SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Post 0

Friday, August 27, 2004 - 12:40am

Link

Edit

This is interesting. I never thought of this before.

Post 1

Friday, August 27, 2004 - 7:32am

Link

Edit

Thanx for the explanation - it does put the complex political world into very simple and understandable terms even for a lay-woman like me with no political ambitions/interests. This complexity has often made me very reluctant to get into any political discussions at all ... it's a maze ...
Yet one even simpler term is:
A bad law is a bad law, even if it could be worse!
My alternative has been to boycott elections since I was first allowed to vote. From a non-voters minority of about 10 to 20% in those days (twenty years ago) the non-voters have increased to almost 80% in the last European Elections. German voters are not quite as reluctant; for national elections, the non-voters are only up to about 40 to 50%.
Which still is an overwhelming absolute majority!
(the rest is devided between three major and two minor parties)
Give it a few more years and we've 'voted out' all parties without even casting one vote :-)
VSD
PS: yes - I know about the consequences of 'turning a blind eye' - I'm 'turning a seeing eye' not condoning what I see, refusing my consent / cooperation, by not voting ... and the non-voters are the 'party' with constantly increasing rates for the last twenty years ...

Post 2

Friday, August 27, 2004 - 10:49am

Link

Edit

This is viewing truth within context and is what many Objectivists forget to do. I hope everyone reads and understands your point here before they vote again.

Post 3

Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 5:11am

Link

Edit

Good point Joe.

So our general inclination as libertarians should be to vote right-wing. That's when choosing between traditional left/right candidates.

But under what conditions do you consider it valid to cast a vote for a consistent libertarian candidate, with no probability of election? And even harder, do you vote for a generally good libertarian candidate (Badnarik) who you disagree profoundly with on one issue (Iraq) or a generally non-libertarian Republican who has taken a stand on an issue of extreme importance (Iraq/Afghanistan/terrorsim).

Sorry about getting away from the central point of your article, but am interested in your thoughts.

Post 4

Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 9:56pm

Link

Edit

Thanks for the comments everyone.

Vera, I don't think the politicians care too much that you're not voting. They want into office. They don't really care what it takes. And the value of the message ("I'm not voting for any of you bastards!") has to be weighed against that fact. If not voting resulted in them not being elected, there could be a point.

James, thanks for the comment. Context was exactly what I was trying to introduce. I'll probably do another article on this general topic.

David, I'm not sure I'd go so far as say our general inclination should be right-wingers. I was hoping to introduce a broader view on the topic, especially when one big argument being thrown around is that conservatives like Bush are going to enact social legislation. But there are a lot of other factors, such as that when a conservative enacts economic legislation, no one opposes them. Well, maybe democrats do, but they usually demand that there's more spending.

Now as for your question, it's a tough one. I try to think about what is going to be gained by any particular voting. In a winner-takes-all system like in the US, my vote doesn't matter very much since I'm in a predominantly Democratic state. So it might make sense to vote libertarian, as it would help with their showing. On the other hand, I think they're a bunch of freaks. I'm disappointed with the candidates they run, and I certainly don't want to vote for them. Just because the party is libertarian, and the people claim to be, doesn't mean I'd want them in office. And if I disagree with their general approach to getting elected, my vote for them might be a bad indicator.

So I don't have a good answer. In the case of the current LP candidate vs. Bush, I think I prefer Bush, precisely as you said because of the issue of significance. Bush at least is willing to acknowledge evil in the world, and do something about it. I think those that ignore it, or worse blame it on the good, are likely to do far more harm. And I wouldn't want to accidently elect someone who's view of justice is so skewed.

Post 5

Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 12:40am

Link

Edit

Fully agreed Joe - and for the last 20 years they did get into office even without my support ... but when the non-voters become an unmanageable majority, changes are afoot ... and that's what I wait for ... a disaster like the European elections of 70 to 80% non-voters repeated at a national election would mean a repetion of the elections ... and that would scare them bad, because even non-political person would start questioning our political system if most people don't want it any more ...
Until then the difference which party get's into office makes little difference, as the last national elections showed when the 'Greens' an alternative party in cahoots with the 'Reds' a socialist party, got a huge rise for the proposals they made to different groups ... to name only three that got them the most votes: out of atomic energy by 2010 - postponed indefinitely; gay marriage - still waiting for the German highst court to at least sign the nominal marriage, no rights attached; anti-discrimination law for all Europe - was blocked by the German vote for all EU!
They proved that even a 'better' alternative can turn out just as bad as all the other politicians ...
VSD

Post 6

Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 11:30pm

Link

Edit

David, I am convinced that one should vote for the Republican who has taken a stand on Iraq/Afghanistand/terrorism, rather than for the libertarian. Today, the threat of terrorism is the major issue that confronts us. It is so deadly and life-threatening a danger, a danger that threatens civilization unless it is stopped, that it must take precedence over anything else.

Barbara

Post 7

Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 11:34pm

Link

Edit

A very interesting and important article, Joe. Thanks.

Barbara

Post 8

Monday, August 30, 2004 - 7:09am

Link

Edit

Joe, Barbara,

Social legislation, on the other hand, usually doesn’t benefit any class of people.

Federal drug laws do not benefit anyone except some drug companies, a huge army of bureaucrats, regulators and enforcement agencies and agents, and politicians themselves. They constitute the most dangerous kind of, "lobby," because they have the legal right to use force and the propaganda machine to keep the people deceived (and terrified).

Today, the threat of terrorism is the major issue that confronts us. It is so deadly and life-threatening a danger, a danger that threatens civilization unless it is stopped, that it must take precedence over anything else.

The Republicans say they will fight terrorism, by which they mean they will send American troops to every East Squalidsandpitistan in the world to fight some natives who are a zero terrorist threat to America, while supporting those governments that really are a terrorist threat (like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) and allowing terrorists to stream over both borders, north and south, and to set up shop right here in the good old USA, in every Mosque and Saudi supported private school in the country.

I suppose it gives those who are terrified of terrorists a good feeling to know, "they voted for the party that is against terrorism," despite the fact everything that party does promotes and protects it. The threat to civilization is not a bunch of Muslim lunatics (or is that crescentics) strapping explosives to their bodies and blowing themselves and as many others as they can to kingdom come, the threat to civilization is the blind belief the solution to terrorism is more coercive government regulation and international meddling while calling the ideology that is the source of that threat, "a religion of peace."

[If government could make citizens safe from terrorists, don't you think Israel would have done that long ago?]

Regi

Post 9

Monday, August 30, 2004 - 7:52pm

Link

Edit

I agree with you, Vera.

"A major symptom of an [intellectual] and moral disintegration is the shrinking of vision and goals to the concrete-bound range of the immediate moment." (My emphasis)

"the manifestation of a disintegrating consciousness is the inability to think and act in terms of principles"

"In any collaboration between two [groups] who hold different basic principles it is the more irrational one who wins."

"Whenever evil wins, it is only by default; by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles. In any compromise betwee food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is ony evil that can profit."
"The Anatomy of Compromise" in Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal. Ayn Rand.,