Your standards are too high because standards should guide expectations, and it is irrational to expect that in the current-day USA any leader will meet those standards, and it is irrational to expect that wildly unpopular policy preferences will be adopted by those leaders.
NB: I agree that most people's standards for the free market are too high.
Your standards are too high because standards should guide expectations, and it is irrational to expect that in the current-day USA any leader will meet those standards, and it is irrational to expect that wildly unpopular policy preferences will be adopted by those leaders.
NB: I agree that most people's standards for the free market are too high.
He doesn't probabilistically expect people to meet those standards. He *morally* expects people to meet those standards. If they can't meet them, they shouldn't do politics.
Imagine Bryan Caplan in 1860. He would be telling everyone that Abraham Lincoln, by not taking an absolutist abolitionist line, was morally unacceptable. And yet if he had he might not have been elected and if elected he might had lost the border states and the war.
Copy paste this to a million different situations.
No, politicians don't even make the standard of moderate libertarianism to push politics along in the right direction. Trump and Harris aren't anything like that, so it's not a good analogy.
Another harsh truth about the real world is that a single vote never decides the outcome of an American Presidential election, unless you happen to be a Justice of the Supreme Court and a case involving which ballots to count in a marginal swing state happens to land on your docket.
What you do control is not the choice of a President, but rather your own words and actions. In that sphere, your personal understanding of what is just and honorable is all-important.
IтАЩm not suggesting you deny what is just and honorable, only that people will take you more seriously if you are willing to make a judgement call.
Basically, politics is a game of тАЬWould you ratherтАЭ and in those games, it is a given that everyone would choose тАЬneither.тАЭ If you keep saying тАЬNeither,тАЭ youтАЩre going to get eye rolls and eventually will be ignored completely.
IтАЩm not even suggesting that you should vote for a preferred candidate necessarily, though I do think that the modern libertarian penchant for abstaining from voting means that any candidate would be stupid to care what libertarians think on any particular issue.
тАЬNo, politicians don't even make the standard of moderate libertarianism to push politics along in the right direction. Trump and Harris aren't anything like that, so it's not a good analogy.тАЭ
This is true if you don't care about any one issue over another. But the candidates will be better or worse on specific issues. Sometimes you will want to choose the giant douche over the turd sandwich.
Your standards are too high because standards should guide expectations, and it is irrational to expect that in the current-day USA any leader will meet those standards, and it is irrational to expect that wildly unpopular policy preferences will be adopted by those leaders.
NB: I agree that most people's standards for the free market are too high.
He doesn't probabilistically expect people to meet those standards. He *morally* expects people to meet those standards. If they can't meet them, they shouldn't do politics.
Imagine Bryan Caplan in 1860. He would be telling everyone that Abraham Lincoln, by not taking an absolutist abolitionist line, was morally unacceptable. And yet if he had he might not have been elected and if elected he might had lost the border states and the war.
Copy paste this to a million different situations.
No, politicians don't even make the standard of moderate libertarianism to push politics along in the right direction. Trump and Harris aren't anything like that, so it's not a good analogy.
In an ideal world, I agree!
But when interacting with the real world, your standards should have some expectation of actually being met.
Another harsh truth about the real world is that a single vote never decides the outcome of an American Presidential election, unless you happen to be a Justice of the Supreme Court and a case involving which ballots to count in a marginal swing state happens to land on your docket.
What you do control is not the choice of a President, but rather your own words and actions. In that sphere, your personal understanding of what is just and honorable is all-important.
IтАЩm not suggesting you deny what is just and honorable, only that people will take you more seriously if you are willing to make a judgement call.
Basically, politics is a game of тАЬWould you ratherтАЭ and in those games, it is a given that everyone would choose тАЬneither.тАЭ If you keep saying тАЬNeither,тАЭ youтАЩre going to get eye rolls and eventually will be ignored completely.
IтАЩm not even suggesting that you should vote for a preferred candidate necessarily, though I do think that the modern libertarian penchant for abstaining from voting means that any candidate would be stupid to care what libertarians think on any particular issue.
As I said in my other comment:
тАЬNo, politicians don't even make the standard of moderate libertarianism to push politics along in the right direction. Trump and Harris aren't anything like that, so it's not a good analogy.тАЭ
This is true if you don't care about any one issue over another. But the candidates will be better or worse on specific issues. Sometimes you will want to choose the giant douche over the turd sandwich.
IтАЩm not saying that one politician wonтАЩt be better than the other. IтАЩm saying that thatтАЩs an extremely low bar.
In absolute terms, definitely. I'm just saying that's the reality we live in.
Sure, but Caplan doesn't deny that, so itтАЩs not much of a critique of his views.