Theory: Voting for the lesser of two evils is a locally optimal decision, but a globally suboptimal one.

Local versus global optimization is a principle in game theory and other sciences that points out that the best decision in the short term is not necessarily the best decision in the lomg term. Like visiting a bunch of cities once and trying to find the nearest city each time, you end up with a “greedy” heuristic which does okay but usually never finds the shortest path through all of them.

Likewise… Voting for Trump this election seemed to many libertarians to be the lesser of two evils, and an obvious improvement despite the obvious flaws. And in the short term maybe thats right.

But if the lesser of two evils game has historically always resulted in government increasing, then simply continuing to play the game will not prevent that from occuring. Even if libertarians start manipulating one or both sides to support more libertarian flavored policies, its still highly unlikely to decrease the size of government given its tendency to grow.

But of what value is not voting? Well maybe it is valuable. Maybe signalling that we dont support the system whatsoever, and that we dont accept their negotiations as a compromise, shows them that we arent going to comply with it or try to appease them. This is where the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The need to appease statists, compromise on values, and argue over fine details on things that shouldnt matter will cause valuable messaging to be drowned out.

I mean what makes a stronger statement? A bunch of people not voting? Or a bunch of people who say they dislike government voting for trump?

The urge to vote for one side is typically motivated by a fear of the other side, and this hs by design. Both sides do this. Its the whole scam. Its like they are both bad on purpose because it increases voter turnout.

Not voting in itself wont create subtantial change, nor will voting… But politicians usually do what they feel they can get away with and stay in office, and cops enforce what they think they can get away with and remain as employed and alive cops. It seems the real leverage might not be policy but in the prospect of mass disobedience and personally tangible consequences. One could argue its why prohibition had to be repealed.

But another way to look at this is the question whether to vote or not is itself a distraction. Asking a bunch of guys with bombs to pretty please not use violence or not ask them is a moot point, its not like it takes their bombs away.