Today, 05:12 PM
Those were kind words to start off with. Thanks! I have nothing against Johnson running his campaign to his audience, in no way is it bad that he makes moderates choose him over their usual choice of lesser of two evils. The fewer people caving in to politicians to the authoritarian side of themselves, the better. I just don't believe it will further the cause towards my (our?) side of Johnson by supporting him in compare to investing ourselves and voting for something closer to us. The marginal value of a vote does decrease with every extra one, and we're most probably not gonna be the tip of the scale when if we even are to weigh in things as the 5% funding threshold.
I have grown to understand over the years that you Americans tend to use the concept of distinguishing between educational and trying-to-win (or gain a base) campaigns. I just cannot accept the validity or relevance of such concept, and believe me I've tried. I do not believe anyone holding elected office have much room at all in the end to actually drive political change over the long run. Rather whatever room for change they have is a mere reflection of already occured changes in the electorate, and by then it's not so much room for change as a path they have to go down. Ofcourse factored in with some special and other interestes behind the curtains, but that's another issue. That's why i believe substantial political change can only come from how the candidates - and everyone else influencing people - change peoples minds, not by winning or losing the actual office one ran for.
You've read me correct, there aresome extreme situations where I'd be willing to accept a lesser of evils argument, the same way there are some few extreme situations where I'm willing to abandon the NAP. To make an extreme, obvious example: Candidate A running on the promise to nuke the whole world to oblivion, assuming he could actually go through with it if winning, and candidate B running on a completly ideal libertarian platform except for a gimmick that he'll once tax a randomly selected citizen 1￠. It would not be honest to pretend I'm not utilitarian in that sense that there comes an extreme point where the consequences outweigh, just for the sake of coming of as rhetorically stronger not having to conced such conditions exists. I just believe in the extreme importances of those princples to such extent I place such extreme situation much further away than what we've got with Johnson. This does not mean I'm refraining from saying I belive in the non-aggresion principle or - which i view as a subsection of it - reject the notion of lesser of two evils arguments, because for many if not close to most all actual real situations those extreme situations where I change is not near the table of discussion.
Exactly where such line is to be drawn, I believe has to be judged with such subtle nuances and complexity one could not capture nor convey it precise enough with the limits and stiffness inherent in language and words. Atleast I'm nowhere near being such wordsmith, maybe somewhere else someone has or one day will be able to make something of it. It's a judgment ultimatly up to each and every libertarian for themselves to make, I do not get from where you're reading in me thinking I'm above anyone else or being a standard bearer on this. I'm obviously not, but as with anything, I will ofcourse argue my views on the matter.
I simply believe our resources are wasted supporting this temporary prevention of harm, if we agree Johnson would be that in compare to the rest, when we could channelize it all into promoting an actual permanent solution to the sickness: principled libertarianism. I most certainly believe we should engage his audience, and I see no reason why we would have to pose or actually support Johnson to be able to do so. Ancap people have no problems seeking out minarchists to engage in debate and discussions, without caving in to support a small state....