of the sense of urgency the Paul movement had in 2007, when it was widely agreed our country only had a couple of election cycles left to reverse things before martial law was imposed or the globalists won. A Hillary Presidency in 2017 going forward means she will pack the Supreme Court with liberal activists for a generation, who once in place will eliminate acknowledgment of the 2nd amendment protections on individual gun ownership (say hello, gun grabs). It will mean the passage of the TPP and similar globalist trade deals, and the continuation of Obamacare. It also means the continuation of nation-building and regime change in a foreign policy of one no-exit long war after another, for at least another generation.

It is one thing to assert that both Trump and Clinton do not satisfy us as libertarians, quite another to quietly declare that an ongoing activist Supreme Court, lost gun rights, global big government via the TPP, Obamacare, and unending foreign empire-building doesn't matter. It is simply dishonest to assert there is no difference between Trump and Hillary, when one has plainly expressed being for these things, and the other has not.

Because of the issue of the takeover of the courts and the adoption of global treaties, electing Hillary (or her rigging a win) means the irreversible loss of whatever is left of the free republic. There won't be a next time, under Hillary, to swing things back. It's now or never, to pull out of the death spiral.

[alucard13mm]

When I referred to crash, I meant WW3 and nuclear winter. Wikileaks confirmed that they new Hillary wants to start a war with Russia.

Well if that is the case.. all you really need to survive is a few palletes of cigarettes, a few hundred gallons of water, a weapon and ammo. You can trade the cigs for food, women and bodygaurds haha.

[Superfluous Man]

I couldn't vote for Hillary in good conscience, but it makes as much sense as voting for Trump, and doesn't have the added disadvantage that a Trump win would pull the GOP further to the left.

[JohnM]

"Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!"

Romans 3:8

[AuH20]

The Strategic Case for Supporting Madame Doomsday, Because One Despises the Grassroots So Much

The choice of the grassroots, populist, alternative or outsider movement in this election, Trump, is demonized by the inflexible remnants of the thrice defeated Paul supporters, who prefer to make the perfect the enemy of the good. While the concept that Hillary will over reach is good in theory (yes, a Hillary White House would lead to the GOP gaining a filibuster proof Senate in 2018, when a lot of vulnerable Democratic seats will be at take), in reality, we have plain run out of time.

The Hillary gambit represents a complete loss of the sense of urgency the Paul movement had in 2007, when it was widely agreed our country only had a couple of election cycles left to reverse things before martial law was imposed or the globalists won. A Hillary Presidency in 2017 going forward means she will pack the Supreme Court with liberal activists for a generation, who once in place will eliminate acknowledgment of the 2nd amendment protections on individual gun ownership (say hello, gun grabs). It will mean the passage of the TPP and similar globalist trade deals, and the continuation of Obamacare. It also means the continuation of nation-building and regime change in a foreign policy of one no-exit long war after another, for at least another generation.

It is one thing to assert that both Trump and Clinton do not satisfy us as libertarians, quite another to quietly declare that an ongoing activist Supreme Court, lost gun rights, global big government via the TPP, Obamacare, and unending foreign empire-building doesn't matter. It is simply dishonest to assert there is no difference between Trump and Hillary, when one has plainly expressed being for these things, and the other has not.

Because of the issue of the takeover of the courts and the adoption of global treaties, electing Hillary (or her rigging a win) means the irreversible loss of whatever is left of the free republic. There won't be a next time, under Hillary, to swing things back. It's now or never, to pull out of the death spiral.

We officially go over the falls if she is elected.

[Superfluous Man]

We officially go over the falls if she is elected.

The question is, is that a bad thing or a good thing?

[enhanced_deficit]

The un-strategic situation of unfortunate children.


http://2static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Hillary+be+like+i+wanna+end+corruption+in+wall+str eet_3efb89_5848066.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cr3hTOlWEAATRBf.jpg