Hello jbrenner,
Do you mind if I write in your name too? :)
Always good to hear from you.
O.A.

I suppose true shrugging means that you essentially stop contributing to the state. That means paying little or no taxes at all, including sales taxes, income taxes, and property taxes. Hard to do when in the USA they tax everything that you do unless you live in the woods somewhere undetected and grow your own food, and dont need to travel except on foot.

I resent paying any taxes at all at this point. I buy as much as possible online from out of state retailers to avoid the sales taxes. I have old cars so I dont have to pay sales tax on new cars. I do have to register the damn things and pay registration fees though.

Even internet service is taxed locally here in Las Vegas, as are utilities, phone service, and nearly everything except perhaps food that you cook yourself.

Shrugging is only easy when you have enough money to retire. I am getting close.

Shrugging is easy- just stop trying to make something with your life. Leaving is looking like a better idea all the time. Nonviolent revolution wont work with the NSA and other safeguards this government has. They will just kill it. We have to strangle the current government by denying it money. That means forcing them to have a balanced budget and no more borrowing, period.

These presidential races are disgusting. They are focused on the wrong things as far as picking a good president. I can see it replaying itself in the current election too. The candidate that has dirt that sticks on them loses the election. STUPID

Wouldn't that be a great country? A country where it didn't really matter who was voted into any particular office because the people themselves governed themselves to such a degree that elected representatives were figureheads? That would be my kind of world. Fantastical? Probably. But ideal? YES!!!

Lol. +1

Hear, hear!

The Libertarian Party would not have done the arduous work of achieving ballot status in all 50 states for a mere “publicity stunt”. And the two former Republican governors are much more libertarian than liberal. I doubt that Gary Johnson’s list of Supreme Court picks would have any overlap with Hillary’s.

There are many philosophical libertarian activists within the LP, and achieving “the proper philosophy dominating a culture” depends in part on the difficult task of political education and outreach.

I'll take the job and will not disappoint any one (except a few hundred thousand govt employees)

Thanks, but I don't want to govern anyone. Everyone here is quite capable of governing themselves.

I have been planning for shrugging, leaving, or starting a nonviolent revolution for years, as documented here in the Gulch.

Perot panicked when GHW Bush's people made a threat against Perot's daughter's wedding.

Yes, this is serious, but you have presented a false dichotomy of choices. No one is being forced to stay here. Retiring to an island paradise is a viable option.

I am the best choice and I am voting for myself. Check out my website and see if I repress what you feel. mrpresident2016.com

People have been dissatisfied with both parties for years. Your voting for two 'liberal' Republican former governors does not show more dissatisfaction.

You left out addressing "nor does it matter because most people are 'dissatisfied' with politics without knowing what is right and what is required ... This is a matter of the proper philosophy dominating a culture, not counting parties." A-philosophical libertarians and conservatives making a publicity stunt out of a fringe candidate is not an answer. Meanwhile we have a real election in which one of two candidates will win and it makes a difference to us here in our real lives.

Re: “There is no more evidence that more people are dissatisfied with the two party system".

“Americans are unhappy with both parties, exit polls show”
http://www.pressherald.com/2014/11/05...
“Neither Major Party Cracks 40% Favorability in Latest Poll”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/181985/nei...
“Poll: Most young Americans dissatisfied with political parties”
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/06/...

Gary Johnson received 1% of the vote in 2012 and will be receiving multiples of that percentage in 2016. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of the two-party system. I think its days are numbered, and good riddance..

There is no more evidence that more people are dissatisfied with the "two party system", nor does it matter because most people are "dissatisfied" with politics without knowing what is right and what is required.

A third or fourth party that might eventually win in the future is likely to be as bad or worse than the current ones because they are all based on variations of the same false premises. This is a matter of the proper philosophy dominating a culture, not counting parties.

Everyone knows that neither candidate is popular beyond his own minority of devoted followers. Neither that nor fringe candidates will change the fact that one of them will win and that they will have different impacts on us in how they use government.

No one has said that either Trump or Clinton would "advance the cause of liberty". Stop equating voting with endorsing policies. Voting for one of two candidates because they make a difference to your life in how they exploit government power is not endorsing any of it

Thinking that voting doesn't matter in the election because your sole vote doesn't by itself determine the election and that voting for a fringe loser does matter are both fantasy, not "cold hard realism".

It’s not fantasizing to realize that (a) my candidate is not going to win, (b) my vote won’t change the outcome, and (c) the more votes for my candidate, the stronger will be the objective evidence that more and more people are dissatisfied with the two-party system and its candidates. This is cold, hard realism.

Fantasy is supporting and voting for Trump or Hillary and thinking that doing so will advance the cause of liberty in any way.

You don't persuade anyone without giving reasons. Persuading others to vote a certain way does not, for all the reasons already given, mean the politicians represent Objectivism.

Voting one's conscience does not mean fantasizing and ignoring what an election means and what it's impact on life is here in reality. Don't separate philosophy from dealing with reality. Applying philosophical principles of rationality and self-interest does not mean fantasizing during an election.

Promoting your philosophy, persuading others and voting your convictions are not mutually exclusive activities. But how is persuading others to vote for Trump or Hillary going to promote Objectivism? If the Libertarian candidates are not to your liking, fine, but if I were in that position I would confine my persuasive activities to promoting the Objectivist philosophy itself, not trying to convince others that a vote for Clinton or Trump is in any way a rational expression of that philosophy.

Elections are determined by adding the votes for the candidates, not "one vote". Telling people not to vote because their vote won't determine the outcome by itself is sophistry. Rationalism manipulating words without regard to their conceptual meaning to stop people from voting is destructive.

Voting for a candidate based on the difference between the two of them is not support for what he does and is not a sanction as "most closely aligning" with one's own views. It is simple recognition of the facts that the difference makes and one of them will be in power.

If someone lives in a state that is so far gone that it is known in advance to vote for Clinton, then he knows in advance that his vote won't make any difference, just as surely as he knows that one of the two candidates will win. But he cans till try to persuade others.

The candidates and their parties are entrenched because of the dominant philosophy that has spread for over a century. Throwing away votes on fringe candidates who won't win regardless of the difference between the two, one of which who will win, does not change that and will not provide better candidates in the future. The goofy "libertarians", this time two 'liberal' Republicans, are an embarrassment, not something to publicly endorse.

Please read Ayn Rand and why she advocated spreading the right philosophical ideas to effect cultural and therefore political reform. A-philosophical libertarianism and conservativism are hopeless, as illustrated by the anti-conceptual here-now-election nonsense spouted every four years with their anti-intellectual cries to avoid meaningful votes without regard for what an election is and why the candidates are what they are.

Every individual who votes affects the outcome only if the election is decided by one vote. Otherwise, one vote will affect the margin of victory but not the outcome. For you to affect the outcome you must (a) live in a swing state, (b) the swing state must determine the outcome in the electoral college, and (c) the election in that state must be decided by one vote. If you live in California, it’s a certainty that your vote will not affect the outcome of the election at all, so how does it make sense to vote for any candidate other than the one who most closely aligns with your views? Doing so won’t help your “top two” candidate and it won’t represent your true viewpoint. What it will do is further entrench the two-party system and insure that you are presented with the same kind of two-candidate choice the next time around.

If we all literally lived in the Gulch, we could probably elect jbrenner to local office and perhaps state office. A start.

ah. I think he realized how useless it would be to actually try to change things substantially in this society at this time. So did Romney