Which bully do you want to buckle up to?

Ace of Spades considers Ben Sasse's idea that we need a third party to run against Trump and Hillary.

Sasse's point is that much of America didn't choose these two, and that part of America is not duty-bound to follow the folly of others. If there are still things permitted to be done -- like run a third party challenge -- why should they not be done?

The usual math on this is that a third party run would be disastrous and would deliver the election to Hillary. Many #NeverTrumpers, and I'm edging into that group myself, find this a weak objection in this case: Trump himself will inevitably be demolished, so there's no threat of "throwing the election." It already has been thrown.

Second, Trump represents an very stupid and dangerous form of authoritarianism. Everything with him is force and bullying. Riots at the convention if he doesn't get his way. His online trolls actively threatening people's physical safety.

I don't get it -- I'm supposed to be outraged by Lois Lerner, yet amused by this? Why? Because this will only be visited upon my enemies? First, that's not principled, that's just stupid tribalism,, and second, it's not true -- the gentle persuasions of authoritarian You Will Be Made to Buckle are already being visited on us, and by "us," I mean non-Democrats.

I personally didn't oppose the thuggishness of the left just to be bullied by a new thuggishness of the alt-right.

Some alt-righter (I imagine) drifted in to the comments -- a n00b -- to say "Wow this site is really spineless."

No, this site is showing spine -- by resisting your attempts to bend spines for Trump.

Apparently "courage" is now defined, alt-rightishly, as buckling to the right set of pressures and bullyings.

So the fire of my usual resistance to a third party is well snuffed by the two facts of our situation: 1, Trump's going to lose anyway, so we might as well have a 3rd party that can at least represent a moral... well, not victory, for it will not be victorious, but let's say a moral route of resistance.

And 2, My primary politics is anti-authoritarian. I don't like the left because they wish to be meddlesome in private economic affairs, dictatorial as to what you can do with your wealth (you can only spend you money on government-approved activities that support social justice) and increasingly fascist when it comes to speech and belief.

Many of Trump's supporters are authoritarians -- not all, mind you, some just want the wall, or to "teach DC a lesson" -- but many are thrilled by the Second Look at Authoritarianism Trump promises. The left has similarly become thrilled and dizzy at the idea of just forcing people to knuckle under.

About seven months ago I noticed, and said on the blog: Trump never talks about limiting the power of government, or freedom. Never. He's Government Action Man-- the government can do and do and do for "the people."

That's not some minor ideological complaint. That's not some esoteric bit of political dogma.

Authoritarianism is just a version of collectivism. Or, more accurately: It is the version of collectivism, for every authoritarian needs be a collectivist, and every collectivist needs be an authoritarian.

I'm not saying I definitely couldn't support Trump -- it would depend on which of these tinpot authoritarians wished to control me less. They both want to control me, but we'll see who promises to control me less.

Trump could earn my vote, by finally understanding other people's aspirations to not have a second boss in their lives called The US Government.

But so far he has proven highly resistant to learning of any kind.

Until he does, count me in with Ben Sasse as being interested in a third party, one that will leave me the hell alone.

Or at least that would leave me the hell alone more than the other alternatives.

Read more here.