Dave's specific argument is as we talked about,
lesser of two evils, let's get a tiny W instead of nothing.
And my God, why doesn't anybody address his argument?
Nobody's addressing that argument
because for the most part I think most people agree
that Trump is marginally better than Kamala.
Socialist light is better than communism.
Okay, the problem is that we're making
entirely separate arguments that destroy the validity
or justification for a libertarian,
a principled libertarian voting for somebody like Trump.
And those arguments are what's going unaddressed.
I've been making them for a decade.
His argument is just sort of inconsequential.
So what is the argument?
No libertarian would disagree with me when I say
that we are culpable for the effects
of our actions as libertarians.
If we break our neighbor's window,
we owe our neighbor a new window.
We don't get to take actions
that have actual real world repercussions
and not be at least partially responsible
for the effects of those actions.
So when we talk about voting,
we're talking about taking positive human action
towards an end.
Now, there's a lot of libertarians and anarchist people
that think voting is actually ineffectual,
that it actually does nothing,
that it's a big stage show put on to make people
just merely think that they're actually having control
over something, but they're not.
We're not talking to those people here today.
That's a different group of people.
Why would one vote if they really thought
that it did nothing?
Okay, fine.
I mean, and there's arguments to be made there,
but that's not really who we're talking about here today.
We're talking to people that vote
because they think it'll make a difference.
They're voting, they're taking their human action
because they want Trump to win government coercive power.
So if you think voting has an effect in the real world
and you're putting your positive human action
behind that effect,
you have to be at least co-culpable
for some of the effects of that action.
The reason why a principled libertarian cannot vote
for somebody like Donald Trump or Kamala
is because these are evil coercive people
that have real life body counts of innocent people,
including children under their name.
The last time Trump was given the coercive guns
of the government, he murdered somewhere in between
and this is what they'll admit to,
a thousand innocent people on the lowest end.
That's what they admit to.
The reputable estimates of what his actual body count was
was closer to 3,000, with some estimates going to 10,000.
Innocent people, including children.
No one with even a passing whiff
of what libertarian principle means
could co-sign that motherfucker
getting the government gun back in his hand.
I don't give a shit what teeny tiny Ws
you think you can extract
from this terrible, disgusting political game of thrones.
It doesn't matter.
A principled libertarian cannot co-sign murder of children
and you can, I mean, is there anyone here
that would argue with me when I say
that there's more bodies coming
in the next four years behind Trump?
Whose name is gonna be co-signed on those bodies?
The people that supported him getting that gun again.
Obviously, it's not rocket science.
This is, and so, okay, so now we go
to the Spooner vote bullet defense,
which a lot of libertarians are familiar with
and I was persuaded by, for a time as well.
For brevity's sake, I won't go into the whole thing here
and I'm happy to talk to anybody about it
any time in the future.
Voting for an R or a D,
and I'm gonna say like a non-NAP compliant candidate,
voting for a non-NAP compliant candidate
is not an analogy for a vote bullet.
It's an analogy for a vote grenade.
You pull that pin and you roll that motherfucker
into the room and you don't just fire
your little vote bullet specifically
at the other people, specifically firing
their tiny vote bullets back at specifically you.
You are trying to coerce everyone,
everyone in the room that is the United States,
whether or not they voted at all.
They didn't fire, not everybody fired vote bullets at you.
You don't get to fire vote bullets at them
and be a principled libertarian.
You don't get to create new innocent victims
with your vote bullet and think that you're the good guy.
And that's completely ignoring the piles and piles of bodies
and coercion that the US government exacts
across the world for people
that don't even have the ability to fire vote bullets.
The R and the D vote bullets
are not bullets, they're grenades.
They hurt everyone, everyone throwing bombs at everyone
and the whole building falls on all of us
and kills the neighbor's children.
They would say like, okay,
but don't we have some kind of a responsibility
to throw the smallest grenade possible?
I mean, like I can throw a nuclear bomb in there
or a frag grenade.
And so like, isn't the right thing to do
just to throw the frag grenade into the building, Patrick?
That has nothing to do that is completely detached
from any kind of libertarian non-aggression principle.
It's a non-aggression principle,
not a less aggression principle.
Not only the aggression you personally feel is beneficial
in a tiny W over the other, you know,
bigger L aggression principle.
It's the non-aggression principle.
It irritates me because it's so goddamn predictable.
Excuse my language.
The Mises Caucus, they cleaned the commies out of the party
by saying we're going to bring libertarian principle
to the libertarian party
and as soon as they win power, as soon as they get influence,
all of that shit goes out the window
and it's right back to the same kind of pragmatistic
bullshit arguments that I dealt with
with the commies for year after year.
So the argument that he proposes is the argument
is which of these evils do we want to go with?
Which L do we want to take?
Which tiny dub can we extract?
The actual reality of the situation
is that there's three choices.
You can pick this evil and co-sign it
and put your name and reputation
and libertarian party reputation
and your co-culpability behind.
You can do that with this other evil
or you can not co-sign any evil
and be an actual libertarian.
Like that is the option.
You don't have to co-sign evil at all.
You can be against it all.