A few weeks ago I wrote a libertarian case for the Harris-Walz ticket at Liberal Currents. My old friend and former Cato colleague Gene Healy wasn’t quite persuaded. From the Cato blog:

Reluctance I can understand; but what’s the argument for enthusiasm? The case Grier makes is pot-forward and prog-friendly: Harris-Walz is the “first major party ticket ever to support legalizing cannabis”; they’re also dovish on crime, pro-abortion rights, and generally exhibit humane, pluralistic values. As libertarian nourishment goes, I find it more than a few crumbs short of the full brownie.

Now I have my own response up at Liberal Currents:

The baseline expectation for libertarians is that many of our ideas will be unpopular and that the state will be gratuitously cruel. That is not going to change overnight, but it’s no excuse for indifference to the outcome of the 2024 election. Faced with the real danger of an actual authoritarian in American politics, I am amazed by so many libertarians’ inability to rise to the occasion and proclaim their willingness to do the bare minimum to defeat him, namely voting for Kamala Harris.

Read ’em both!