Oddbean new post about login | logout The "I'm above it because I hate both sides" argument is a bit tired. There are legitimate stakes here. Kamala Harris wants to pack the Supreme Court. This action will effectively destroy the separation of powers and turn Congress and the Court into the equivalent of the Imperial Roman Senate. This is an actual thing that could happen. She is extremely radical and will pursue the most anti-freedom policy agenda of any candidate except maybe Bernie Sanders. Trump can be a fool and this is still a true statement. I will happily take the narcissistic fool over the power-hungry ideologue any day of the week.
Both would pursue policies ruinous to the country, the question is who would ruin it faster?
That's still a choice. Pretending that it isn't doesn't do anyone any favors. Having more time to alter the course is not something you can just write off. Libertarians have a value set that is extremely specific and this makes the philosophy extremely sensitive to being opposed to even the most dogmatic of policy agendas. This is how you get essentially blood feuds between libertarian factions - Rothbard's legacy vs Rand's legacy, Mises Institute vs CATO, etc - over the variants of libertarianism. The typical approach for libertarians faced with this sensitivity is to opt-out of the broader conversation entirely as if this puts us above it. "Ah, they both suck." isn't an enlightened perspective. It's how everyone except the personality cultists already feel. It's how everyone has felt in American politics since forever. The whole country is built upon resolving the conflicts of mutuality opposing factions, by overcoming everyone's "you-all-suck" impulse. There is almost certainly plenty for libertarians to lose with the election of the kind of progressive fascism Harris represents. Trump doesn't have to support getting rid of the income tax to offer a meaningful distinction against Harris' radicalism. I would absolutely take the ravings of a narcissist over a power-hungry ideologue. Again, even if you think the ultimate vision of trump is something you wouldn't accept, there is room to realize that participation is still in your best interest. Bitcoin isn't going to save you when they serve search warrants on your home and seize your cold stores. When they do forensics on the blockchain to figure out which wallets are yours, which bitcoins are yours, and blacklist them. No, there is plenty to lose if the momentum dies in the progressive direction.
Yet a president having the power of a king isn’t concerning. Just be honest about being a Trump supporter and cut the act. People preach freedom but then always reveal their true selves when it aligns with their interests
Wtf are you talking about? Where did I say I was okay with the growth in state power? Oh, Kamala Harris would be really bad for the country, but let me make sure I say the required rites about how much I loathe the government too. Better make sure I signal to everyone like a damn robot about how much I don't like the size of the government. Trump would be bad too and yadda yadda and okay, now can we move on the actual conversation and stop acting like the only conversation we're allowed to have is how much it sucks to be anti-statist in a statist world? I've been in and around libertarian organizing for much of my adult life and I swear that we're some of the worst culprits of NPC behavior. It's like, unless we recite the lines in the correct way, then we're elidong a secret desire to dominate others! We're actually secret statists because I didn't say the Constitution was actually a victory for the statists! How dare I make a point about contemporary political realities without first reciting The Ethics of Liberty verbatim!