There isn’t a repsonse that would satisfy your concerns because there’s no way other than violent revolution to prevent the political class from granting themselves the power to coerce. Simply sitting back and ignoring the system will do nothing, because the political class can already grant themselves power because of the Republicrat duopoly that currently has a stranglehold on who gets to compete for the power to coerce.

Because of this reality, I take the approach of using the ballot as effectively as I can, which admittedly is not much because in my home state decisions are made by the Democratic party robovoters. The only things that are really competitive where I can make a difference are the propositions since they’re not party-based. Like Colorado, I’ve got the chance to vote against some things that would really have a negative impact on my life, and I’m not going to pass it up.

Until people get really fed up with the political class and their Republicrat duopoly, small gains at the ballot box are all we can expect. Violent revolution when most of the people are mentally committed to the status quo will produce a lot of bloodshed for nothing, and sitting back and doing nothing is not going to bring the Republicrats down any faster while resulting in a worse quality of life.

Those are all great points. Your overall point, as I understand it, is that by participating in the system we accept the system.

I get that.

The proplem is that if we do not participate, those who do will always get their way. The powers that be do not care if we choose not to participate out of principle or apathy; either way they win and we lose.

Consider some of the anti-liberty ballot measures I wrote about in Part 2. If these measures pass, they will have a very real impact on my life for the worse. I cannot idly stand by and not at least formally show my disapproval and possibly stop some of these measures from passing.

You of course are touching on a topic of hot debate amongst libertarians – especially this election cycle. But what about the idea that by voting you are implicitly consenting to a system that by design you vehemently oppose? I am fairly certain I will not vote much in the future, but I am probably going to vote for Barr or write in Paul. That being said, I cannot help but feel I am betraying my ideals in some way. I like Ron Paul a lot. But I don’t know that I agree with him that the system can be reformed; or that we are advancing liberty by restoring some level of faith in the system. Isn’t that what gets people, even relatively free people, in trouble to begin with: trusting those with the ability to coerce?

I am sure you have heard this argument before, being part 3 of your piece and a voting libertarian in the past (assuming), but I have yet to see a response that satisfies my concerns. Also, as an aside, it is great that some politicians are willing to consider the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. But as I am sure you are aware, that is not the core issue at hand here. Even if they do approve such legislation, which would certainly help some sick people now, it still presumes that government has the right to tell me what I can and cannot put in my own body. Do we not do a greater service to liberty by promoting the undermining and lack of confidence in a system that presupposes ownership over the people?