Hey Valthazar!Valthazar: Showing that politicians of the past and present deviate from their campaign platforms, even if very true, is not sufficient grounds to suggest that every future candidate be branded in the same negative light (unless their actions dictate otherwise).
Very true, and a good point that I cannot say is false. I'd just say that I find it highly unlikely. But ultimately, you're right.Valthazar: You mention that we would imagine that these flip-flopping politicians would be voted out of office, but that they almost never are. It is due to voter misinformation. Many people on this forum are opposed to NSA surveillance, for example, yet many will still vote Democrat or Republican in 2016 - even though it is exceedingly likely that NSA surveillance will continue with either of these parties in power. People don't feel they have an alternative voting choice - even though there are plenty.
I've voted all my life, so I feel your pain on this one. We chose the lesser of two evils, based upon what small, subtle real differences there actually are between the candidates.
I do think it's possible to get enough of the populace to realize that the majority of the problems stem from excessive state power (which I realize is just my opinion, but we're discussing our opinions here so I'll go with it
). But I think the best way to do that is allow the rise of the state to happen as quickly as possible. Sudden changes are more easily perceived then gradual ones, and therefore easier to combat. Ergo, me not voting will help expedite that, so it's something I've considered.Valthazar: I am not sure what you mean by the state "growing" through elections. Based on your perspectives, a candidate committed to your libertarian views would reduce the scale of government - unless you are assuming that candidates will invariably backtrack on their campaign promises. I would agree that this is very true for the establishment parties.
You bring up a spectacular point: Would a Libertarian candidate be any different, and actually stick to his guns and reduce the size of the government? Ultimately, it's a moot point. A Libertarian will never, ever, ever get elected to the presidency. However, for the sake of the discussion and integrity of my argument, I should answer you. Unfortunately, an honest answer would be that I don't really know. I don't assign any special ethical fortitude to Libertarian candidates only because they happen to be Libertarian.
I guess I'd just cross my fingers and pray that they actually stick to their guns.
At least their ideology coincides with mine 80% of the time (instead of ~25% of Repubs and Dems), so even if they follow-up with only a quarter of their promises it'll be some kind of advancement (in my personal view). Republicans and Democrats both want big governments--they preach specific exceptions to this (Republicans claim they'd like a more free market, Democrats claim they'd like the state to keep out of our social issues), but in the end neither of them do even that much.
But yeah, your point is very valid. Do I have any special assurance that a Libertarian candidate would be significantly different? .........