What are the other techniques? Sign me up for them. I don't see anything on the horizon that gives me any hope that our friends and neighbors are becoming more aware of the dangers lurking ahead. If anything, they are being led further astray by observing the diminishing difference between the two major political parties. But I'm all for learning from others anything that might help educate others... ultimately jml, we're all on the same side here.

Please jml... I know you didn't just call me a secondhander (LOL). Let's leave the name-calling for the moochers... we're all above that.

"Those of you who are still planning on voting for Republicans because you fear another four years of Obama are accomplishing nothing with your vote. Even if you win, you'll still end up going over the cliff, albeit maybe a bit slower."

Couldn't they then be accomplishing the goal of slowing the rate of descent so that other techniques have more time to work?

Everyone Seems To Be Missing The Point

I don't CARE who we elect as President of the United States.

You are all in a fast-moving car heading toward a cliff. The driver has the gas pedal floored and is doing 90 miles an hour. You are all debating on replacing this driver with one who promises to slow down to 65 miles an hour, without actually changing direction.

If you don't agree with that scenario, then I'm not directing this at you. We can debate the merits of the scenario (or lack thereof) elsewhere.

If you agree with that scenario, and you do not wish to go over the cliff, you have only two choices:


1). Get out of the car (i.e. go Galt, stock up on gold, food, fuel etc. or find another society better suited to your beliefs), or


2). Convince a substantial number of the passengers in the car that you must change direction.


Those of you still in the car who believe strongly in Reason, Liberty and individual rights need to focus your energies on educating your fellow passengers. The person driving matters little if most of the occupants are unaware of where they are heading and of what is in store for them up ahead. No matter who is driving, they will urge him to continue moving forward in the same direction. If he refuses, they will replace him with someone who will abide by their wishes.

Of all potential contenders, I believe Ron Paul best reflects what I would consider the best choice of a driver... but... even if he had somehow managed to do the impossible... even if he was elected as our new "driver"... very little would change.

Yes... for about 4 years he might slow the car down and buy more time... he might have even managed to turn the car to the right or left a bit soas to approach the cliff at a bit of an angle... but with most of the occupants in the car still believing there was no cliff on the horizon, even Dr. Paul would have found it impossible to turn us around... his best intentions notwithstanding.

The truth is... the ONLY way to save our country is to educate a large number of our friends and neighbors on the evils of collectivism. A change in leadership will NOT do it. It would, in fact be counter-productive. Imagine a scenario with a Ron Paul-like President who was still ham-strung by a collectivist populace. He would try to reduce government spending and fail... and when the economy inevitibly continues to plunge... his Libertarian policies would be blamed.

How do we educate our friends and neighbors? We can't and shouldn't try to force-feed them. They must become curious enough about the subject to inquire of their own accord. One way to increase their curiosity is let them see a dramatic increase in the results of a third-party in a federal election.

At that point, many would become interested in learning about this third party... and SOME would agree with the basic Libertarian platform.

Remember... the Libertarian Party is comprised of many individuals with diverse political and philosophical beliefs... just like the Dems and Repubs. No group of individuals will ever agree on everything. The Libertarian Party, I believe, comes closer than any other political party in
espousing the beliefs of Objectivism. Ayn Rand disliked the Libertarianism of the past because many in the Libertarian movement at the time were actually Anarchists. That is no longer the case. While there are certainly some who still carry that mantle, the vast majority of Libertarians today are for LIMITED federal government... NOT for eliminating the federal government.

Those of you who are still planning on voting for Republicans because you fear another four years of Obama are accomplishing nothing with your vote. Even if you win, you'll still end up going over the
cliff, albeit maybe a bit slower. Most of you will be voting for someone who you don't believe in, just because you dislike the alternative even more.

I, for one, do not care to compromise my principles for the expedient. I am already "out-of-the-car".

Good luck to the rest of you.

I think if we're hanging around the Gulch discussing voting for a Libertarian candidate for President, it is only fair to point that Ayn Rand diverged from libertarianism in many ways. The two that top my list.
1) Intellectual Property i.e. patents. The ONLY right called out specifically in the Constitution. Libertarians (Cato-before the transfer of power) and Reason magazine show an appalling lack of understanding regarding patents and the Economy. Rand was staunchly for strong patent rights.
2) Foreign Policy. She was strongly for intervention in the world with regards to terrorists and terrorist acts against the US.
For me, these are two very good reasons to not want a Libertarian in the highest Office in the land. In fairness, Ron Paul does not side with the party on patents.

One vote is one vote. No more, no less. (A vote for Johnson, as much as I like him, is a vote for Obama. I couldn't sleep knowing I voted for Obama....but to each his own.)

It's secondhanded to compare votes and say "my vote will count more than yours." Vote the way you think is best (or don't vote at all), but don't compare whether my, your, or anyone else's vote counts more.

Greetings Shrugger,
I have no right to tell anyone how to vote, but I would like to point out that your premise depends upon a lot of IFs. I respect anyone who adheres to principle, but be aware of the pragmatic consequences! For a third party candidate to be recognized by the MSM and be viable they will have to garner a third of the vote. We need a third party option, but it must be implemented and gaining enough traction to be viable long before election season. When a third party candidate gains sufficient traction and support to force the debate committee to include that third party candidate in the final debates then we will have viable options besides the Republicrats.
Respectfully,
O.A.

I disagree. We have been attempting to get 10% of the vote for years. It has not worked. Why do you think it will this time? Not only that if we did get 10% or 20% it would be one of the worst outcomes that could occur.

Lets say we could regularly get 10% of the vote for Libertarian, lets even say 20%. Where is that vote going to come from? The hyper progressive democrats, or the less progressive republicans? What does that accomplish? It guarantees we get the most progressive big government guys in every federal office.

The media would simply play up how heartless we are and how we do not care about the people. They would have evidence in the landslide victories of the Communists/Marxist/Fascist candidates. All the media would take note of is the grand victories for the socialist way of life and how capitalism dose not work.

This is an unreasoned solution to the problem we face. If you vote for the libertarian you are not throwing your vote away, you are casting a vote for the worst scenario that could occur, unless the libertarian could actually win.