Comments on: A Ridiculous Idea

By: Roger and Lynn Bloxham

Roger and Lynn Bloxham — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:07:23 +0000

Both Johnson and Gray have their weaknesses. Over twenty years ago, my husband was chair of Orange County LP and invited him to speak on the Drug War. He did a great job to an unexpectedly large audience. He also was gracious in answering questions afterwards for quite a receptive audience of which many originally attended in a combative mood. At least formerly die hard Drug Warriors came away with questions and a more receptive frame of mind. Nevertheless, Roger commented at the time Gray was not a libertarian. The promising side is that they both, on many issues, are not only expounding well, but in private conversations are actually still listening and learning. The sad thing is that they are not “there yet” but they have a forum. So our personal decision for years has been that politics is merely an educational effort ; though not perfect they are at least opening a door, just as Ron Paul did to many.
. It is rather like our encouragement of the hard working folks at NORML. Through the years I have seen their efforts bear some fruit though they also do not hold a complete position. It is going to take a lot of effort of many different people all along the spectrum to even make a modicum of difference. As my husband,Roger Bloxham, cannot see to type, these are also his thoughts on this continuing dilemma of giving support to the LP. Definitely not a perfect answer!

By: Joel Poindexter

Joel Poindexter — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 03:03:05 +0000

I don’t think libertarians ought to vote for Johnson because I don’t see him as a libertarian. He’s a fair taxer, he’s not for legalizing all drugs, and his economic views are, well, missing.

Worst of all, his foreign policy seems to be based on pragmatism, on whether “we can afford it.” He doesn’t oppose empire on moral grounds, for him it’s all about whether the tax payers can afford to pay the bills. This shows either a fundamental misunderstanding of the non-aggression principle, or a rejection of it.

By: Joel Poindexter

Joel Poindexter — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 02:57:30 +0000

Ian, Tom Woods has made that argument a number of times, and I think it holds a lot of weight. In this case however, I don’t see it as a clear case of lessening our burden; neither major candidate represents any significant difference, and the others have no chance. I know if everyone voted for third party candidates that wouldn’t be the case, but reality is what it is.

Second, we’re voting for someone to preside over the system, not on the legitimacy of the system itself. And since I reject the state, voting for someone to rule over me and others doesn’t sit well. As Lynn mentioned above, power corrupts, so what guarantee do we have that Gary Johnsin or someone else won’t be either powerless to stop the machine already in motion, or become just as corrupted by it?

By: Ron

Ron — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 22:29:28 +0000

So we SHOULDN’T vote for Gary Johnson?

Right … So libertarians should do all they can to amass *even less* of the 1% of the vote that they usually receive.

And that helps us how, exactly?

By: Lynn Atherton Bloxham

Lynn Atherton Bloxham — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 19:32:36 +0000

Ian, I have struggled with this and also the the fear that even a libertarian might use force once in office. One excuse I have used on myself to justify supporting the friends I have who are in the LP is that the LP is a “gateway drug” to a deeper understanding to the economic and philosophical ideas of the overall liberty ideology, as so many people first search politically when they began to suspect something is not quite right But then that is almost a “end justifies the means” so it is a dilemma.

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:42:10 +0000

Really good piece Joel.
I have a question though regarding the immorality of voting as it is a form of coercion. In a lecture on the Mises Institute (i can’t remember which, I listen to too many), the speaker combated this argument by proposing the question “Is it immoral for a slave to lessen his burden?” I’m not enthused to vote, even though I plan to vote for Johnson, but I see it from that perspective; Johnson is in every way less coercive than the current system, so voting for him is in effect lessening my own slavery without violating the rights of others.
My eyes have been opened to the logical absurdity of the state (or any overarching authority) over sovereign peoples, and I am also aware that my above argument is equivalent to the Lesser-of-Two-Evils one employed by the right, but I’d like your imput!

Thanks,
Ian