I couldn't find Pierre Lemieux's essay, so my comments are based on what you say about it.
Since Lemieux is a Canadian, he may be insufficiently familiar with US political terms. Apparently, he understands a swing state to be one in which the vote totals were unusually close in an election just concluded. In the US, a swing state (aka battleground or purple state) is commonly understood to be an unusually competitive one that's swung between voting for different parties during several recent elections and could easily be won by either major party. Most states are dominated by one party the great majority of whose voters consistently vote either Republican or Democrat and are therefore considered red or blue safe states, respectively.
Lemieux is wrong about political “distance.” Perhaps the best way for a libertarian to determine whether the Republican or the Democratic presidential nominee is closer to being a libertarian is to take the political quiz at iSideWith.com, said to be the world's most popular voting guide, and compare one's answers to those of the two candidates. My test results show that the candidate with whom I most strongly agree is Chase Oliver, the Libertarian. I agree with Donald Trump on 64% of the issues and with Kamala Harris on 26%. Before Harris moderated some of her policies, we agreed on 23%. Before Joe Biden dropped out, I agreed with him on 24%. (Perhaps Biden's stated answers were those of someone else running his administration, but answers attributed to Harris are consistent with her Senate record.) Of all presidential candidates I agreed less with the Democrats than with anyone else—including the Socialist Party candidate! My test results show that in general, I agree with Republicans on 76% of the issues and Democrats on only 23%--less than I agree with Harris, which seems odd because FiveThirtyEight previously picked her as the most “liberal” (i.e., progressive) member of the Senate, with Bernie Sanders in second place.
On Bryan Caplan's Libertarian Purity test, I scored 160 (the highest possible score), which indicates I'm an unusually consistent individualist libertarian. The extent to which I disagree with Harris and Biden (not to mention the Democratic Party) indicates they're authoritarian collectivists. That places them in the same category as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, the Kims, Castro, Maduro, Hitler, and Mussolini—whose ideologies are just more extreme versions of authoritarian collectivism. The most extreme version of authoritarian collectivism is totalitarian communism, the exact opposite of anarcho-capitalism. Ironically, Democrats call Trump an authoritarian. On the third night of the recent Democratic Convention, the theme was freedom. Apparently, the Democrats lack self-awareness or are dishonest.
Lemieux is right about this: One person's vote is extremely unlikely to be decisive. That's one reason not to vote; for an individual, it's a waste of time and effort. Some anarchists object to voting on the moral ground that it allegedly recognizes the legitimacy of the state. Even if noticed, their absence of votes is more likely to be taken as evidence of apathy than of lack of consent to be governed. Resistance can better be expressed by voting “none of the above” where that's an option or by submitting a ballot with all names crossed out together with the message “I don't consent to be governed.” However, if no libertarians vote for candidates, politicians can be expected to become increasingly authoritarian in response to the perceived preferences of voters. Also, votes for a Libertarian are needed to save the party's ballot status.
Lemieux may be right that following your voting strategy wouldn't promote liberty. If libertarians in swing states vote for Trump, that would increase his chances of winning. But you seem to assume that his victory would result in more liberty than a Democratic win. That seems more likely in the short run than in the long run. As with weather forecasts, there are too many variables to justify confidently predicting the long-term consequences of an election outcome. As Casey Stengel said, “Never make predictions, especially about the future.” So the following won't be a prediction, just possible scenarios that cast doubt on the desirability of a Trump win.
Apparently, both Trump and Harris tried to pick ideologically compatible VPs. If Trump wins, Vance will be the most likely Republican presidential nominee in 2028. By that time, Trump's populist nationalism will probably have completely replaced the more liberty-oriented Reaganism as the dominant Republican ideology. If Vance wins in 2028, he might serve for eight years, during which time he could continue his predecessor's big-spending, tax-cutting policies, which will add to the rapidly growing national debt. That debt is currently over $35 trillion, which doesn't count unfunded federal liabilities and state and local debt. If present trends continue a fiscal crisis is inevitable. Whichever party is in power at that time may lose credibility and support for generations.
It would be more conducive to liberty if that were the Democratic Party--which would be more likely if the Harris/Walz team wins in November. The consequences of a Democratic presidential victory will depend on who controls Congress. According to the betting odds shown at electionbettingodds.com, said to more accurately predict election results than either polls or pundits, Democrats are heavily favored to gain the House, but Republicans will likely win the Senate (by a margin of 51 to 49 seats) and check Democratic power. However, if Democrats control both houses, the Federal Government may ultimately face bankruptcy. In that case, Republicans may win the next election by a landslide and initiate a Milei-style bloodless revolution. That would seem to be a more liberty-promoting long-term outcome than could be expected from a Trump win this November.
Furthermore, If Trump loses this year, Republicans may abandon Trumpism and return to small-government conservatism perhaps spearheaded by Vivek Ramaswamy, which would also more greatly promote liberty in the long run than another Trump presidency and a continuation of populist nationalism.
Above I said I'm an unusually consistent libertarian. I'm almost certainly not 100% consistent (nor is anyone else) because there's an indefinitely large number of political issues and it's almost impossible to avoid making any factual or logical errors. I wish all libertarians who consider themselves individualist anarchists, voluntaryists, or anarcho-capitalists would take the iSideWith test and compare their answers. I doubt that any two would agree on all the issues. However, by arguing them, they might discover the right answers.
Hi Walter! "Myriad of other issues" treats myriad like it's a noun. That is very popular, but my favorite question regarding it is how we can surpass the numerousness of "several" with a single word. We would not say "several of other issues" because several, like myriad, is an adjective for plural nouns. The best way to hyperbolize "several" is with "myriad", and whenever you use "myriad", it comes out more grammatically correct if you try "several" first to make sure you're using it correctly. There are several people who - no, wait, there are myriad people - who use "myriad" as a noun (as if it meant "millions"). Since I enjoy travelling along the dimension of intensity, I like to point out that "myriad" is the more intense version of "several" so others can benefit from the handy mnemonic.
Funny, I was just thinking of you and suddenly, your name popped up the screen!
Great commentary. It is very difficult for too many to comprehend that you can’t always get EVERYTHING you want. Sadly, now the battle cry demand of every party. My way all the way or hit the highway ( without a combustion engine). We’re left with a tripartite system of restrictive hyper ideologues left and right and an embedded globalist UniParty. And it’s 75 % corrupt, captured, coerced, cowardly, craven and 25% clueless. Which makes them all complicit. The no longer remotely recognizable Dimms, however, are more avaricious, driven, savvy, organized and energetic. Their lust for power, insatiable, and they will stop at nothing, ergo, they are deadly.
The Republicans are too recognizable,singularly talented in pursuing defeat, out of touch with shifting culture and are only energized by pursuing issues largely unpopular and guaranteeing sweeping losses. Trump was so refreshing and energizing. And thwarted every step of the way . He threatened the powers that be. Those who’ve been selling us out for so long. To war profiteers, kleptocorporate multinational monopolist control freaks,lobbyists foreign and domestic, Pharma, big tech,”philanthropists” China,Islamofascists, UN, WHO, WEF.. to the highest bidders while enacting the most detrimental policies. And no so insidious, ignominious and brazen, we no longer even feign having democratically held elections.Trump may be the only elected by the People President since Nixon. I imagine he was elected vs installed given the grief he sustained. JFK was more or less anointed, but went rogue. Had to get rid of him. He didn’t dig war, appealed to too many non- ideologues and was getting to close to taking down the deep state.
But the UniParty… oh, but they are something else. They feign ideological differences D and R , but it’s a ruse. They love war, corporatism,loathe “ We The (little )People” and care solely about their pockets, prestige and the grift. They will gut their own and anything/anybody that challenges their status quo. If it means ending America- oh well- they can blame Trump.
I watched the Libertarian Convention and the coronation of possibly the worst candidate to date. Combined with the despicable treatment of Trump and RFK Jr., the guy whose name I can’t recall giving a speech while fucked up from THC gummies… Can’t say I want their brand either.
I like the idea of a Coalition Admin. Always have. Not one made up of corrupt insiders, but of people who have experienced or.is knowledgable of the rot that has metastasized to what may be the point of no return.
God willing, they will add more RFKs, Tulsis, Elons, Viveks and weed out the rest of the losers. Purge , rebrand and remake from the bottom up to the top down. Pragmatic, insightful , able, curious and unrestrained by divisive, extreme ideological requisites or narrow minded idiocy. If more people were given a voice, much better ideas would become legislation and the rest would become obsolete.Common sense might actually become the norm.But remaining so idealistic that the slightest accomodation is precluded isn’t “!integrity”, it’s unrealistic stupidity. I would have been divorced a week after my marriage with that mentality.
Dave: Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Best regards, Walter
I couldn't find Pierre Lemieux's essay, so my comments are based on what you say about it.
Since Lemieux is a Canadian, he may be insufficiently familiar with US political terms. Apparently, he understands a swing state to be one in which the vote totals were unusually close in an election just concluded. In the US, a swing state (aka battleground or purple state) is commonly understood to be an unusually competitive one that's swung between voting for different parties during several recent elections and could easily be won by either major party. Most states are dominated by one party the great majority of whose voters consistently vote either Republican or Democrat and are therefore considered red or blue safe states, respectively.
Lemieux is wrong about political “distance.” Perhaps the best way for a libertarian to determine whether the Republican or the Democratic presidential nominee is closer to being a libertarian is to take the political quiz at iSideWith.com, said to be the world's most popular voting guide, and compare one's answers to those of the two candidates. My test results show that the candidate with whom I most strongly agree is Chase Oliver, the Libertarian. I agree with Donald Trump on 64% of the issues and with Kamala Harris on 26%. Before Harris moderated some of her policies, we agreed on 23%. Before Joe Biden dropped out, I agreed with him on 24%. (Perhaps Biden's stated answers were those of someone else running his administration, but answers attributed to Harris are consistent with her Senate record.) Of all presidential candidates I agreed less with the Democrats than with anyone else—including the Socialist Party candidate! My test results show that in general, I agree with Republicans on 76% of the issues and Democrats on only 23%--less than I agree with Harris, which seems odd because FiveThirtyEight previously picked her as the most “liberal” (i.e., progressive) member of the Senate, with Bernie Sanders in second place.
On Bryan Caplan's Libertarian Purity test, I scored 160 (the highest possible score), which indicates I'm an unusually consistent individualist libertarian. The extent to which I disagree with Harris and Biden (not to mention the Democratic Party) indicates they're authoritarian collectivists. That places them in the same category as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, the Kims, Castro, Maduro, Hitler, and Mussolini—whose ideologies are just more extreme versions of authoritarian collectivism. The most extreme version of authoritarian collectivism is totalitarian communism, the exact opposite of anarcho-capitalism. Ironically, Democrats call Trump an authoritarian. On the third night of the recent Democratic Convention, the theme was freedom. Apparently, the Democrats lack self-awareness or are dishonest.
Lemieux is right about this: One person's vote is extremely unlikely to be decisive. That's one reason not to vote; for an individual, it's a waste of time and effort. Some anarchists object to voting on the moral ground that it allegedly recognizes the legitimacy of the state. Even if noticed, their absence of votes is more likely to be taken as evidence of apathy than of lack of consent to be governed. Resistance can better be expressed by voting “none of the above” where that's an option or by submitting a ballot with all names crossed out together with the message “I don't consent to be governed.” However, if no libertarians vote for candidates, politicians can be expected to become increasingly authoritarian in response to the perceived preferences of voters. Also, votes for a Libertarian are needed to save the party's ballot status.
Lemieux may be right that following your voting strategy wouldn't promote liberty. If libertarians in swing states vote for Trump, that would increase his chances of winning. But you seem to assume that his victory would result in more liberty than a Democratic win. That seems more likely in the short run than in the long run. As with weather forecasts, there are too many variables to justify confidently predicting the long-term consequences of an election outcome. As Casey Stengel said, “Never make predictions, especially about the future.” So the following won't be a prediction, just possible scenarios that cast doubt on the desirability of a Trump win.
Apparently, both Trump and Harris tried to pick ideologically compatible VPs. If Trump wins, Vance will be the most likely Republican presidential nominee in 2028. By that time, Trump's populist nationalism will probably have completely replaced the more liberty-oriented Reaganism as the dominant Republican ideology. If Vance wins in 2028, he might serve for eight years, during which time he could continue his predecessor's big-spending, tax-cutting policies, which will add to the rapidly growing national debt. That debt is currently over $35 trillion, which doesn't count unfunded federal liabilities and state and local debt. If present trends continue a fiscal crisis is inevitable. Whichever party is in power at that time may lose credibility and support for generations.
It would be more conducive to liberty if that were the Democratic Party--which would be more likely if the Harris/Walz team wins in November. The consequences of a Democratic presidential victory will depend on who controls Congress. According to the betting odds shown at electionbettingodds.com, said to more accurately predict election results than either polls or pundits, Democrats are heavily favored to gain the House, but Republicans will likely win the Senate (by a margin of 51 to 49 seats) and check Democratic power. However, if Democrats control both houses, the Federal Government may ultimately face bankruptcy. In that case, Republicans may win the next election by a landslide and initiate a Milei-style bloodless revolution. That would seem to be a more liberty-promoting long-term outcome than could be expected from a Trump win this November.
Furthermore, If Trump loses this year, Republicans may abandon Trumpism and return to small-government conservatism perhaps spearheaded by Vivek Ramaswamy, which would also more greatly promote liberty in the long run than another Trump presidency and a continuation of populist nationalism.
Above I said I'm an unusually consistent libertarian. I'm almost certainly not 100% consistent (nor is anyone else) because there's an indefinitely large number of political issues and it's almost impossible to avoid making any factual or logical errors. I wish all libertarians who consider themselves individualist anarchists, voluntaryists, or anarcho-capitalists would take the iSideWith test and compare their answers. I doubt that any two would agree on all the issues. However, by arguing them, they might discover the right answers.
Hi Walter! "Myriad of other issues" treats myriad like it's a noun. That is very popular, but my favorite question regarding it is how we can surpass the numerousness of "several" with a single word. We would not say "several of other issues" because several, like myriad, is an adjective for plural nouns. The best way to hyperbolize "several" is with "myriad", and whenever you use "myriad", it comes out more grammatically correct if you try "several" first to make sure you're using it correctly. There are several people who - no, wait, there are myriad people - who use "myriad" as a noun (as if it meant "millions"). Since I enjoy travelling along the dimension of intensity, I like to point out that "myriad" is the more intense version of "several" so others can benefit from the handy mnemonic.
Hi Walter,
Funny, I was just thinking of you and suddenly, your name popped up the screen!
Great commentary. It is very difficult for too many to comprehend that you can’t always get EVERYTHING you want. Sadly, now the battle cry demand of every party. My way all the way or hit the highway ( without a combustion engine). We’re left with a tripartite system of restrictive hyper ideologues left and right and an embedded globalist UniParty. And it’s 75 % corrupt, captured, coerced, cowardly, craven and 25% clueless. Which makes them all complicit. The no longer remotely recognizable Dimms, however, are more avaricious, driven, savvy, organized and energetic. Their lust for power, insatiable, and they will stop at nothing, ergo, they are deadly.
The Republicans are too recognizable,singularly talented in pursuing defeat, out of touch with shifting culture and are only energized by pursuing issues largely unpopular and guaranteeing sweeping losses. Trump was so refreshing and energizing. And thwarted every step of the way . He threatened the powers that be. Those who’ve been selling us out for so long. To war profiteers, kleptocorporate multinational monopolist control freaks,lobbyists foreign and domestic, Pharma, big tech,”philanthropists” China,Islamofascists, UN, WHO, WEF.. to the highest bidders while enacting the most detrimental policies. And no so insidious, ignominious and brazen, we no longer even feign having democratically held elections.Trump may be the only elected by the People President since Nixon. I imagine he was elected vs installed given the grief he sustained. JFK was more or less anointed, but went rogue. Had to get rid of him. He didn’t dig war, appealed to too many non- ideologues and was getting to close to taking down the deep state.
But the UniParty… oh, but they are something else. They feign ideological differences D and R , but it’s a ruse. They love war, corporatism,loathe “ We The (little )People” and care solely about their pockets, prestige and the grift. They will gut their own and anything/anybody that challenges their status quo. If it means ending America- oh well- they can blame Trump.
I watched the Libertarian Convention and the coronation of possibly the worst candidate to date. Combined with the despicable treatment of Trump and RFK Jr., the guy whose name I can’t recall giving a speech while fucked up from THC gummies… Can’t say I want their brand either.
I like the idea of a Coalition Admin. Always have. Not one made up of corrupt insiders, but of people who have experienced or.is knowledgable of the rot that has metastasized to what may be the point of no return.
God willing, they will add more RFKs, Tulsis, Elons, Viveks and weed out the rest of the losers. Purge , rebrand and remake from the bottom up to the top down. Pragmatic, insightful , able, curious and unrestrained by divisive, extreme ideological requisites or narrow minded idiocy. If more people were given a voice, much better ideas would become legislation and the rest would become obsolete.Common sense might actually become the norm.But remaining so idealistic that the slightest accomodation is precluded isn’t “!integrity”, it’s unrealistic stupidity. I would have been divorced a week after my marriage with that mentality.
Keep speaking out! Love you