My problem with and voting is that nobody willing or can take responsibility for their choices. Every politician whom has ever entered office has done so by convincing enough people of being 'certain' in their ability to promise a utopian society of change. Those promises of certainty come at great costs and often suffer from unintended consequences. There no guarantee that the one you elect will do or better able to do as you expect and the individuals who did choose did so anonymously where they can;t be held accountable.
Like a religion you are deferring responsibility from yourself onto a deity, whom now has the power of God to create new laws, and by some miracle of grace you will hope for it to succeed even though this ceremonial ritual has failed to achieve it's intended goal continually every few years leading up until now. Leaving us all ever poorer.
Just one more election and we'll have a chance at change. Just one more prayer to a deity you've likely never met, just one more offering of your time, and just one more sacrifice of another.
The power of Government corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. No man, elf, hobbit, or even the wisest sage is free from this corruption. You must cast this belief back into the fire, because if you don't it will consume you.
the only argument I have with that is how Johnson, if elected, would be far less interested in how he could get the country into more wars, more corporate welfare, more regulatory activity and more spending in general. His focus is and has been on presenting a basically pro-liberty, pro-choice approach to society despite the fumbling efforts to say that without "scaring the horses."
Has Johnson or any other lib candidate ever advocated or brought up secession from the fed as one of their platforms? Has he told people to gain independence from the system and not to rely on politicians as leaders? If not, I fear that voting for him is just changing the deck chairs. There won't be any real change, whatever he does will be short lived in a few years, and it will require an extraordinary amount of time, resources, and concessions to Libertarian philosophy to even get him into office.
Do you want to elect someone under a Libertarian banner who would think it to be acceptable to force a Jew to bake a cake for a Nazi? Try defending Libertarianism after he's elected and you'll find yourself making a lot of excuses.
Libertarianism tends to mean whatever people want it to mean, originally it used to be a way of identifying oneself as a socialist in a period where capitalist Liberals advocated for economic freedom. Simply put there is no difference between the two terms, they both mean freedom. Yet peoples perception of them is the only thing which changes. Today the roles have reversed again, Liberalism is seen as a stigmatic problem and Libertarian is the new popular religion. We've had it before, it's nothing new, so don't be surprised when millions of communists and socialists revert back to it pretending to have changed.