Quote of the Day – 2012-10-15

From an article at United Liberty by Doug Mataconis.

On the whole, the conservative argument to libertarians regarding the 2012 election has been dismissive, insulting, and based more on the false assumption that we want to be loyal Republicans.

This is, in a vast majority of the cases I’ve seen or experienced so far, unarguably true – libertarians who complain about Romney and talk about the possibility of voting for Gary Johnson are met with insults and ridicule, and occasionally even outright hostility.

Food for thought. And while you’re digesting that, think about the possibility that, if everyone who thought that “A vote for [$LIBERTARIAN] is a vote for [$LEAST_DESIRED_CANDIDATE]” stopped accepting that fear-mongering self-fulfilling prophecy, maybe the Libertarian candidate would actually have a chance of winning.

Don’t accept the FUD. Vote for the candidate you want, because voting for the lesser of two evils again and again only results in more and more evil.


(h/t PostLibertarian by way of Borepatch)

Leave a comment


  1. I live in terror that either my vote will not matter and the Libertarian doesn’t get enough votes to show up above computational error; or that my vote will matter and it just hands the election to the greater of the two evils.

    I voted for Perot in 92 and those votes DID hand it to Clinton. I feel bad for that.

    Those are my emotional scars to deal with, not yours.

    A related fear of Mr Johnson winning is he’d be unable to do a damn thing with the office because I can’t think of a single congressional candidate from the Libertarian party any place I’ve ever voted. Gov Ventura hit this wall with Minnesota’s congress, the Republicans and Democrats might not get along, but they agreed that “the other” must not prevail.

  2. steve

     /  October 20, 2012

    I’m a die-hard libertarian, i very much doubt you could find too many others who are more libertarian than myself – that being said; i am not a foolish libertarian. This country has been following the wrong path for generations ( we may not be 180 degrees away from true (( God )) sanctioned and approved liberty but i’d deduce that were in the 170’s ). The country must be weened off of socialisim and gradually we must each make a personal choice to stand on our own two feet free of our drug dealers < government control and entitlements ] and they are more prominant than you might think, going with a libertarian president right off the bat will be WORSE than making a heroin addict go cold turkey. In order to better illustrate my point let me say " i'm tough, damn tough – and i know i would survive an extreme reversal – you could very well be just as tough and would have no problem dealing with the inevitable excrusiating pain that would accompany it, but you gotta ask yourself " how many other people are capable of MY strength – more importantly : how many others are NOT capable of it ? I kinda see it as the human aspect of libertarianism.

  3. steve

     /  October 20, 2012

    Oh yeah, i left out my original reason for commenting ( duh ) the most important thing right now is to Put a HALT to the momentun of destruction by getting rid of Obama – gaining momentum in the other direction is going to take a bit of time – Romney is only the first step in achieving the course correction we all desire !

  4. Steve: You make some good points, but I do want to respond to one specifically – “going with a libertarian president right off the bat will be WORSE than making a heroin addict go cold turkey”

    1) The problem we face is that if we don’t go with a libertarian president “right off the bat” it may very well be too late to do any good by the time it’s “safe” to do so.

    2) We also need to get libertarians in other positions of power* in Congress and the courts, or a libertarian president won’t be able to do much at all. A libertarian president in today’s political environment will be fairly significantly limited in what he can do, and forced into significant compromises in order to get anything done. I think that would go a long ways towards mitigating the “cold turkey” factor you mention while still getting us started in the right direction.

    The biggest advantage is that a libertarian president would be far more likely to actually be committed to following through on what has to be done to save the US, and much less likely to “play politics”, than a president from one of the Big Two parties.

    * There’s an inherent contradiction in that prospect, for those that are paying attention, It also happens to be one that makes it a difficult objective to achieve.

  5. steve

     /  October 21, 2012

    Jake, you have also have presented a concept which i had not fully considered, but i must also point out that the more the likelihood that consessions of values and principles would have to be made early in a libertarians presidency, the easier it will become for a libertarian president to follow up with additional actions of concession involving values and principles – eventually dimishing and devalueing the meaning and importance of the word ” libertarian “. Rendering the the term as meaningless as ” republican ” & ” democrat ” and it will only end up adding to an already divisive political atmosphere,and serve to do nothing more than additional confusion to an already conquering agenda.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: