Is Michael Badnarik an option?

I’ve received a lot of email about my essay “But Who Will You Root For?,” featured yesterday on LewRockwell.com. One reader asked:

Why will you not root for Badnarik?

I really cannot understand the slew of Lew Rockwell articles that are endorsing NOT VOTING at all. And not even offering Badnarik as the Libertarian candidate whose views most closely match all you “small l" libertarians. He IS a viable option!

I’m going to vote for Badnarik...AND I'm going to root for him, too.

Two things.

First, this is a LewRockwell.com reader who has either not read enough libertarian arguments against voting to understand the anti-politics position or is simply not paying attention. The argument against voting has been made pretty clear again and again. And the most fundamental is that it’s fraudulent for anarchists -- which hardcore libertarians are -- to elect politicians to abolish politics and govern to abolish government.

Second, Badnarik is NOT a “viable option” to even root for. He has absolutely no chance of winning in this election. You may vote for him if that makes you feel better. But rooting for a candidate is strictly about a few fleeting emotional rewards. And emotional rewards come only if the candidate you’re rooting for can realistically win the election. Does anyone really think Badnarik can pull off this election? Come on...

OK, there's a third thing, after all. Badnarik, “whose views most closely match all you ‘small l’ libertarians,” is a strict Constitutionalist. To a radical libertarian like myself, who’d abandon the U.S. Constitution for the good ol' Articles of Confederation in a heartbeat, Badnarik is one more example of the Libertarian Party’s empty-headed willingness to compromise with government rather than smash it, to hold power rather than crush it.