So do your statements mean you advocate not voting in this election ?

Agreed. And don't let anyone put up Gary Johnson as the Libertarian choice. That so-called choice is a fraud.

Gary Johnson is a leftist statist who hijacked the Libertarian Party name. His positions are anything but libertarian.

Re: “I will rethink my position if you can demonstrate some tangible benefit to voting for a candidate certain to lose.” I can give you a current example, and although it is interparty rather than national, it applies to the general election also. Millions of Democrats voted for Bernie Sanders even after it was mathematically certain that he would lose to Hillary Clinton. The depth of his support forced her to pivot toward a more “progressive” agenda than she would have proposed otherwise. In a close general election such as this one, Gary Johnson’s 8 to 10 percent support is being noticed by both major-party candidates, and you can bet that they are both going to attempt to appeal to his supporters to consider voting for them instead. (And by the way, Johnson appears to be drawing more votes from Clinton than from Trump, so you should be pleased that Gary is in the race.)

The fighter pilot you mentioned has two choices. Most people in the voting booth have four or more. The fighter pilot’s choices will crucially affect the outcome for him. Your vote will not. But your vote will affect the overall totals, however slightly, and those totals will be studied by those politicians preparing for the next round. A vote for the candidate closest to your beliefs will (slightly) influence the policies promoted by the next group of candidates. Plus it will give moral support to those in the trenches fighting for liberty on the political front.

I agree that Trump is a decent second choice. But I prefer to vote for my first. The outcome of the election will be the same either way. And to paraphrase what you said, “It would be hard to consider yourself an Objectivist if you do not make that concession to reality.”

Allow me to address your points:

First, you make the case that voting makes little difference, but that voting your principles matters because it encourages the establishment parties to modify their positions toward liberty issues. But, what is your evidence for this? Did your vote for Ron Paul modify the stands of George W Bush? Did it cause the establishment to embrace Rand Paul? Really, what is your evidence? I will rethink my position if you can demonstrate some tangible benefit to voting for a candidate certain to lose, but I think this is a feel-good rather than an intellectual position.

Then, you put forward that voting for the “lesser of two evils” is a vote for the status quo. That is certainly not a necessary conclusion. Consider a fighter pilot whose plane has just taken enemy fire. He/she is now confronted with having to either parachute into shark-invested waters or go down with the plane. Not making a choice does not save the pilot from the consequences of the default option. How much that pilot prefers walking on the beach to choosing either of the realistic options is not relevant. Deciding to parachute into shark-invested waters is not a proclamation of approval for sharks, any more than picking Trump over Clinton is an approval of the system. Both are simply recognitions of reality and an attempt to make the best possible choice. Of course, one can always find a better impossible choice.

I think we would both agree that America is in a bad place, far removed from the beautiful liberty-loving vision of our founders. However, I would rather lament just how dire our situation is while protecting myself with a firearm that has bullets in it which, as my opinion piece puts forward, will no longer be Constitutionally protected if Hillary picks the next lawyer on the Supremes.

You must realize that either Trump or Clinton will be the next president. It would be hard to consider yourself an Objectivist if you do not make that consolation to reality. Just like for the fighter pilot, not making a choice does not save you from a choice being made.

Sadly, libertarianism is not on the ballot. Therefore, the best we can do is to go with the guy running against the establishment of both corrupt parties and the mainstream media.

RE: “Gary Johnson is not a player and those who use their vote to send messages are heard by no one.”

In every presidential election, people are told that they are “wasting their vote” if they vote for the Libertarian candidate.

As one who has voted for every Libertarian presidential candidate since 1972, I think the exact opposite is true. By voting for my principles, my votes over the years have had far more impact than if I had allowed the two “establishment” parties to dictate my choices.

Consider this: no matter how you have voted for President in the past, your vote has never made a difference in the outcome. Nor will it do so in the future. Even if you live in a “swing state” that could go either way, your lone vote will not spell the difference between victory and defeat for either establishment party candidate.

So if you can’t change the election outcome, why vote at all? The answer is that by voting Libertarian, you will be adding to the vote totals of the only party that consistently supports individual freedom. And those vote totals matter – the establishment parties pay close attention when a significant number of voters break with the two-party system, and they will often modify their stands on certain issues to protect their base and prevent further defections.

On the other hand, if you vote for the “lesser of two evils,” you are saying in effect, “I support the political status quo. I have faith in the two-party system, and I’m not interested in supporting candidates from other parties, even if they have fresh ideas that I agree with. I don’t like either of the two establishment party candidates, but I will vote for Establishment Party Candidate X because he is not quite as bad as Establishment Party Candidate Y.” This truly is a waste of your vote, and does nothing to advance the cause of freedom.

Voting Libertarian will put the establishment parties on notice that you are not satisfied with the candidates they offer, and unless they come up with better choices they will not earn your vote in the future.

Voting in fear for a statist who will increase the size of government is not rational or objectivist. Sacrificing your principles in fear is not objectvist. Consenting to statist rule in fear is not objectivist.