As a follow up to my post, The Anti-Hillary, Pro-Trump Arsonist Crowd, Jule Herbert comments:
Actually this is just a variation of your own "revolutionary defeatism" pulling for Hillary under the theory that things would get worse under her and serve as an object lesson for the weak-minded. I suspect I share this view.
Actually, this isn't my view.
I have written, for example, in A Sick Hillary Versus a High Energy Trump:
I hope libertarians recognize that from a libertarian perspective this is a plus for Hillary over Donald Trump.
A great leader that can barely get out of bed is much preferable to an energetic leader who can rally the masses...
If Hillary and Trump were the same on all issues, from a libertarian perspective, because of her illnesses versus Trump's energy, you would want Hillary.
My point is not that terrible things can't come out of a presidency where a president is ill, but that there is a certain kind of evil that only comes about because of a high energy "can do" leaders.
A Hillary Clinton presidency would be absolutely horrific, but she couldn't launch a wave in a baseball stadium. Operatives can do terrible things behind the scenes when a president is ill and not fully functional, BUT that president is not going to rally the masses in positively dangerous directions.
I have said before that I truly fear the leader, not moving a country in the direction of liberty, who fills stadiums.
And in the post, If It Comes Down To Trump vs. Hillary, I wrote:
I think they are both terrible and your hypothetical does not fit with reality since there is near zero chance of my vote making a difference. That said, if it comes to Trump vs. Hillary, I would rather see Hillary in office based on the idea that she would have less support amongst the general public, that is, she would be less effective in office than Trump in rallying the masses.
I fear Trump because he is an unknown with seeming tendencies toward totalitarian positions that Hillary would never dream of trying to implement and there seems to be a vast number who will follow him wherever he chooses to march.A solid hardcore private property society will only come about when the masses get on some gut level that freedom is a positive, a horrific collapse without that understanding could just lead to horrific new rule as it has many times, see Stalin, Mao, Hitler and FDR.
I want to emphasize I hold my position based on my view that they would both be horrific for liberty. If it was down to two candidates where one was clearly better on libertarian positions across a broad swath, I would likely favor such a candidate, but when we have two terrible choices I am going to go with the one that is likely to be least effective in implementing grand plans.
I also want to emphasize that I would not favor Hillary based on the idea that she would create such a terrible economic conditions that the economy would collapse and phoenix-like a total free market economy would emerge. Fat chance. most often collapse is followed by even worse government interventions.
My favoring Hillary is solely based on her being least competent at getting things done. There are many that hate her and would be obstructionist under her rule. Under Trump, I fear the opposite, enforcers who would go out of their way to police those not obeying Trump edicts.
It would not be any fun under Hillary rule, but under Trump it likely would be worse.
The least competent is the only choice that makes sense if these are the two choices.
Libertarianism is about promoting freedom, eventually so the masses get it, not blind revolution becasue of a great collapse.
When it comes to Clinton and Trump, they are both extremely evil. It appears to me, however, that Trump has the potential to energize a large proportion of the masses in the direction of authoritarianism.
I have no desire to see the worst take place (and it could with either of these characters) the reaction to such a collapse could very easily be more totalitarianism. Indeed, that is the likely outcome.