LIBERTARIANS FOR TRUMP THREAD

Any other libertarians in here going to give the finger to Johnson and the LP and vote for Trump instead?

Is Trump perfect? no

But I'll take him BTFO elitist globalism and crony capitalism over Johnson's SJW pandering any day.

His foreign policy is decently libertarian, too. He seems to be pretty non-interventionist overall, but not afraid to fight people who attack us.

I voted for Rand Paul in the primaries, I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012, but I'm proudly voting for Donald Trump in November.

What do the libertarians of Sup Forums think of Trump?

How much of a mentally deficient retard do you have to be to be a libertarian and also support an authoritarian?

>trump is an authoritarian

heh, nice try kid...

I am. I don't get how Johnson can call himself libertarian and still support TPP, a trade deal whose only outcome is to increase the influence of government.

fuck off leaf

This is a good point. Any "free" trade deal over 2,000 pages long should immediately cause suspicion. These trade deals are not free trade, they are crony capitalism. They are methods of enriching the elite and connected industrialists, their bankers, and the politicians they give money to.

It's what first drew me to Trump, because I think he might actually be able to reverse it. I hope, anyway.

Reporting in!
Coercive- or authoritarian- mechanisms are already in place.

This is done through the vote
>Amnesty and birthright citizenship =voting bloc

Through taxation
>This voting bloc typically supports higher taxation, affirmative action in schools and the workplace, and against gun rights

Through social services
>the forceful redistribution of resources, as blacks and hispanics use social services at higher rates than Asians or Whites

Through crime
>Crime, especially violent crime, is coercive, and it takes forcefully extracted resources to pay for arbitration and incarceration

Furthermore, since they have a higher birthrate, even if we by magic got rid of the welfare state tonight, they can vote it back within a generation.

This.

Chomsky of all people even mentioned how trade between Mexico and the US decreased expectations, and the legal fees assumed by the firms and government to wrangle with FTAs and their loopholes basically outweights any of the decreased nominal costs from the tariff removal.
I forgot to mention- just because you don't want to use authority doesn't mean others will.

Western Europe and the Asian Tigers are among the last free bastions of the world, and are propped up by the US military and 'diplomatic' means.


When we trade with China, it's not done on a level playing field.

...

Yep, I'm a paul-bot and I'm voting for trump. Hillary would destroy what's left of our country. We can not chance her winning.

>Memetarianism

Yes he is. "Only I can solve America's problems." "The press should be controlled." "I am the law and order candidate."

bump

Nah gonna vote for Jill on this one.

...

Reporting in.

Considering it.

Who /NatLib/ for Trump here?
Libertarianism domestically, but not allowing wealth to stream abroad or foreign problems or threats to stream inside.
>Low taxes used for core government roles - courts, police, army, infrastructure, legislative
>Social questions (abortion, gay marriage, education, health care etc) answered on local/decentralized scale
>Tariffs to protect economy and promote self-sufficiency
>Strong borders, strong military, act on national interests - globally it's kill or be killed
>Legal immigration must be proportional to current racial makeup to prevent demographic subversion; may not exceed certain percentage of pop per year
>Maximize equality before the law - if collusion is illegal, then so are unions. if fractional reserve banking is illegal for individuals, then it is illegal for banks

He doesn't even pay lip service in anyway to the idea of limited government. I don't think he's ever even mentioned the constitution.

-He said gay marriage should be a state issue
-He repeatedly said he will protect the constitution
-He fights against political correctness limiting free speech
-One of the main points in his platform is to bring competition back to the health insurance industry
-He proposes the biggest tax cuts of any candidate. Less money -> less power

His law and order stuff concerns me somewhat, though I don't think he'll be that bad, and he certainly hasn't expressed any kind of unfair or heavy handed treatment when it comes to law and order. He's not ideal here, but he's at least expressed interest in ending the war on drugs and possible legalization.

The press should be controlled thing is just outright bullshit and comes from media bias. If anything, he wants to walk back the kind of control over the press that we currently see thanks to the DNC leaks.

"Only I can solve America's problems" is rhetoric, and he talks about unleashing the American people's potential.

Because we are supporting the least authoritarian.

Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party have no infrastructure to beat both the Democrat Party and the Republican Party in a general election. It's a waste of time. He will not win, that's a given.

So, we support Trump. Doesn't mean we won't talk about Gary Johnson or boycott him. We still want him on the debate stages.

Why? Because we have to figure out something as soon as possible: is he a Hillary plant or not? This question is relevant.

Libertarians are much closer to Republicans than Democrats, and they vote accordingly. What issues do Libertarians and Democrats agree on? The decriminalization of drugs, a non-interventionist foreign policy... and... those are the ones I can remember right now. For pretty much everything else, Libertarians have always been close allies of Republicans during election cycles.

Back to the debate stage. If Gary Johnson doesn't take the opportunity to drop massive Ron Paul-style redpills on live television while millions of Americans are watching, then his only purpose is to take votes away from Trump, dividing the opposition and guaranteeing a Hillary victory. Not many Libertarians will vote for Hillary. Most Libertarians are used to voting Republican. If there's a third option that attracts Libertarians, it will be Trump's electoral pool that will suffer the most.

Libertarians have to be honest with themselves. We will never see Gary in the White House. His only usefulness is to spread the Libertarian ideology while millions of people are paying attention. Don't actually vote for him, just pretend that you will.

Fuck yeah california libertarian here. I voted for johnson before but I've gotten fed up with the open borders bullshit mainstream libertarians spew and the way they abandon morality completely. I believe freedom is very important, but freedom comes second to the preservation of our country and our culture. Other people(mexicans and muslims) can fuck right off because i can guarantee they don't value freedom like the westerners do.

NATIONALIST LIBERTARIANISM COMING THROUGH

When the government enforces a monopoly on something, what usually happens?

Lower quality and higher prices, right?

Why do you think it would be any different when the government enforces a monopoly on courts, police, army, infrastructure and legislative?

Ultimately, the only monopolies that matters for the government is the monopoly of justice and the monopoly of the use of violence. If you allow the government to have these two, it's only a matter of time before it starts monopolizing other things.

The United States of America started as one of the smallest, most decentralized countries in the world. 200 years later it is now an inflated socialist welfare state.

>Democrats being non-interventionist
You're clearly not aware of the current year.

Everything else you wrote is good.

You are right for the wrong reasons.

The borders should be closed because immigration is a government program.

America offers immigrants all sorts of freebies, and it is no surprise that the immigrants and their sons and daughters consistently vote to maintain and expand these freebies, paid for by the productive natives.

These people are not crossing your borders because they are responding to market incentives, they are crossing your borders because they're like pigeons who multiply in incredible numbers people keep feeding them.

Once you eliminate the welfare state and guarantee everyone the freedom of discrimination (the end of all forced integration programs and policies), the moral thing to do is to open your borders, assuming there is still a government left after you are finished doing these two.

Johnson isn't even relevant. This isn't the election to bolster third parties, because we have a clear choice. I'm also a libertarian and voting Trump.

Trump is actually libertarian, that's why he picked a "true conservative" Mike Pence as his VP.

I guess both parties are interventionists, in their own way.

...

if you didn't quit the libertarian party when they endorsed the war in iraq you're an unprincipled cuck

>Lower quality and higher prices, right?
>Why do you think it would be any different when the government enforces a monopoly on courts, police, army, infrastructure and legislative?
The reason things are more efficient when privately owned is that they have better ways of tinkering prices and products to fit supply and demand. In the case of the things listed, competition is not that easy to set up without losing the core function of the institution.
>courts - people will just go to whatever court will win the case for them
>army - inherently a collective project unless you allow different, rivaling military factions in the same country, at which point it ceases to be a cooperating nation
>infrastructure - less the building itself, but rather the right to decide where things are being built. land is constant and not subject to supply and demand
>private police can be argued for in my eyes

As for the rest of what you wrote, I party agree. I do think, however, that no system can ever prevent those things or others from happening. The subversion, treason and just straight up acts of war against the US can never be protected against by words on a paper. The price of freedom is vigilance. All you can do is put in as many fail-safes as possibly to give the population a chance to defend itself. An armed populace, slowed down legislature processes and a constitution as guideline for boundaries that, when overstepped, justify civil war, need to suffice in my opinion.

And yet edgy 18 year old """""libertarians""""' are voting for him

See idiots like

When did this happen? I've never been a big fan of the LP or considered myself a member, but I didn't know they did this

It's not edgy to or anti-libertarian to realize the real war right now is against crony capitalism, and Trump has made that a cornerstone of his campaign.

Trump's a cunt.

Stay mad nigga.

>courts
The resolution of conflicts is a service. Good judges must be impartial. Much like investment counseling is a service, the people who provide this service attract clients by showing a record of good results and impeccable reputation. Judges would attract clients the same way, and their decisions would be accepted by the community. If the losing side refuses to pay the fine, then the winning side is allowed to use force to take it from him, and nobody would bat an eye, because it is legitimate and accepted by the people.

cont.

Why am I an idiot?

Libertarians seek to eliminate elections, not win them.

Ex-libertarian here. Yes. The libertarian moment is over. Trump is the country's redeemer.

>army
Later in your post you say that private police are possible. So wouldn't an army? I thought both of these served the purpose of providing protection to the people.

When a foreign invader orders his troops to cross the border, he either wants your resources or to whip your government into submission. Since in our scenario the government is practically non-existent, it must be the first option.

If you have resources, there might be someone exploring them. If there is someone exploring them, this someone wants to protect his business.
By protecting his business, he ends up protecting a portion of the country. Imagine a coal mine, valuable to the enemy. If you have shitty warmongering neighbors, there will be a demand for security, and a potentially lucrative market. If he feels like he might get invaded, he'll buy insurance, who will deploy mercenaries and privateers to defend his coal mine. Other local businessmen will also join the efforts, because they're a likely next target for the invading army. Hell, the insurance company might even start the war themselves if they feel like an invasion is inevitable.

There is no need to worry about free-riders. If you are a mere peasant, you don't need to contribute to receive protection, although a war might provide interesting job opportunities. The business owners have more to lose by not investing in protection. The benefits they receive outweigh the free protection the locals get. A restaurant owner in a 40% black neighborhood will not choose to not have security guards outside because he feels like the locals will enjoy increased security without paying. Ordering your guards to not interfere in anything not strictly within the restaurant's boundaries kinda kills the point too, since bad streets/neighborhoods is bad for businessmen because it attracts less customers.

>land is constant and not subject to supply and demand
The land might be constant, but the quality of the land is not. Land properties still obey the basic scarcity laws. Over time, some lands become shitty, others become fertile, and their value changes.

The right to decide what and where to build lies within the legitimate owner of the land.

There is no reason to assume the current model of central planning for infrastructure is the best one. Since there is no competition, there is no way for us to figure out which kind of piping, wiring or paving is better for any community. Take water supply, for example. In some places, it might be more efficient for some companies to buy rivers and bottle the waters and sell them, but in other places it might be better for each house to have a well in their backyards. Some people simply get their water by collecting rain. Others build these porous plastic towers that condensate water vapor in the air and it produces some liters of waters a day. Maybe people will choose to get their water supply from a combination of all of these methods. We just don't know.

A government monopoly on infrastructure imposes a top-down planning that is inefficient by nature.

Ron Paul libertarian Texan here

Voting for trump

So let's take a large city, of maybe 6 million people. Half of the courts there are of the opinion that murder is a criminal offense, half aren't. Someone goes on a killing rampage. What happens? What happens if half the courts think it's criminal to have white skin, punishable by death? Do both people have to agree in advance to the trial? What if the killer just never agrees? Is everything then just based on mob rule? Will every judicial disagreement be fought out in a civil war?

I feel like you're making the same mistake that communists tend to - you choose only to look at scenarios where everyone is peaceful, honest and like-minded. Even communism works in that framework, which is the reason there are ~100 people strong communist communities that do function. But at some point, with enough diversity and people, conflicts WILL inevitably arise, and I don't think your system is equipped to adequately deal with it.

hillary = syringe with AIDS

trump = syringe with a question mark on it

>acts of war against the US
Here is another problem.

If you go to Syria or Iraq and ask whether or not they hate the United States, they'll probably say yes.

However, if you ask them whether or not they hate Oklahoma, without telling them it's a US state, they'll probably say no.

This is because "The USA" is a collective term, and one that concerns over 300000000 people. Wars are not conflicts between peoples, they are conflicts between governments.

Much like how if you do something shitty, it will reflect on you. But if a cop does something shitty, it reflects on the whole force. When governments do shitty things, it reflects on everyone living under that government.

Once you eliminate the government and start talking about individuals, things change.

Saddam Hussein, when rallying his people against Kuwait, needed to come up with some bullshit about Kuwait being part of Iraq carved away by British imperialism. He couldn't outright tell his people he's sending them to risk their lives because Kuwait is messing up some crude oil quotas. The Brits needed muh six million to rally the British to march against Germany, because telling them that the German industry was producing cheaper goods for British consumers wouldn't cut it.

Not having a government is one of the most rewarding investments if you want safety and prosperity.

I think our disagreement can be reduced to the following: I require the system to be a sort of Nash equilibrium, while you don't.

I don't see a point in setting up a system that will lead rational players within it to abolish it. And I think that is exactly what would happen in what you are advocating. As far as I can tell it's pretty much AnCap, which means there is nothing stopping people from setting up communities with its own court, police, army, infrastructure and legislature. In short: There is nothing from like-minded people getting together and forming their own countries with non-AnCap principles. Experience shows that people are so enamored with security and rules, that those would soon start to take over and grow into a bunch of nations competing for land and resources. Congratulations, you have done nothing but split the nation into fragmented pieces fighting each other, making everything even more susceptible to the subversion, treason and acts of war you wanted to prevent.

Just wanted to say I appreciate you taking the time to write all this out. It's hard to respond to everything without losing ourselves in details, though. So forgive me for not answering everything.

Is there anything stopping someone from buying all fresh water sources and colluding with the strongest army/police to make all inhabitants (who rely on water, naturally) to become their servants?

>Half of the courts there are of the opinion that murder is a criminal offense, half aren't.
What the fuck? Unless it's a city with a population of 6 million psychopaths, half of these courts would never get any clients, and would cease to exist.

>What if the killer just never agrees
Agrees to what? To the verdict? To pay indemnities?
Then the victim can just take back what is rightfully his/her.
When you defend yourself against a mugger or a nigger breaking into your house, you don't seek a judge's permission, you just shoot the fucker.
The courts and judges would probably only be used in the cases of fraud, or when the criminal is unknown, but someone is accusing someone else.

Which one is better? A court system with judges approved and respected by the locals, or a court and judges who only have a government-issued paper telling people they're okay?

>Is everything then just based on mob rule?
Isn't it today?
How do we tell right from wrong?
Different communities have different laws to answer that question. Some think smokers are fine. Some don't. Some think jaywalking should be a crime. Some don't. Some think the speed limit should be 30Km/h. Others 25Km/h.

Why should we allow the government to impose a one-size-fits-all solution? Why does the government knows what's best for the people better than the people themselves?

>you choose only to look at scenarios where everyone is peaceful, honest and like-minded
On the contrary, AnCap always assumes people to be shitty, egoistic and self-centered. This is precisely is why conflict resolution in Ancapistan would be quicker and more efficient, because nobody likes conflict. Governments, on the other hand, impose conflicts on people.

>and I don't think your system is equipped to adequately deal with it.
And what do you have to say about your system, which tries to solves theft, murder and fraud by allowing a select group of people to commit theft, murder and fraud?

Gary Johnson is by far more authoritarian than Trump. Trump wants to deregulate both local business and healthcare.

Libertarianism exists as an anchor to hold back Liberalism from driving the country off a cliff. Gary is achieving this in a different manner, he is pandering to sub-liberal scum that don't like Hillary in an effort to leech votes from their party.

It might seem like he is taking support from Trump, but come November when conservatives and independents are looking at their ballots they will see "Hillary Clinton" and immediately vote Trump. Normal liberals don't like Hillary either, so they'll either vote third party or they won't vote at all. This is why the media is trying to push Trump as an equal or greater evil, even though realistically there are many more reasons for him to be a good president than the one or two long shots that he might be bad.

I was taking examples which we both think of as obviously bad and then obviously not bad so that we don't have to fight over what the correct interpretation would be... The point was that I wanted to know what happens when two courts in the same region have opposite interpretations and are both backed by the same number of people. Where is the trial held?

>Agrees to what? To the verdict? To pay indemnities?
To be put on trial by anyone other than his cousin Bob.
>Then the victim can just take back what is rightfully his/her
So it's just might makes right? If the strongest private army starts slaughtering their opponents and imposing a tyrannical regime, that's fine and within the natural framework of what your system should entail? After all, their private courts said it was ok and they had the power to back it up.

>AnCap always assumes people to be shitty, egoistic and self-centered
Then why do you not expect the above scenario to happen? Or do you think it's not something that we should try to prevent?

Voted for Johnson in 2012.

If I had to pick a special snowflake term for my ideology, I'd put it down as libertarian nationalist.

I do not feel that any action not violating the non-aggression principle should be punished by the federal government. I also believe that punishment for violations of the non-aggression principle should be extremely harsh. Simple battery, minor theft, etc would be punished through forced labour on infastructure projects. Heinous violations would be punished through public hanging.

I do not feel that a sovereign nation-state has any obligation whatsoever to any individual or group aside from citizens of that nation.

Furthermore, the Libertarian Party is a joke organization that doesn't do nearly anything aside from run an ineffectual candidate for POTUS every 4 years.

>experience shows
Tell me more about it.

>people are so enamored with security and rules
Only because they have lived their entire lives being told things like "it's the price we pay for living in a civilized society" and "government is better than no government".

Once a government has the monopoly on justice and violence, the next key target is the monopoly on education. The government requires intellectual bodyguards to maintain its structure. They cannot allow a free market of ideas to exist, it must be regulated. This is because the existence of the state cannot be morally justified.

If you break this illusion, forming a new government out of these ashes becomes orders of magnitude harder.

As you purchase more and more water sources, the price of the next one becomes exponentially higher, because with each purchase you make the number of water sources for sale goes down, and supply & demand magic takes its course.

The only way to monopolize something is to steal these resources, instead of purchasing them.

>colluding with the strongest army/police to make all inhabitants (who rely on water, naturally) to become their servants?
You just described a government.
Whatever method is efficient against a government would probably also be efficient against this kind of shittery.

You'll never see a small government if trump loses

Imagine a pipeline of 10 million of these a year for 8 years

Brazil user you're making some fair points but overall I believe you're looking at the world through idealistic lenses. Not all people in this world are smart, morally righteous citizens who will look for the best interests of themselves and everyone else. I do agree with many Libertarian viewpoints, but I myself still have leanings towards government power.

There are two possibilities here: first, both sides want this solved. Second, only one side is willing to solve the problem (i.e. one side thinks he dindu nuffin)

In the first case, they'll choose a judge they both agree to be impartial. Before anything starts, they agree to accept the results. Not accepting would be a breach of contract, which would be another conflict to be solved. In theory, this could go on forever, with one side never agreeing with the results. Which would lead to something equivalent to the second scenario.

The second scenario, only one party goes to a judge. He will seek the most respected and impartial judge, as to assert the most legitimacy to his claims. After that, he's in charge of seeking reparations or indemnities from the other side.

Assuming citizen B really committed a crime against citizen A, then citizen A only needs to prove citizen B's crimes against the laws of his people. The judges, respected by the people, are only there to confirm citizen A's grievances are legit.

If there are two judges, both respected by the people, but they disagree on whether or not citizen A's grievances are valid, they will compete with eachother for the best case, the one that convinces the most people within the social circles they are relevant.

In the end, it boils down to legitimacy, and what people consider it to be. Some people consider it to be legitimate to make a living scamming old ladies with expired lottery tickets, others will consider this to be fraud, a crime.

With no monopoly on justice, conflicts are dealt locally, according to local laws. With a government monopoly on justice, conflicts become much larger than what they were supposed to be, because you have people from city A writing legislation for the people of city B, without ever knowing what laws the people of city B consider to be fair and just.

Nice strawman

He says he wants to limit the media from producing libel, which the 1st amendment does not by default protect people from committing.

Why should the media have more rights than people as individuals?

>Only I can solve america's problems

as compared to Hillary? I don't exactly see Hillary doing anything to help our situation other than to continue doing whatever she's payed to.

>I am the law and order candidate

Oh no, a candidate said he follows the law. Are you going to piss yourself crying?

I'm a libertarian some days and others I feel more like a national socialist. Help!

>says the Trudeaufag

If you think the government should keep its shit out of your business, but yet you think it important to have duty to your country, then you might simply just be almost a perfect moderate between the two extremes of anarchy and authoritarianism.

Some call this 'Libertarian-nationalist,' despite it obviously being an oxymoron. However if you see the value of both sides of nationalism and libertarianism, then frankly it would probably be an apt description of such beliefs.

It would also seem to be the beliefs that the constitution was built from.

Johnson is not a Scotsman

What if I told you that the big privateers could make a buck by providing justice to the little guy?

Imagine I get mugged by a gang, and lost $100. I go to a court and they decide that these folks have to pay me the $100 back plus $20 as an indemnity.

I'm not member of a gang, and I cannot just walk into their turf and demand $120. What do I do?

The court decision becomes a product. I sell it to a larger gang for $110, and they take $120 from the smaller gang. I got my money back, and they just profited $10.

Naturally, one question surfaces: what if it's the largest gang doing the muggings?

I sell it to the second largest, and the second largest splits the bounty among the third and fourth largest gangs, and they all go chase after the largest one.

If the largest privateer company is much larger than the runner-ups combined, we have to ask ourselves how did they become so large.

There are two ways to become big and powerful: either by providing a quality service everyone enjoys, or using force to steal resources from other people.

If in our scenario they are big because of the first reason, they probably won't go around mugging randoms in the streets. If the latter, they are essentially a proto-government.

Sure, they could still provide a good service but sometimes one of their members gets uppity. What happens to Starbucks stocks when a story about something disgusting in someone's coffee gets a couple thousand retweets or shares? They take a blow, and they have to show everyone how they dealt with the shitty employee, lest the stockholders get skeptical about keeping their money in the company.

I will not be arrogant or childish to suggest that big private armies will never do anything shitty and get away with it, but it is certainly better than a government monopoly which always does shitty things and always gets away with it.

who /mcafee/ here?

would have voted for any libertarian candidate but johnson again

he previously said multiple times that he would open up libel laws to sue people who insult him. How does that help free speech or the constitution?
He's previously been for a single-payer healthcare system
While not giving any decent proposals on what he's going to cut/ reform Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the 3 largest programs in the federal budget which take up over 50% of it.
Has made statements about killing the families of terrorists, which would not only create more blowback, but also be illegal under the Geneva Conventions on warfare.
Has previously supported more gun control.

Ordinarily, I'd be falling head over heels to vote for him. But it's a Trump vs. neocon election and McAfee didn't even get the nomination.

Even though Johnson takes equally from both Trump and Clinton in every poll they include him in.
The point of voting for Johnson is to break the two party system and create actual competition amongst the parties.
Remember, even though Sup Forums may think Trump is God-Emperor, he still has low approval ratings.
Would Trump be better than Hillary on a lot of things? Yes.
Is he the candidate that I want? No
Is Johnson the candidate I want? No.
Do I agree with Johnson more than I agree with Trump? Yes.
Trump wants to expand the surveillance state, thinks guys like Snowden should be thrown in jail, hasn't said he wants to end the drug war/reschedule Marijuana from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 or 3, Has multiple accusations against him for not paying the people he contracts to do his developments.

I'd rather have Ron Paul, but Johnson is closer to him than Trump in most ways.

Anarchy does not require everyone to be "smart, morally righteous citizens who will look for the best interests of themselves and everyone else".

Shitty people will be dealt with more efficiently under Anarchy. Be it because there's no government taking your guns away so you can defend yourself against shitty people (or forcing you to deal with shitty people, or serve faggots in your bakery), or shitty people having their shittyness controlled and used to satisfy a demand (aggressive and reckless people could be hired by bounty hunters for the most dangerous jobs).

Under a Democracy, shitty people are often rewarded. The locals know whether or not a hobo truly deserves help, or if he'll just use your $5 to buy crack. A government doesn't make that distinction, since both of them can vote.

Governments will feed both of them. Governments multiply shitty people. Governments do not allow natural selection to take place. Governments thrive on degeneracy, because governments are degenerates themselves.

If we propose that people who never drove or had a car before should tell car enthusiasts what they can or cannot do with cars, we would find this idea absurd. So why do we let people who don't have property and never ran a business tell home owners and employers how they should do things? One side has everything to gain and nothing to lose, and the other has nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Governments, which are built upon coercion and violence, allow these kinds of absurdities to flourish. Anarchy does not.

>The point of voting for Johnson is to break the two party system and create actual competition amongst the parties.
That's a fool's errand, a complete waste of time.

Libertarians need to dominate schools, universities, churches, the media, etc.

Like I said in another post ITT, Libertarians must seek to eliminate elections, not win them. Specially not when they lack the kind of militant ideological support the left has, and the infrastructure required for indoctrination and the formation of ideological thought.

Anything bad that happens under a Libertarian presidency will be blamed on the big old free-market capitalism boogey-man, and Libertarians will be defenseless against these accusations, since there will be no one to defend them in class or on the TV.

Future Libertarian campaigns will be harmed by this, and the two-party system will be strengthened.

This is why I "support" Trump. Libertarians are just not ready to enter the battlefield, and they will be slaughtered if they do. For now, Trump will have to suffice.

I love how people see a guy who has a strong personality and says "hur dur, he's an authoritarian, Hitler 2.0" - mother fucker is a reality TV star..

>Trump is actually libertarian
He supports the fucking Patriot Act, that isn't libertarian at all. Another thing is he would either end the federal reserve or end their monopoly on our currency if he was a libertarian.

Johnson can suck my johnson.

He IS authoritarian.
He's not Hitler though.
He's a better choice than Hillary, but I still can't vote for a guy who wants to expand the power of the presidency and create a precedent for later presidents, some of whom might be leftist.
Imagine a leftist with the kind of power Trump wants.
That's why I'm voting for Johnson.
It's not just him im scared about. It's the people after him that'll scare me as well.

What exactly are you scared of? Tax reductions and states making their own decisions?

I'll be voting for Trump as well. Johnson is a faggot who isn't even a real libertarian. He also has no leader like qualities.

To be fair, most of the party's budget is used to gain ballot access. They don't really have the money to do much more than
>run an ineffectual candidate for POTUS every 4 years