It's only moral if, by your actions, you're not prolonging evil, because that creates a greater evil.

For instance, let's say candidate A is "1 Evil Unit", and B is ".8 Evil Units". Sure, it's easy to say "Well, I saved us 4 years at .2 EU, for .8EU savings woot!"

But if by doing so you prevent candidate C, down the road, who is "0.4 Evil Units" from being viable, you will create a longer-term harm than you are forestalling.

Years ago, when I first heard him, I was impressed. He seems to have lost his grounding in true libertarian principles: "Free minds and free markets."

Back-peddling is part of negotiation. It's strategy.

IF he gets in, there will be a wall, there will be tariffs because his ego won't let him fail.

Forestalling a greater evil is moral and rational. Taking a putrid medicine may be distasteful (!) but if it prevents or slows the growth of the collectivist tumor, there's a benefit. My choice would be Rand Paul. But that is not a "medicine" the rigged system has provided.

John,

I'll try to go easy, but I had to respond.

Your acquaintances may be consistent in their rationality, but they also appear to suffer from gender dysphoria, a mental illness. This is a serious enough issue that I would even have to question their rationality.

I have listened to him several times and I am just not impressed by him. He comes off as a scatter-brained duffess. Just my opinion.

That's why Trump has back-peddled on everything he's said.
You're not getting a wall. No one will tossed over it.
There will be no tariffs.
Trump will be ineffective

You're right that he has no chance. That's besides the point.

You're fighting a short game and ignoring the long one. "Yayyyyy" maybe for the next four years there's some fractional difference in evil. But by ignoring the objectively better third option you've made it harder for them, in the next election to make change.

In other words, you can't expect the non-evil to ever have a chance, if you're not willing to commit to the non-evil cause, so that other folks start to see non-evil as viable.

Until people stop voting for the lesser of two evils, aiming at short term concerns, there will be no end to evil.

And thus - you are part of the problem, not the solution.

If this race goes into the House of Representatives, you'll probably get Trump anyway. The Representatives will never vote for any candidate other than the Republican and Democratic Party nominees. Count on it.

More to the point: to throw a contest usually means to lose it deliberately. Lose this election, lose the country. It's that simple. And last I heard, Ragnar Danneskjöld was a privateer captain, then a rescuer. He did not attempt an armed overthrow of the looters' state. And even at that, I think you underestimate the spite of the looters' side.

Blunt is appreciated.

Johnson has no chance.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is moral and rational because it might prevent the greater evil and greater attendant consequences.

but libertarians are SUPPOSED to be for freedom. they are the ones YOU were promoting, at least earlier. Trump is a way to keep Hillary OUT and maybe slow down socialism by a bit.

now, I know people who are headed for gender change
who are more consistent in their rationality, so please
go easy there. -- j
.

Did you even read the article accompanying my reply? The purpose was to get enough people to vote for Gary Johnson (registered in every State BTW) to throw the race, defeating both major candidates and sending the election to the House of Representatives.

A large part of the country voted for Bernie Sanders and a significant portion of the Democratic Party is incensed that the fix was in for Hillary. They are #NeverHillary. Another large portion are #NeverTrump. Put together, I think there is a substantial enough voting bloc to throw the election.

History shows cycles, rises and falls of both good and bad. Too bad we are living in a period of the fall (over the cliff) but I take some (less and less, per day) solace in the Chinese curse/blessing: "May you live in interesting times."

Then - bluntly - you are part of the problem.

That would be refreshing.

Climate change is a hoax and not because human action is unrelated to rising temperatures or weather changes. It is a hoax because the interest of the government is not to solve any possible issue, but to tax non-compliance and thus increase available funds. Global warming from a practical perspective does not involve projects to end it, but rather to "mitigate" i.e. the taxpayer gets a few big levies and the government keeps the pocket change for other "related" programs. Now the Libertarian candidate pushes the same story. Unbelievable.

I'm not willing to see Johnson gain ground because, in the end, it just might take votes away from the better of the two evils.

Paraphrasing Confucius (or someone like that), "When someone offers you something of value, questionable or not, do you reject it because it comes in a vile package?"

You mean he was doing as you describe.
The polling numbers have so far been based on dislike of the evil twins, and Johnson's silence on issues of importance to libertarians, but less important to other prospective voters. This latest LINO cave in to the propaganda of Gore, Obama, and Clinton will lose more than it gains in the polls. Johnson is done.
Trump and Hillary have polling numbers, too. How did they get them? If you get people in your camp by purposely lying to them and sacrificing your principles you have failed. Not that Trump or Hillary actually have ethical principles.
Some things are unacceptable.
Johnson has crossed the line into statist looting. It is the dumbest thing he has done so far.
I won't be surprised if the voters react irrationally, but I won't consent or condone Johnson's unethical (or statist) approach any longer.

Blaming Libertarians for inconsistency and voting for Trump. ROTFL!

But see here's the thing: he is doing what I describe. He's getting polling numbers the likes of which the LP has never seen. He might actually conceivably end up in the debates they're so good. This is literally unheard of territory for the LP.

If it takes an imperfect LP candidate to break down that wall so that future, better, LP candidates can just walk on through? I'll take that any day and twice on sundays.

That you see one of them as functionally better or worse than the other is, to me, emblematic of the problem.

They're both equally vile, just in different ways.

I was willing to tolerate his not defending the constitution, his insulting small business, his complimenting the Clintons, his choosing a statist for a running mate, and other things that I disagree with, in order to do what you noted. It isn't dogma, it's looting.
I agreed with your premise until Johnson advocated a carbon tax. Misleading the public on an issue that is so anti- free market means that Johnson is not doing what you describe. Johnson could have done so, but he crossed a line into lying, looting, and destroying the free market by advocating a carbon tax that feeds the evil monster state by stealing from the productive, just as the income tax does. He has sided with Clinton, Gore, and Obama, and against liberty. Unforgiveable.

I agree that without a scenario like Jericho, "reboots" wont happen. They would be stopped by the NSA's powers. The zen place would have to be isolated as in Galts Gulch (unlikely), or heavily defended and totally self sufficient. The hatred against it by the establishment would make whats happening to Trump look like a circus.

Slow correction is possible, but could take 50-100 years to really happen.