The United States actually voted for 'Nobody' in 2012

In *2011* the *voting age population* of the USA was 237,657,645. It's obviously even more in 2012.

61,173,739 voted for Obama.
58,167,260 voted for Romney.

That is 119,340,999 out of a total voting age population of 237,657,645.

That means that *more than half* of the population voted for *NOBODY*. Approximately 24.4% of the voting age population voted for Romney. Approximately 25.7% of the voting age population voted for Obama. Literally, about twice as many people of voting age voted for nobody as *either* Obama or Romney.

What does this mean? It means that *over half* of the voting age public (understandably) believes that it is not worth their time to vote for the options presented, or vote for the system at all. Some (rightly) believe that it is simply one big sick joke.

In any case, ultimately this means that over half of the voting population has completely rejected 'our' system of governance, or at the very least the system that determines who will run the system of governance.

It is particularly disturbing that only about *one fifth* (those of the total population who voted for Obama) of the population has decided how to dictate the lives of the entire population (312 million people).

I'm not a fan of democracy - as it is the tyranny of the majority over the minority. However, *this isn't even democracy* - this is the tyranny of the minority over the majority, backed by the aggression of the State.

It is a sick farce.

This post is a COPYPASTA that was originally published under my old pseudonym, 'Sentient Void', at the Ron Paul Forums Blog, on 11-20-2012.

How should we Vote if Ron Paul is *NOT* the GOP Nominee???

We need to have a serious discussion about how we should vote if Ron Paul is not the nominee for the GOP. Between a likely outcome of either Obama or Romney, which is a more preferable outcome, and why?

Before I state who I'd rather have win - give me a second while I change my clothes...

/puts on flame retardant suit

Okay. That's better. Between Romney and Obama, I would rather have Obama win. Now, before I am labeled as a traitor and a hypocrite - hear me out.

There are at least five good reasons off the top of my head as to why we should all prefer this.

1) A divided, gridlocked government is certainly preferable to one that is mostly if not totally controlled by the Statist, militarist, hypocrite GOP (I think Republicans will probably end up taking control of the Senate as well as holding the House, or at least holding the House).

2) When the proverbial $#@! really starts to hit the fan under Obama - at least the dems and everyone can't say, 'See?! See what happens when you elect and institute free market policies?!'. Clearly, none of the policies would be free market ones, but we all know a Romney presidency will be painted that way, regardless.

3) The GOP establishment deserves the punishment of not having our votes and thus losing to Obama (while I wouldn't vote for Obama, I certainly won't vote for Romney) due to their heavy use of dirty tricks and treatment of Paul and Paul supporters... This will set in the reality that they need us, and that without us (independents, libertarians, constitutionalists, and old-school conservatives), they will rarely, if ever, win the presidency again. See my post 'Ron Paul Supporters are a Scourge on the Republican Party' for more context.

4) If the GOP wins, they will be encouraged to continue to do what they've always done.

5) It would make for good entertainment just to see the GOP establishment go apoplectic over a second term for Obama.

Remember, take this all within the context of Obama and Romney really being only inches apart. It's not like one is that much different than the other, anyways. Obama's rhetoric may be socialistic - but his policies are corporatist. Romney's rhetoric may be much more free-market, but his policies would be corporatist as well. They both support the drug war. They both support imperialism, militarism, war, and have talked about pre-emptive war with Iran and elsewhere (Syria, etc). They both ultimately support big, bloated federal government. They both support the IRS and income taxes. Neither has any plan for significant cuts, anywhere. They both support domestic welfarism and foreign aid. They both support the IMF and the UN. They both support bailouts. They are both owned and funded by the largest players on Wall Street and special interests. They both support the Federal Reserve. They both support massive deficit spending. They both support Keynesianism. They both support the Patriot Act, SOPA, and NDAA - deplorable violations of civil liberty.

NEITHER offer any real change and are mere inches apart on substantive issues.

Understand, I'm *not* saying we should vote for Obama. Absolutely not. What I'm implying is that you might think supporting and voting for Romney *over* Obama out of a more or less greater fear of Obama sounds like the best alternative between two crummy outcomes. Please understand that this sentiment is short-sighted and unproductive (and potentially destructive if the establishment GOP takes control of the executive *and* legislative branch - think of the Bush terms). This is exactly what the GOP establishment wants, and is far too often what it gets. Resist the urge. Try to look at the big picture and think of the long run.

So no, don't vote for Obama, but also don't vote for Romney. Vote third party (preferably Libertarian, since Gary Johnson, the LP candidate, will be on the ballot of all 50 states, and the LP is the largest third party in the US). Accept the very strong probability that Obama would win as a result of us voting this way - but realize the benefits of this happening.

[missing IMG link]

Write-ins (for Ron Paul) will be pointless. They will not be counted, only ignored. They certainly won't be reported. It might make you feel a little better, but practically speaking - a completely wasted effort.

Some advocate not voting at all - as some form of protest. This accomplishes (and has accomplished) nothing, in and of itself, and has been proven completely impotent in discouraging further Statism. One merely needs to look around to realize that our current state of affairs illustrates this fact. The vast, vast majority of Americans already have not been voting for decades, if not since the(se) United States were founded. What happens instead is that the Statists are simply *further* encouraged. They only see and acknowledge percentages of the *voting public* supporting either the 'blue' or 'red' version of oppression. It actually gives them a greater feeling of legitimacy, regardless of how invalid that feeling is (self-deception and rationalization play a big part here), and despite the fact that reality actually reflects a colossal rejection of the left/right false-choice dichotomy, along with the entire political system itself.

This is not to say that voting by itself can and will accomplish what we want - but voting is not mutually exclusive from other methods of achieving socio-economic change. See my post on 'Why Even Anarchists Should Vote'. But I digress.

Given the situation in the subject line of this post, I think as many of us (old-school conservatives, libertarians, independents, anarchists, et al) voting for Gary Johnson sends the strongest message, and pushes forward the future potential of a stronger foundation for a third party (especially while working at the same time to take over the GOP party apparatus). It will also at least shock both the Republican and Democrat tribes into realizing how much they are falling out of favor - and how truly fiscally conservative and truly socially tolerant ideas are becoming increasingly popular. This could incentivize them to move in our direction if they wish to retain their power in the meantime, and/or it could further legitimize the third-party option as a real alternative for many more Americans.

For all intents and purposes, during this election... 'right is worse'.

This post is a COPYPASTA that was originally published under my old pseudonym, 'Sentient Void', at the Ron Paul Forums Blog, on 07-27-2012.

On 'The Zeitgeist Movement', 'The Venus Project', and a 'Resource Based Economy'

... This is from an old forum debate with a Zeitgeister in regards to TZM and an RBE.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...highlight=borg...

Prior to my current career as a Banker, I was actually a certified computer technician. Quite a difference in career choices, I know. I still harbor my passion for technology, I always will, and have the strong desire to get back into the industry...

But I digress.

Being someone who has read much on austrian economics, and am quite familiar with how computer software and hardware functions... I can confidently say that any computer, however powerful/'fast' - will *not* be able to solve the coordination, information, and calculation problems that *any* form of central planning results in.

Not to mention that such a computer would have to be literally omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent of all situations in all places at all times between all individuals (and in a sense, 'within' all individuals). This computer would have to be both programmed and maintained by human beings - an 'elite' and ultimately privileged class - that are corruptible, imperfect and fallible. This can lead to disastrous consequences under such an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent computer trying to coordinate and calculate where all resources should go and when, especially according to the constantly changing, sometimes even fleeting, subjective demands of individuals.

The alternative to the elite 'programmers' and 'maintainers' of this computer, which would ultimately be oppressive, corrupt and a miserable economic failure, is however further into the future, giving these responsibilities (of maintenance and programming) over to a *true* AI. However, while it may be able to constantly program/update itself software wise, and perhaps even fix and update itself hardware wise (through controlled machines), it would still have serious trouble with the coordination/information/calculation problems.

Honestly, The only way I could possibly fathom any such system ever working within an environment of *finite resources* is if this true AI was not only omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent *generally speaking*, but if this true AI also omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent *within* every individual (in order to tackle the legitimate coordination/calculation/information problem according to the changing subjective demands of individuals). Meaning every individual would literally need to have cybernetic hardware/software hardwired/connected into their brains, with some sort of wireless connection (to ensure 'free' mobility, I put 'free' in quotes because of the obvious loss of freedom and individuality involved in being part of such a system) to the central true AI.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this legitimately alludes to some sort of hivemind Borg-like techno-collective. This, to me, seems to be the only way such a system that Peter Joseph is envisioning could even *possibly* function efficiently and effectively.

If I'm correct, honestly - as I still speak on the behalf of my subjective and individual mind, I really would *not* want to be part of such a system. But I speak for myself - others may very well prefer to be part of it. If so, then that's their choice.

Who knows if such a system might be able to refrain from violating the NAP (in regards to those who choose to be free individuals) based on resource needs of this entire techno-collective. Will 'it' (I say 'it', because it would be questionable if you could call this techno-collective any longer a group of individuals anymore or one legitimate entity) remain peaceful, or might they claim that 'resistance is futile'?

Should I/we begin referring to the Zeitgeist Movement techno-collectivists as 'The Borg'?

I'm completely serious.

This post is a COPYPASTA that was originally published under my old pseudonym, 'Sentient Void', at the Ron Paul Forums Blog, on 03-23-2012.

State Regulation, Market Regulation, and Progressive-Corporate-State Power

The debate (unfortunately) rages on between Progressives, their Statist friends, and the defenders of liberty and the voluntary market. It's time to help put much of that debate to rest.

Much of the argument from 'the left' (whatever that even means these days, considering their ad-hoc defense and support of Obama, AKA Bush 2.0) attempts to center our economic and financial system's woes around the claim of either too much 'deregulation', not enough increased regulation - or some combination of both.

Simply put - such a claim is completely, utterly divorced from reality.

Ever since the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) started back in 1938, there has been a net *increase* in regulation *every year*, with the exception of 1985 and a couple years in the early 90s. Under Bush, net economic regulations *increased* every year he was president. Obviously, I shouldn't have to go into detail regarding the regulatory excesses under Obama.

I work in the banking industry - and it is above and beyond the most *heavily regulated* industry in the United States. There is literally just about one regulation for every letter of the alphabet (regulations are in fact named as single letters) and then some, not including legal tender laws, what are essentially rent controls (and more) dictated down from the Federal Reserve, the CRA, the ECOA, FACT Act, Dodd-Frank, FHA, GSE involvement (such as FME & FRC), and on, and on, and on.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall (which one all-too-often hears about) was certainly significant, but *it* was not the *cause* of the financial meltdown. It did, however, further expose the unsustainability of our system (it's repeal made markets *more efficient*) and expedited the necessary bust. Thank Agora (SEK3 nods) it happened when it did. Our system may be screwed anyways without an extremely significant overhaul, but without repeal it may have gone on longer under the radar, contributing to the hollowing out of our economy even more than it already has - resulting in something potentially much, much more catastrophic.

Clearly, increased top-down, centralized 'regulation' has *not* been lacking (The US has around 168,000 pages of regulations, more than any other country in the world, by far - with thousands more added every year nowadays) and clearly it is not the answer.

Despite *alleged* good intentions, this has all resulted in a concentration of corporate power and market share into those most specially interested and connected companies, those with the most cash to buy and push legislations onto their respective industry (is it really any surprise that most regulations for whatever industry are written and pushed by the biggest players in that industry?), and those with the economies of scale to most easily *absorb* those regulations. Smaller or newer competitors that are more capital-restricted can no longer compete - and not to mention don't have the economic nor *political* capital in order to buy out the legislators themselves, like their (much) larger and more connected competitors. All other costs due to these State-imposed regulations are naturally passed down to the consumer and/or worker.

Of course, I would be doing a major disservice to the defense of the voluntary marketplace if I don't at least mention how the largest and/or most politically connected banks and other corporations received bail-outs at the expense of the taxpayer.

Then, the Corporate-State creates numerous *additional* regulations to expand labor and restrict the flow of capital. In a place where labor abounds but there is comparatively little capital, the businessmen will tend to have more leverage. In extreme cases they'll basically have it all (such as the onset of the industrial-era of the late 1800s to the early 1900s, also known as the 'Gilded Age'). In a place where capital abounds (such as a more modern, evolved market capitalist system) but there is comparatively little labor it's the other way around: high wages, lots of room for employees to negotiate, and plenty of opportunities to jump ship if the cigar chompers aren't making the workers happy.

The 'Progressive' response to corporate power is to strive to control, restrict, and punish capital. In other words, to make labor more abundant and less valuable. Obviously, this results in accomplishing exactly the *opposite* of what they *claim* to want to accomplish.

Mix this all together, and it all ultimately results in the Corporate-State system we have now.

Think of (free-market) Capitalism like sex. When it's voluntary between parties, it's a good thing. A wonderful thing, even. But when it is mixed with coercive force (via the State) - Capitalism becomes a twisted, ugly version of it's original intention. Much like how Capitalism mixed with the State becomes Corporatism - sex mixed with coercive force, becomes rape.

Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Thus, to avoid perpetuating the legitimate insanity of our current Corporate-State system, the answer to our problems is not to continue on our current path of destructive, top-down, and centralized 'regulation' - but to finally free our markets and allow organic, spontaneous regulation to take hold instead.

Contrary to the Progressive and Statist claim that this means 'no regulation' or letting corporations and rich individuals 'run amok', it instead means that while markets remain dynamic (as they always will), the regulations that the market itself will impose will be dynamic as well (as opposed to State-imposed regulations which are static, in which a dynamic market will always find ways around them merely at the increased cost to consumers and/or workers).

Which leads me to my next point... see my post on 'Anarchy, Government, and the State.

This post is a COPYPASTA that was originally published under my old pseudonym, 'Sentient Void', at the Ron Paul Forums Blog, on 03-12-2012.

"Ron Paul Supporters are a Scourge on the Republican Party"

From the Washington Times, Communities, Eric Golub writes...

"It is time to stop coddling the screaming children and just say it: Ron Paul supporters are a scourge that could hurt the effort to stop President Obama's relection[sic]. 

 ...

"Dr. Paul and his supporters are a scourge on the Republican Party because they are not Republicans. They are trying to remake the party completely in Dr. Paul’s image and have trouble accepting that 90-95% of the party feel it is fine just the way it is.

 ...

"If Ron Paul supporters will vote for Ron Paul and nobody else, then get lost. Nobody needs you. Your candidate is the fringe, and you remain a scourge."

First, let me just say that I have no clue who 'Eric Golub' is. It doesn't really matter who he is (or isn't) - but in this instance, Eric is the mouthpiece that represents the current establishment / prominent Republican mentality. I've been hearing these kinds of statements a lot recently from many other talking heads on the mainstream media -- and I feel it needs to be addressed and settled, once and for all.

Eric is saying that RP supporters should essentially 'get in line' and vote for the Republican nominee, regardless of who it is -- or 'stay away' if we don't. Oh yeah - and uh, he says that we are 'a scourge'.

He also misrepresents Ron Paul supporters and makes quite a few hasty generalizations about us and things we say. I've met very, very few RP supporters who are as vacuous and inane as Eric here tries to make us out to be. In fact, RP supporters are some of the most informed activists out there who understand a wide range of topics - from the Constitution, to economics, to history (both American and World), and of course the process of utilizing Aristotelian methods of discourse to arrive at truth and justice.

Eric continues by making inane personal attacks on Ron Paul (he says, 'one leader with funny ears and a defeatist foreign policy is enough') in the article, as well as his absurd claim that '90-95%' of the Republican party think that it is 'fine the way it is'. Unfortunately for Eric, this opinion is completely divorced from reality. Clearly he's never heard of the Tea Party (which was originally started by Ron Paul supporters and their epic $6+ million single-day donation moneybomb at Faneuil Hall here in Boston, MA).

He wants us to settle for anyone who is nominated for the Republican Party. He wants us to compromise on our principles. But it is this easy readiness to compromise that has led us down this path in the first place. 

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube...

When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil." - Ayn Rand

We're done with the compromisers. We're done with the knaves, the scoundrels and the trolls that Ayn Rand is speaking of who have brought us to the edge of financial destruction and the loss of our liberties.

To me, none of these empty suits that Eric wants us to support will do much different than Bush or Obama has done anyways. They have little to no consistent principles about individual liberty or free markets. Much of their rhetoric and absolutely all of the other candidates' political histories show this to be the case. They are concerned only with their own power and egos - at our expense. Ron Paul has demonstrated no such desires - and his voting record illustrates this.

If Ron Paul does not win the republican nomination (and it must be noted that his support is steadily growing, as another article stated, 'like a ratchet'), then I hope RP runs third party or 'independent' and wins - or at the very least causes a major disruption for either or both parties, which ultimately are not much different. If he doesn't win... then who knows - it may inspire a significant third party growth, especially with independents being the largest political affiliation in the US now.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." - John Adams

If it comes down to it, then I (and pretty much all RP supporters) will simply protest vote - and I don't care if it gets Obama re-elected, because any of your other political trolls will merely continue the same destructive and corrupt trash we've seen for years anyways, if not decades.

In the end, it's clear that this troll and others like him who have such a disdain for RP supporters have become genuinely threatened by the influence of RP and his support base. Good. Let them flail about as they witness their own inevitable irrelevance... it is truly a sight to behold.

Our loyalty is not to your view of what the Republican party allegedly 'is' or 'should be'. Our loyalty is to the principles of free markets, individual liberty, responsibility, as local government as possible, and the Constitution. These used to be things the Republican party stood for, long ago. We represent the original Republican party - that of Barry Goldwater and 'Mr. Republican' Robert Taft. So you have it backwards, Eric. In actuality, it is you and your ilk who are the true scourge and blight upon the Republican Party - not us Ron Paul supporters.

So guess what, trolls? We're not going home. We're a fact of life now for the GOP. Get used to it. You lunatics have done enough damage, and we're here to put a stop to it. If you ever want to win another election, you'd better get on board, because if you don't, we're going to make your lives very, very difficult. 


This post was originally published under my old pseudonym, 'Sentient Void', at the Ron Paul Forums Blog, on 11-23-2011.

Why Even Anarchists Should Vote... at Least as a Matter of Self-Defense

Every election cycle, the anti-voting anarchists and libertarians wind up the same old memes and quotes to discourage as many people from voting as possible, seeking a kind of absolution in their forced relationship with the State. However, this rationale is confused and short-sighted, ultimately supporting the democratic theorists' position while making their greatest adversaries' jobs easier than ever for them.

On this, even the patron saints of deontological individualist anarchism Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard groan at the rationale of the non-voting anarchist population:

"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself." -- Lysander Spooner, 'No Treason'

 ...

"Many anarchist libertarians claim it immoral to vote or to engage in political action--the argument being that by participating in this way in State activity, the libertarian places his moral imprimatur upon the State apparatus itself. But a moral decision must be a free decision, and the State has placed individuals in society in an unfree environment, in a general matrix of coercion. As Lysander Spooner pointed out, in an environment of State coercion, voting does not imply voluntary consent." -- Murray Rothbard, 'Ethics of Liberty'

... 

"I'm interested to talk about that. This is the classical anarchist position, there is no doubt about that. The classical anarchist position is that nobody should vote, because if you vote you are participating in a state apparatus. Or if you do vote you should write in your own name, I don't think that there is anything wrong with this tactic in the sense that if there really were a nationwide movement – if five million people, let's say, pledged not to vote. I think it would be very useful. On the other hand, I don't think voting is a real problem. I don't think it's immoral to vote, in contrast to the anti-voting people. 

Lysander Spooner, the patron saint of individualist anarchism, had a very effective attack on this idea. The thing is, if you really believe that by voting you are giving your sanction to the state, then you see you are really adopting the democratic theorist's position. You would be adopting the position of the democratic enemy, so to speak, who says that the state is really voluntary because the masses are supporting it by participating in elections. In other words, you're really the other side of the coin of supporting the policy of democracy – that the public is really behind it and that it is all voluntary. And so the anti-voting people are really saying the same thing.

I don't think this is true, because as Spooner said, people are being placed in a coercive position. They are surrounded by a coercive system; they are surrounded by the state. The state, however, allows you a limited choice – there's no question about the fact that the choice is limited. Since you are in this coercive situation, there is no reason why you shouldn't try to make use of it if you think it will make a difference to your liberty or possessions. So by voting you can't say that this is a moral choice, a fully voluntary choice, on the part of the public. It's not a fully voluntary situation. It's a situation where you are surrounded by the whole state which you can't vote out of existence. For example, we can't vote the Presidency out of existence – unfortunately, it would be great if we could – but since we can't why not make use of the vote if there is a difference at all between the two people. And it is almost inevitable that there will be a difference, incidentally, because just praxeologically or in a natural law sense, every two persons or every two groups of people will be slightly different, at least. So in that case why not make use of it. I don't see that it's immoral to participate in the election provided that you go into it with your eyes open – provided that you don't think that either Nixon or Muskie is the greatest libertarian since Richard Cobden! – which many people, of course, talk themselves into before they go out and vote. 

The second part of my answer is that I don't think that voting is really the question. I really don't care about whether people vote or not. To me the important thing is, who do you support. Who do you hope will win the election? You can be a non-voter and say "I don't want to sanction the state" and not vote, but on election night who do you hope the rest of the voters, the rest of the suckers out there who are voting, who do you hope they'll elect. And it's important, because I think that there is a difference. The Presidency, unfortunately, is of extreme importance. It will be running or directing our lives greatly for four years. So, I see no reason why we shouldn't endorse, or support, or attack one candidate more than the other candidate. I really don't agree at all with the non-voting position in that sense, because the non-voter is not only saying we shouldn't vote: he is also saying that we shouldn't endorse anybody. Will Robert LeFevre, one of the spokesmen of the non-voting approach, will he deep in his heart on election night have any kind of preference at all as the votes come in. Will he cheer slightly or groan more as whoever wins? I don't see how anybody could fail to have a preference, because it will affect all of us." -- Murray Rothbard

This much is clear -- Rothbard and Spooner both recognized that the question of whether you 'should vote' or not is very similar to the question as to whether you 'should defend yourself' from attack. Both saw that there is a war waged against your liberty, and it is under attack by those who wish to take it away from you via the ballot box. It's as if there are two sides of line infantry standing mere meters across from eachother -- with each shot fired being a guaranteed kill against the other side. One side is always attacking with the other side always defending -- as neglected and crumbling as it is -- the vestiges of whatever institutionalized liberty is left. Each vote is a bullet, and if the attackers overwhelm the defenders, then, whether you voted or not, another piece of your liberty will, in fact, be destroyed, and the attackers get that much more powerful. Liberty is a fragile thing, and all it takes is one bullet-vote to get past the defenders for it to be taken out, once again.

Shots have been fired and exercising your vote is firing a shot back.

I would, of course, never claim that libertarians and anarchists not voting is 'the problem'. There are a lot of problems, beginning with our values and culture and stretching all the way up to the law and the nature of the State. Solving these problems does not start and end at voting, but if libertarians of all stripes actually, regularly voted, then it would certainly help in stemming the unrelenting tide of assault against our liberty.

Just don't go in expecting that voting, by itself, is enough in the pursuit of liberty. 

At the end of the day, you will be oppressed by a president and his government. His vision of morality will be brought to bear on you under the machine of the State, whether you like it or not, regardless of your values -- so you might as well honestly reflect on who you prefer, and thus vote for someone who will limit the oppression you will have to deal with and/or maximize as much individual liberty in your life as much as possible. At the very least, even to the extent liberty may not be increased at all with someone voted into office, this can still help in keeping the authoritarian, collectivist hordes at bay and minimizing the damage they can and want to do, in the meantime -- like throwing a wrench in that vast machine that's been created to slowly grind up your liberty.

Sisyphus (by Titian, 1549) and his Revolt Against all Hope.

Sisyphus (by Titian, 1549) and his Revolt Against all Hope.