hypocritexposer
Well-known member
Dang, he sounds intelligent...
This is where I part ways with libertarians, true or otherwise. Elections are not about "fighting for a philosophy", they are about deciding who will win that election, and, toghether with the winners of all the other elections, determining whether we move further along the path to authoritarianism or change direction. And in all elections, there are at most two candidates with a theoretical chance of winning, the Democrat and the Republican. At this point, no reasonable person would argue that the Democrat will not try to move us further down the authoritarian path, but when there is a Republican (and 99% of the time there is, the silliness about "RINOs" around every corner notwithstanding) who would try to put us on a different path, then an actual commitment to liberty would dictate a vote for that Republican. Debate and proselytization are wonderful things, and for all but one day every two years, a commitment to liberty more or less demands them. But on that other day, election day, they end: votes are not "messages", they are tangible evidence of the voters true commitments. Not voting, or its equivalent (voting for a candidate who can't win), to the degree that they demonstrate anything, demonstrate a lack of interest in the actual loss of liberty by actual people that victorious Democrats will cause. It's the difference between fighting for a philosophy of liberty and fighting for liberty itself, and it's a huge difference.