About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Wednesday, February 13 - 12:00pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Agree wholeheartedly with this.  About all I can add is that politicians do notice votes cast for third party candidates, and that when the votes for that third party exceed the margin of victory, both major party candidates will notice and try a bit harder next time to reach out to those voters.  Look at what happened in the West Virginia Republican caucuses -- Mitt Romney won almost 50% of the vote in the first round, way ahead of everyone else, but the handful of votes for Ron Paul swung the election to someone else and got Ron Paul 3 promised delegates.

You don't have to have a majority to affect policy, just the balance of power.




Post 1

Wednesday, February 13 - 12:43pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

So to those who claim that supporting libertarian candidates or measures amounts to being totally ineffectual in the field of politics I answer that "Not in the long run."

 

If the major party candidate elected through your futile libertarian vote agrees with John Edwards that the war on terror is just a “bumper sticker slogan,” or with Barack Obama that the solution to our foreign policy conflicts is to “sit down and talk” with madmen like Ahmadinejad, there may not be a “long run.”

 

 
 

(Edited by Dennis Hardin on 2/13, 9:42pm)




Post 2

Wednesday, February 13 - 1:02pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

If the person elected by your Libertarian Party vote agrees with John Edwards that the war on terror is just a “bumper sticker slogan,” or with Barack Obama that the solution to our foreign policy conflicts is to “sit down and talk” with madmen like Ahmadinejad, there may not be a “long run.”


 
I'd say if a Libertarian Party candidate gets elected to any national office, by definition we've survived into the "long run", because you'd have to be daft to think a LP candidate will get elected in the foreseeable future. ;)




Post 3

Wednesday, February 13 - 1:15pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
To conclude: if Dennis and I are both right (which I think is technically impossible), then the best case scenario is that LP candidates keep almost winning elections, but never quite succeed, since that means medical advances have prolonged your life for hundreds of years -- but minutes after any LP candidate takes the oath of office, you would die in the blast from the nukes incoming from Tehran. ;)



Post 4

Wednesday, February 13 - 1:30pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run. -- Sydney J. Harris
Ed




Post 5

Wednesday, February 13 - 1:36pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Jim, I appreciate the subtle wit of your post 3.

Ed




Post 6

Wednesday, February 13 - 5:08pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I hope that the Libertarian Party runs a fairly credible candidate who emphasizes the central value of individual liberty to our lives. Both domestic and foreign policy should uphold severe restrictions on the power of government to commandeer and destroy people's lives. If the Libertarians were to run Bob Barr of Georgia--who led the Clinton impeachment effort, and who recently came out in opposition to the War on Drugs--or someone of his stature, I think John McCain might well go down to smoking flaming ruin.

I hope so.




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Wednesday, February 13 - 6:55pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I hope that the Libertarian Party runs a fairly credible candidate who emphasizes the central value of individual liberty to our lives.

I believe the phrase "credible Libertarian Party candidate" is an oxymoron.




Post 8

Wednesday, February 13 - 7:22pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
But in the case of statism--the belief in the omnipotence and omniscience of government--most people who embrace it are self-deceived into thinking that government really is the answer to most of our problems.

And this is supposed to be in opposition to statism?  This is just more of the same.  It is the same mistake as the Libertarian Party.  The idea that the issues of politics are the most important thing in the world is the problem.  We are on the brink of changes,  fueled not by politics, but by advances in medicine and communications and every other field of creative human endeavor, that will make the whole of prior human history a footnote, and we spend time on politics.

A million years from now, will the people who made it through the "singularity," with IQs measured in millions of times homo sapiens, able to internalize entire world-sized simulations as effortlessly as the way we imagine drinking a glass of water... will those people be recalling what position on some issue that Ron Paul or Hillary, et al, took on abortion?

And from that perspective, unless we were in a personal position that could actually leverage our political beliefs into real change that might get us closer to that singularity, how would we, looking back, evaluate those people who spent their time obsessing about monkey politics? 

I appreciate that Tibor has an extended audience and this is his field of expertise - or one of them - and that he might be contributing as much as possible to the more important efforts via articles such as this one, due to his personal position.  I just want to make it clear that we are wasting too damn much time when real issues are left hanging.




Post 9

Thursday, February 14 - 7:57amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Hi, Jim.
 
Hate to nitpick, but you misquoted Dennis Hardin's reply to you, which completely altered what he meant.
 
Dennis said:
 
If the major party candidate elected through your futile libertarian vote agrees with John Edwards that the war on terror is just a “bumper sticker slogan,” or with Barack Obama that the solution to our foreign policy conflicts is to “sit down and talk” with madmen like Ahmadinejad, there may not be a “long run.”

But you quoted him as saying:

If the person elected by your Libertarian Party vote agrees with John Edwards that the war on terror is just a “bumper sticker slogan,” or with Barack Obama that the solution to our foreign policy conflicts is to “sit down and talk” with madmen like Ahmadinejad, there may not be a “long run.”

To which you replied,

I'd say if a Libertarian Party candidate gets elected to any national office, by definition we've survived into the "long run", because you'd have to be daft to think a LP candidate will get elected in the foreseeable future. ; )

 

 

Maybe you did it intentionally to be funny? If so, then ignore this post. :-)

(I just thought maybe you misunderstood what he was saying.)

 

 

Erica

 

 

 

 
 
 



 
 





(Edited by Erica Schulz on 2/14, 8:03am)




Post 10

Thursday, February 14 - 9:58amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

Hate to nitpick, but you misquoted Dennis Hardin's reply to you, which completely altered what he meant.
 
Hi Erica-
 
This was my fault.  Jim quoted me correctly, and I realized my original wording might be misleading or confusing, so I changed it. 
 

I absolutely cannot endure a lack of clarity in anything I write.  It is an obsession of mine.  My humblest apologies to all concerned.
 




Post 11

Thursday, February 14 - 11:28amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Hi Erica -- I was just trying to be funny, give people something to laugh about and brighten their day a bit.  Wasn't addressing Dennis's point at all.  I guess I need to insert one of these ;) more often.  I'm used to H&R at Reason.com, where banter and sarcasm and wit are considered GOOD things.  ;)  ;)  ;)

(Inserted THREE winks above, so no one could possibly accuse me of implying anyone here is humor- or sarcasm-impaired.  Cause you're all good people.)  ;)




Post 12

Friday, February 15 - 5:22amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I absolutely cannot endure a lack of clarity in anything I write.  It is an obsession of mine. (Dennis)
LOL! I am the same way.

Thanks for explaining, both of you. (Dennis and Jim)
I'll butt out now...

:-)




Post 13

Saturday, February 16 - 12:22amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I don't understand the question, "And this is supposed to...." What is the referent of "this"?



Post 14

Saturday, February 16 - 3:00amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

 

We shouldn’t give up hope, Erica.  Somewhere right now dedicated scientists are slaving away, losing precious sleep, devoting every waking moment, neglecting everything else single-mindedly in pursuit of a cure. J

 

“This” refers to your essay, Tibor.  And by extension all of the follow-up comments as well.  Phil seems to be saying that wasting energy on state-related concerns is a kind of statism.  At least that’s my take.

 

 




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Saturday, February 16 - 9:18amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Claiming it is wasted energy when one mulls over the hazards of statism needs showing, not merely saying. By implication, it means that all the time the American founders spent on divorcing themselves from Great Britain had been a waste since what they opposed was statism.



Post 16

Saturday, February 16 - 11:50amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I think that Phil is assuming that we should pursue collective societal goals, and someone in authority (presumably, Phil) should decide what those goals are.  Instead I posit that each individual should apply the economic philosophies of division of labor and comparative advantage in deciding which specialization of labor they should pursue to maximize the value they generate -- and that in a world of over 6 billion people, surely there are some individuals who can create the most value by examining statism and finding ways to lessen it or at least slow the expansion.

Not everyone is good at creating great new technologies, and if those technologies are created in the context of a thoroughly statist society, those shiny new tools are liable to be used by smiling sociopaths to further enhance statism.




Post 17

Saturday, February 16 - 4:30pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I think that Phil is assuming that we should pursue collective societal goals, and someone in authority (presumably, Phil) should decide what those goals are. 

That's truly wierd.  I can't imagine any way that you could come  up with such a conclusion from what I said, here or elsewhere, so I have to conclude, using the same brand of logic that you have pioneered for us, that  it has to have been a message from GOD!  Thanks for letting us know the TRUTH. 

Instead I posit that each individual should apply the economic philosophies of division of labor and comparative advantage in deciding which specialization of labor they should pursue to maximize the value they generate -- and that in a world of over 6 billion people, surely there are some individuals who can create the most value by examining statism and finding ways to lessen it or at least slow the expansion.
Actually, I thought that was what I said. I referred to the fact that this is one of Tibor's fields of expertise, and thus, for him, with a much wider audience than this forum, it may be cost effective to spend energy on examining all the current varieties of political madness.

 
Not everyone is good at creating great new technologies, and if those technologies are created in the context of a thoroughly statist society, those shiny new tools are liable to be used by smiling sociopaths to further enhance statism.
Agreed.  As I've stated elsewhere, it was the genius of the West to bring political power under objective rule that gave it the advantage in every other field.  Without that, ultimately the entire productive capacity of society becomes enslaved in the pursuit of trying to attain power or to prevent someone else from attaining, as "with power, one can get anything; without power, one will lose everything," which is the basic underlying principle of Chinese society, under the emporers, under the KouMinTang, under the communists and still today.

Politics is the art of getting and keeping power, meaning the ability to successfully employ physical force or the threat of such in order to enslave people.  I've watched way too many people burn themselves out on the barricades of politics or anti-politics, which ultimately comes down to the same game.  Perhaps I'm over-reacting from the endless deluge of stupid, irrelevant political nonsense that has engulfed us this political season.  ENUF! 





Post 18

Saturday, February 16 - 4:43pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
True enough - Politics is the art and science of rule - however else others may wish it to be known.....



Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.