Should Libertarians Vote Republican? (Only if they’re insane)

[nayjevin]

So, given that a successful State requires legitimacy and that one of the easiest ways to achieve legitimacy is through widespread voter participation, what is the responsibility of the voters for the actions of its government?

Widespread voter participation is not one of the easiest ways to achieve legitimacy.

Voters who vote for candidate A are not responsible for candidate B's actions. They hold debatable responsibility for the actions of candidate A.

Voting for a candidate who represents less violence is not immoral. It does nothing to legitimize the state. If anything it de-legitimizes the candidate who represents more state.

those who act in the name of the State can use the fact that many people vote as evidence that they are acting in the name of "the people."

They can use any fact they want as evidence for anything, but they are wrong. The arguments of 'those who act in the name of the state' have no bearing on my proper course of action. If I let fear of what they might say in the future about my participation guide my actions, I have legitimized the state.

By voting, it is clear that each voter endorses the governmental system under which he or she lives.

False, not clear at all. There is no evidence to support this notion.

There is, however, evidence it is not true - for there are voters who do not endorse the governmental system under which he or she lives.

By the act of voting, each voter is saying: It is right and proper for some people, acting in the name of the State, to pass laws and to use violence to compel obedience to those laws if they are not obeyed.

That is not what voters are saying.

[Ronin Truth]

Widespread voter participation is not one of the easiest ways to achieve legitimacy.

Voters who vote for candidate A are not responsible for candidate B's actions. They hold debatable responsibility for the actions of candidate A.

Voting for a candidate who represents less violence is not immoral. It does nothing to legitimize the state. If anything it de-legitimizes the candidate who represents more state.



They can use any fact they want as evidence for anything, but they are wrong. The arguments of 'those who act in the name of the state' have no bearing on my proper course of action. If I let fear of what they might say in the future about my participation guide my actions, I have legitimized the state.



False, not clear at all. There is no evidence to support this notion.

There is, however, evidence it is not true - for there are voters who do not endorse the governmental system under which he or she lives.



That is not what voters are saying.

http://voluntaryist.com/nonvoting/in...l#.VehWM30RESU

[nayjevin]

It IS for true libertarians (and also for voluntaryists).

http://voluntaryist.com/nonvoting/in...l#.VehIUH0RESU

You nor some website can ultimately define the label for all people.

Voluntaryist.com is against electoral politics, and that's fine. They have as much right to define and encourage common definition of the word as I do. I tend to want a reasonable standard for such definition, and I agree with Ron's, all interactions should be voluntary. Voting is a voluntary act.

[BTW, for your consideration, Ron Paul has called himself a voluntaryist]

Donald Trump has called himself a Republican. Republican.com says that means he likes kiwi.

[nayjevin]

http://voluntaryist.com/nonvoting/in...l#.VehWM30RESU

Link doesn't work for me. Is there a point you are trying to make? Or just opportunities for people to leave this site and visit yours (spam)?

I've shown the article you posted does not logically support the position. Is there anything else you need?

[Ronin Truth]

Link doesn't work for me. Is there a point you are trying to make? Or just opportunities for people to leave this site and visit yours (spam)?

I've shown the article you posted does not logically support the position. Is there anything else you need?

I must have just missed your definitive and conclusive show.

Try the link again in a different browser.

and/or

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...88.Ef1oUTpuxQ0


"The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting." -- Charles Bukowski

[Ronin Truth]

What defines the lesser of evils? What defines the perfect candidate?

IMHO, it's an exercise in absolute egoism. The so-called "perfect" candidate is the one who agrees with us, and communicates in exactly the way we want at all times. With that mindset, there is only one way to vote for a perfect candidate. A person would have to run for office, and vote for themselves. And then when they screw something up, they can say that they sold-out, and then never vote again, because even the perfect candidate wasn't perfect.

Sorry, I just missed that transition from "less evil" to "perfect". Would you care to futher clarify?

[nayjevin]

I must have just missed your definitive and conclusive show.

Try the link again in a different browser.

and/or

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...88.Ef1oUTpuxQ0


"The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting." -- Charles Bukowski

I'm not chasing that, you don't appear to be reading or understanding my words.

[Ronin Truth]

I'm not chasing that, you don't appear to be reading or understanding my words.

FWIW, it's probably much better to not flatter yourself too much.

[Ronin Truth]

ron paul voluntaryist

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...96.eXQGNP7jAQ4

[Ronin Truth]

Voting Statistics

http://www.statisticbrain.com/voting-statistics/

[r3volution 3.0]

If spending 2 minutes every 2 years to vote is a waste of time, how much more of a waste of time is it to spend 30 minutes every week rewriting and republishing the same old anti-voting article, in order to persuade people to not do something which you insist is meaningless and irrelevant anyway?

/rhetorical question

Anyway, voting Republican is clearly not a waste of time for libertarians. Libertarians voting Republican resulted in the election of Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, and several others of lesser stature: i.e. libertarians voting resulted in libertarians getting elected (...imagine that). You might say these are non-reproducible flukes, that there will never be enough libertarians in office to actually change the law. I see no reason for such pessimism, but, even supposing that were true, is it not also true that the election of these libertarians resulted in an increasing awareness of libertarianism among the general public? New converts? And, whatever your plan for bringing about change, even if it's not electoral politics, more libertarians is a good thing, is it not? By comparison, what has voting LP or not voting accomplished?

<crickets>

In conclusion, $#@! you Lew

[Ronin Truth]

If spending 2 minutes every 2 years to vote is a waste of time, how much more of a waste of time is it to spend 30 minutes every week rewriting and republishing the same old anti-voting article, in order to persuade people to not do something which you insist is meaningless and irrelevant anyway?

/rhetorical question

Still a whole bunch of sleeping statist sheeple voters to wake up. Attacking their unquestioning habitual voting sacrament does tend to sometimes wake some more of them up. Plus it's both educational AND fun.

/rhetorical answer

Anyway, voting Republican is clearly not a waste of time for libertarians. Libertarians voting Republican resulted in the election of Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, and several others of lesser stature: i.e. libertarians voting resulted in libertarians getting elected (...imagine that). You might say these are non-reproducible flukes, that there will never be enough libertarians in office to actually change the law. I see no reason for such pessimism, but, even supposing that were true, is it not also true that the election of these libertarians resulted in an increasing awareness of libertarianism among the general public? New converts? And, whatever your plan for bringing about change, even if it's not electoral politics, more libertarians is a good thing, is it not? By comparison, what has voting LP or not voting accomplished?

More true libertarians is a good thing. More bogus libertarians and wannabes is not.

Voting LP (GOP-Lite) is still just another statist ongoing part of the ancient problem.

Fewer voters? Non-voters are still the majority. Making a lie of the majority rule myth.

<crickets>

In conclusion, $#@! you Lew

Lew didn't write it. Ron STILL likes Lew. <shrug>

//

[Occam's Banana]

People should vote or not vote according to their own conscience. Everyone else should mind their own business about that decision.

FIFY

[r3volution 3.0]

Still a whole bunch of sleeping statist sheeple voters to wake up. Attacking their unquestioning habitual voting sacrament does tend to sometimes wake some more of them up. Plus it's both educational AND fun.

This is not an effective way of educating people and, even if a few are educated, they're simultaneously rendered useless (convinced that voting is pointless).

More true libertarians is a good thing. More bogus libertarians and wannabes is not.

Voting LP (GOP-Lite) is still just another statist ongoing part of the ancient problem.

Fewer voters? Non-voters are still the majority. Making a lie of the majority rule myth.

There are more true libertarians now than there would be had Ron (and other libertarians) not gotten involved in electoral politics.

/debate

Lew didn't write it. Ron STILL likes Lew. <shrug>

My contempt for Lew has nothing to do with the newsletters.

[Ronin Truth]

This is not an effective way of educating people and, even if a few are educated, they're simultaneously rendered useless (convinced that voting is pointless).

It's much easier to turn an activist into a libertarian, than it is to turn a libertarian into an activist.

How about you do things your way, and I'll do things my way?

Voting for freedom is like screwing for virginity, or drinking for sobriety.

There are more true libertarians now than there would be had Ron (and other libertarians) not gotten involved in electoral politics.

How many?

BTW, true libertarians are the only real ones.

Which would also exclude both Ron AND Rand by their own definition of themselves.

/debate

My contempt for Lew has nothing to do with the newsletters.

Neither did my comment.

//

[HVACTech]

//

Ronin is rendered speechless..

[euphemia]

Today it occurred to me that perhaps it is better to have a Republican president who will at least listen to what we say than a Democrat who is so committed to shackling the American people that they will not listen to anything.

For the time being, we have a Republican Congress. If we work hard, maybe we get even better people there. I know the Tennessee delegation really stinks. I would love to replace Alexander and Corker. And Jim Cooper in the House.

[LibForestPaul]

Not voting is like staying silent while a violent crime is taking place

Voting IS evil. A vote is a cast of evil. The process and the idea of voting is morally wrong.

[PaulConventionWV]

Another helpful (sic) article from the Lew Rockwell crowd. That's right, folks. Don't vote. Don't vote for what is likely the most liberty-loving candidate, other than Ron, that you will likely see in your entire lifetime; who actually has a chance to win. Nope. Don't do that. Instead, sit on yon asses and pontificate along with us in Lew and co. about how "pure" you are.

Brought to you by Lew Rockwell and company.

It amazes me how you can make all these sarcastic comments without realizing just how essentially true they are. Rand is the last hope, apparently, and he has absolutely no chance. Instead of getting angry about how people didn't vote, just realize the futility of this entire endeavor and just... let go. Just let go. You're wasting your life getting angry about fighting an impossible battle, embittering yourself by complaining about how nobody is doing anything. I've got news. Complaining isn't going to do anything. Streamlining the message isn't going to do anything. Mobilizing people isn't going to do anything. In the end, people are going to do as they want, and we should stop seeing that as a problem and embrace the fact that the game we are playing is unwinnable. Stop embittering yourself and consider other, more productive endeavors. Live a free life regardless of who the new King of America is.

[Theocrat]

Voting IS evil. A vote is a cast of evil. The process and the idea of voting is morally wrong.

On what objectively ethical basis is "voting an act of evil"?

[PaulConventionWV]

Not voting is like staying silent while a violent crime is taking place

No, voting is like pleading to the criminals to choose a new crime boss. “A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.” ~Lysander Spooner

If you really want to stop the violent crime, then stop the police. I'll let you decide what that means.

[PaulConventionWV]

For pointing out that some people hate the idea of voting so much, that they put their fingers in their ears and scream "La La La"! Until they have convinced themselves that its impossible that some situations have been improved by casting a ballot.

You have said in the past that anyone who votes is not a libertarian, if that were true, then libertarians care mare about feeling smug than they do about liberty.

See, those of us here who vote don't treat it as some magic formula. Its just a tool that others refuse to use.

It may be that some situations were improved (according to your perception) by casting a ballot, but just because the idiots happen to align with you once in a while, that doesn't mean we're not still on a steady march down the $#@!ter. Believe me, I jump for joy when one of those little accomplishments take place, but then I don't let it fool me into thinking that it won't inevitably be followed by 50 other "accomplishments" that I don't happen to agree with.

In any case, your vote probably wouldn't have mattered. Voting is really only tenable in very small groups. Otherwise, well, you see the result. The individual loses all relevance and the unwashed masses get what they think they want because the TV told them what that was.

[heavenlyboy34]

On what objectively ethical basis is "voting an act of evil"?

The inevitable consequence of voting is sin according to our Lord God. i.e., theft (in/direct taxation, inflation, civil fines, etc), murder (police, military, war, etc), meddling in foreign affairs, and many others.

[PaulConventionWV]

If spending 2 minutes every 2 years to vote is a waste of time, how much more of a waste of time is it to spend 30 minutes every week rewriting and republishing the same old anti-voting article, in order to persuade people to not do something which you insist is meaningless and irrelevant anyway?

/rhetorical question

You seriously don't get how you actually just made a great point there for the non-voting side? If voting is meaningless and irrelevant, then persuading people not to do it would maybe, just maybe, convince them to do something more productive. But hey, it's not just about the 2 minutes in the voting booth. It's the campaigning, volunteering, the endless conversations about which candidate is the lesser of two evils. You could be doing something so much more worth your time and mental energy. If voting is meaningless and irrelevant, then we have a duty to disenchant people of the idea that they're accomplishing something by doing it. Because it's not worth the frustration.

Anyway, voting Republican is clearly not a waste of time for libertarians. Libertarians voting Republican resulted in the election of Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, and several others of lesser stature: i.e. libertarians voting resulted in libertarians getting elected (...imagine that). You might say these are non-reproducible flukes, that there will never be enough libertarians in office to actually change the law. I see no reason for such pessimism, but, even supposing that were true, is it not also true that the election of these libertarians resulted in an increasing awareness of libertarianism among the general public? New converts? And, whatever your plan for bringing about change, even if it's not electoral politics, more libertarians is a good thing, is it not? By comparison, what has voting LP or not voting accomplished?

<crickets>

In conclusion, $#@! you Lew

In response, I just have to wonder what reason you have, despite describing the inevitable process of a few odd ones making it into the legislature, for believing that the ongoing backward slide of this country will not continue despite their efforts? Yeah, they'll let us feel like we've accomplished something every now and then just so we keep playing the game, but trust me when I tell you they will never let you have the presidency or a majority in either house, nor would you ever get one anyway because you are a member of a perpetually marginalized class of thought, and dreams of somehow becoming the majority is nothing short of a fairy tale.

[Theocrat]

The inevitable consequence of voting is sin according to our Lord God. i.e., theft (in/direct taxation, inflation, civil fines, etc), murder (police, military, war, etc), meddling in foreign affairs, and many others.

That's not true because there are plenty of voters who vote for candidates that do not want direct/indirect taxation, inflation, civil fines, an increased presence in law enforcement and military campaigns overseas. (Uh, remember a guy by the name of Ron Paul?)

But even your answer is "moving the goalposts" because he didn't say that "the inevitable consequences of voting are evil"; he said that voting, itself, is evil. So, my question is on what objective, ethical basis is that so.

It can also be seen that your logic can also be applied to guns. The inevitable consequence of firing a gun is that someone will get hurt or killed. Does that mean, therefore, guns are evil because some people use guns in unlawful, unsafe, and unethical ways? Of course not. Ultimately, your whole reasoning against voting is based on a fallacy of reification (just as your reasoning against civil authorities is).

[Cabal]

Should Libertarians Vote Republican? (Only if they’re insane)

FTFY

[William Tell]

FTFY

Yeah, the libertarian movement would clearly be so much stronger than it is right now if no one had supported Ron Paul in 1988, 2008, and 2012. This forum would exist anyway and have 10 times the traffic.

/s/

[The Gold Standard]

Supporting and voting for Ron Paul was one way of trying to educate and wake up the masses. And he reached a lot of people. Not enough, but many. Even if he didn't win, having him in debates exposed Boobus to things they had never heard before and will never hear again. And I've felt all along that getting through to wake up as many idiots as we can is the only way to restore any kind of liberty. If you get a few million people who understand what it is about, then you have options.

But once Ron was out, voting for Romney or Obama is a complete waste of time. Now that Rand is out, voting for any of these other clowns is a complete waste of time. Liberty won't be served by any of them, and getting behind any of them just shows Boobus that you were never serious about being free anyway.

[A Son of Liberty]

If you would not vote for Amash over Hitler

It is NOT about voting for Amash rather than Hitler.

It IS about recognizing that voting is the act of explicitly sanctioning the accumulation of authority not granted by natural/God-given rights over other people into the hands of some select few.

It may well be preferable for that power to be accumulated in the hands of Amash rather than Hitler, assuming that we know everything there is to know about Amash (which is a very dangerous presumption in and of itself).

However it is far, far, FAR more preferable to recognize that the act of voting is fundamentally unjust.