RoR: Forum

Post 0

Tuesday, September 9 - 12:30pm

Link

Edit

An exchange between a poster on Robert Bidinotto's blog and his response:

Poster: I'm sorry to say this Robert but:

The lesser of two or more evils is still evil. Those who vote for an evil and tyrannical candidate are responsible for the evil and tyranny that that candidate does after election. Those who support the system by voting for the system ARE the system. No-one should EVER vote for tyranny.

Ayn Rand was egregiously wrong to support the Republicans in all those elections. You are too.

Robert Bidinotto: You have perfectly summed up the Platonic/Kantian "virtue-focused" view of morality, rather than the Randian/Aristotelian "value-focused" view of morality.

This Platonic/Kantian approach to morality treats moral principles as ends, rather than as means to achieving values. By this view, being "principled," in the abstract, is the only thing that matters -- not the actual benefits or harms that are done to real people. This view detaches morality from consequences: One must, as a moral duty, endeavor to "be principled in spite of the consequences," rather than because of the consequences.

Consistent with this "morality is its own reward" view of ethics, all moral inconsistencies are equally "evil," and so are those who commit various wrongs. There are no "degrees of evil" and no way to measure them. A petty liar is just as "unprincipled" and "evil" as is a mass murderer. A mixed-economy politician is the moral equivalent of a despot. Thus, McCain = Obama = Stalin; they are indistinguishable ethically, regardless of the vast degrees of difference in the actual harm they do to actual people.

In contrast to this virtue-focused, Platonic/Kantian view of morality, there's the value-focused, Randian/Aristotelian view. By a moral standard based on life-serving values, you measure "good vs. evil" not merely abstractly, in terms of whether someone is "consistently principled," but practically, by the amount of good or harm they actually do. In terms of impact on one's values, there are degrees of evil, and they do matter.

Measured by his actual impact on people and their values, to call John McCain "evil and tyrannical" is just plain laughable. McCain is a "mixed-economy" politician. The operative word is "mixed." His philosophy and his policies are sometimes consonant with people's well-being and happiness, and are sometimes harmful to those values. But nobody who knows a thing about his personal history and public record can credibly claim that he's motivated by evil or by a desire to be a dictator. That's just ludicrous.

Furthermore, to call McCain "evil and tyrannical" minimizes the actual horror of truly evil and tyrannical people. Is John McCain morally equivalent to Putin, Chavez, Castro, Hitler, Stalin? Give me a break. You lose all credibility if you make such outlandish, indiscriminate comparisons, in which degrees of harm are not taken into account.

No, in supporting McCain-Palin I am not voting "for evil and tyranny." Nor am I "sanctioning" it, if that's your next claim; far from it. In voting for McCain-Palin -- in an election in which there is only one other realistic alternative -- I am acting practically and in my own self-interest. In ideal circumstances, self-interested choices mean "maximizing gain." But in politics, where the alternatives are often less than ideal, self-interested choices often mean "minimizing losses." That's the case in the 2008 election. I am taking a practical step in "damage control": a step to minimize the terrible losses to myself and the things I love and value that could come if Obama wins.

By the standard of my life and values, how would my abdication as a voter in this election further my actual self-interest? Do you think that my or your absence at the polls on November 4 will somehow communicate some practical "message" to "the system" and those who run it? Or would washing your hands of the responsibility of choice simply make you feel self-righteously "moral" -- like some medieval monk who is "too good for the evil world," and who withdraws from participation in it?

We have to live in the world as it is and fight for our well-being and best interests. If I abstain from choosing between these two electoral alternatives, then the outcome will be decided entirely without my input, and imposed upon me, regardless. I will have had no impact on the outcome of a political race that will profoundly affect my life, values, and future.

I am not that selfless.

By the morality of rational self-interest, you don't shrink from the need to make difficult choices; you don't stand by impotently, striking "moral" poses. You compare and calculate which, among available alternatives, will do you the most good and/or the least harm. And you assume the responsibility of choosing.

Based on their characters and past records, McCain and Palin, if elected, will probably do a mixture of good and harm. Obama and Biden, by contrast, will undoubtedly do overwhelming, catastrophic harm. The only moral choice -- if rational self-interest is truly your morality -- is to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket, and then do everything you can, as a citizen and advocate, to keep them doing more good than harm.

http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycomments&dcid=771&entryid=771

Post 1

Tuesday, September 9 - 3:22pm

Link

Edit

Robert says, "In voting for McCain-Palin -- in an election in which there is only one other realistic alternative -- I am acting practically and in my own self-interest."

But wait, there is third choice. Bob Barr has held national office before and the only reason he wouldn't hold office as president is that he wouldn't get the votes. So, why should we not vote for him? If he had some major flaws that out weighed his free market principles, that would be different. And there are other reasons for voting - like education of the public, like forcing the major parties to bring out better candidates with the threat of a spoiler candidate, and keeping alive the only party that even comes close to Objectivist principles. These are practical and in our self-interest.

Robert says, "By the morality of rational self-interest, you don't shrink from the need to make difficult choices; you don't stand by impotently, striking "moral" poses. You compare and calculate which, among available alternatives, will do you the most good and/or the least harm. And you assume the responsibility of choosing."

Note that that statement also applies to those who see three candidates to choose amongst - not just two. I understand the principled explanation for choosing between the lesser of two evils. I just don't believe it is the only argument or the best argument.

Robert says, "Based on their characters and past records, McCain and Palin, if elected, will probably do a mixture of good and harm. Obama and Biden, by contrast, will undoubtedly do overwhelming, catastrophic harm."

I think it is just as reasonable to say that either ticket carries serious harm. I think that McCain-Palin would be the better of the two, but I believe that Robert's guestimate of harm from Obama-biden is too high. And in any case the Libertarian ticket would do MUCH, MUCH less harm and actually do massive good. They only need votes to win - not magic or a second coming of Christ. But if Objectivist's won't support a ticket that represents their own principles they will NEVER win.

I believe that there are four moral choices.
1) Obama-Biden if you are convinced that theocratic tendencies represent the greatest danger to the future of our republic and subscribe to the Libertarian vote is waste theory. I don't agree, but it is a moral choice based upon an estimate of what the future will bring.
2) The McCain-Palin choice seems the most reasonable guess for the future if a person disagrees with supporting the Libertarian candidate.
3) Voting Libertarian is the most reasonable to me.
4) And not voting is reasonable if a person believes that voting libertarian is a waste, and the others are far too statist or they believe that it has become in effect a rigged game.

The guy who wrote Robert wrote like an over-the-top wing-nut in those remarks. Robert's reply, though thoughtful, makes the same mistake I made not that long ago. It overlooks that there are different positions that are rational and are consistent with principles we hold in common and only differ in either the estimates of what might happen in the future if this versus that candidate won, and differences of what separation from your quality requirements is needed before opting out of the vote, or what importance you see in a Libertarian campaign's educational value, need to keep it alive as a party for the future and forcing the major parties raise the quality of their candidates with the threat of a spoiling vote.

Post 2

Tuesday, September 9 - 4:02pm

Link

Edit

Steve:

Robert says, "In voting for McCain-Palin -- in an election in which there is only one other realistic alternative -- I am acting practically and in my own self-interest."

But wait, there is third choice. Bob Barr has held national office before and the only reason he wouldn't hold office as president is that he wouldn't get the votes. So, why should we not vote for him?

You answered your own question. Robert said "realistic" alternative. For one I don't think Robert likes libertarians very much, and second he doesn't regard Bob Barr to be a realistic choice since he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever winning.

Post 3

Tuesday, September 9 - 5:15pm

Link

Edit

I understand that John, but "he doesn't stand a chance" only because people don't vote for him - and voters have volition, if we drop the self-fulfilling prophecy it can go the other way. Politics can change in a matter of days. To deny that is to deny that under no condition would any third party candidate ever win, or to deny that voters actually have any choice or volition.

I also mentioned other reasons for voting Libertarian even if a loss is expected.

Post 4

Tuesday, September 9 - 6:03pm

Link

Edit

Steve:

I understand that John, but "he doesn't stand a chance" only because people don't vote for him - and voters have volition, if we drop the self-fulfilling prophecy it can go the other way.

I don't think it can at present time and definitely not for 2008. Most voters would never vote libertarian because they consider them to be a fringe political group.

Post 5

Tuesday, September 9 - 6:07pm

Link

Edit

In defense of Robert, he was primarily arguing against this notion (which is VERY common) that morality is virtue driven, not value driven. Results don't matter! Just follow these rules and you get a sense of superiority!

His approach is open to the possibility of finding value in these other options. You then have to evaluate those choices. He'd probably disagree with the quality of these other values, but the approach is the important part.

One problem of course is that those acting under this "virtue" driven approach (I refer to them as moral rules), will sometimes change their language to appear to be "value-focused". They'll say the value they're seeking is the knowledge that they are acting on their principles. Or they'll avoid acting against their principles. This is still a rejection of the "value-focused" approach.

In terms of voting libertarian, I decided a while ago that I would not vote libertarian as a protest to send a message to the libertarians not to be so crazy and anarchistic. So far, they don't seem to care. I imagine the two big parties feel the same way about protest votes.

Post 6

Tuesday, September 9 - 7:41pm

Link

Edit

Joe,

"In terms of voting libertarian, I decided a while ago that I would not vote libertarian as a protest to send a message to the libertarians not to be so crazy and anarchistic. So far, they don't seem to care." Well said :-) But Barr isn't an anarchist.

The argument I heard for a spoiler vote was interesting. It said that when a third party actually changes the outcome, it means the greater of the two evils wins the current election, but that the next election will see that losing party ensuring that they don't cause the same thing to happen again by choosing candidates that won't chase away that third party vote.

It is almost the only effective tool the electorate has for causing a significant and targeted change in the candidates that are put forth as nominees.

Post 7

Tuesday, September 9 - 8:00pm

Link

Edit

Barr might not be an anarchist but the party is full of them, he barely won the party's nominee, and his opponent Ruwart was someone who advocated the legalization of child pornography. They are also full of isolationists, a position that an overwhelming majority of Americans reject. So what is the message we would be sending to the major parties when the libertarian party is such a mess? Americans look at libertarians as kooky and fringe, and they're not that far off the mark. You might want to check out this blog I stumbled across:

http://www.freecolorado.com/2008/06/barr-beats-anarchist.html

Post 8

Tuesday, September 9 - 8:47pm

Link

Edit

All other things being equal, I really do not see much of a difference in looking beyond the nut jobs that inhabit the Libertarian party while voting for an actual candidate that represents a fairly reasonable platform, and looking beyond the nutty positions offered by McCain (or Obama) when holding one's nose and voting for him. There is plenty of nose-holding to go around on all sides. Everyone here has staked out a position on voting strategy that seems to make the most sense to them. I do not find these arguments against the Libertarian party convincing on their face now, any more than I did when Peikoff and company blasted them 15 years ago or so - because you can make identical arguments regarding the Republican or Democratic Parties. For every anarchist there is a religious fundamentalist that would gladly lock you up for failing to go to church on Sunday. I do not believe that there is any voting option available that one can be truly proud of. Pick your poison, but this lambasting of other people's choices here makes no sense to me.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 9

Tuesday, September 9 - 9:08pm

Link

Edit

Jeff:

I do not find these arguments against the Libertarian party convincing on their face now, any more than I did when Peikoff and company blasted them 15 years ago or so - because you can make identical arguments regarding the Republican or Democratic Parties. For every anarchist there is a religious fundamentalist that would gladly lock you up for failing to go to church on Sunday.

Jeff, really? Can we really say the same thing about the Republican and Democratic parties? Neither of them have anarchists, the majority of both of those parties do not believe in isolationism, and no candidates that I'm aware of held the view child pornography should be legal in either of those parties, nor am I aware of any Republican candidate that wants to throw people in jail for not going to church, that you would actually believe that is a bit sad and minimizes the horror of actual theocracies around the world like those of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Post 10

Tuesday, September 9 - 10:32pm

Link

Edit

John:

I do believe that given the opportunity to be in control, there are many theocratic individuals in this country that would gladly impose their religious dogma upon others as readily as is being done in Iran elsewhere. The specifics would differ. Maybe we wouldn't get our hands cut off for stealing or get murdered by our family for disgracing them by allowing our face to be seen, but I am sure that there are many who would not hesitate to impose as harsh a set of penalties on those who did not obey "God's law" as the Puritans did in the early history of this country. And they did burn and drown the witches at one extreme and lock people in the stock in the square for public humiliation at the other. Fortunately, at the moment we have a structure of law and customs in place that prevents these people from having any real power. But I can say exactly the same thing about anarchists. I think both groups have little chance of imposing their views upon the remainder of us at this time.

However, I also believe, like Mark Twain, that our civilized society is really a much thinner protective veneer than most people believe. As evidence, I only have to point to the incredible loss of personal freedoms and the enormous increase in the power of the State since 9/11. The mass fear generated by this one event is solely responsible for this drastic turn away from freedom. I do not think it would take all that much to push us considerably further along the curve. Do you not think it at least conceivable that if the US was thrown into some sort of significant upheaval, a charismatic religious leader might be able to rally the fundamentalists into a mob using the rhetoric of Revalations, the Rapture, etc., with the promise that "God's will" be done and that all would find eternal reward in the afterlife? While reasonable unlikely, I think this scenario is much more plausible than anarchists ever getting elected or being able to convince people to give up the rule of law. I'm sure you are aware that Peikoff has demanded that good little Objectivists must vote for the Democratics for the foreseeable future in order to rid the Republican party of its Fundamentalist Christian ideology which he sees as more dangerous than anything the Democrats can do to us. While I personally think Peikoff is once again running off his rails, I do agree with his observation that there is a very real potential threat present in this ideology when it becomes coupled with politics.

I think you may have missed my point, John. I was not comparing the potential for a US theocracy against those in other parts of the world. I was pointing out that the perceived threat you see in the anarchist wing of the Libertarian party is really much less of a threat, or at least no more of a threat than the socialist aspects of the Democrats or the fundamentalist aspects of the Republicans (to name just two of many ideological flaws one could point to in the two major parties). There may be good reasons to avoid the Libertarian party, but the mere presence of an anarchist contingent is not one that holds up to analysis unless you are willing to make the same argument regarding the Socialist Democrats and Fundamentalist Republicans. Note too, that I would make the argument that this is precisely the reason to avoid all three parties as I do!

My sole point in post #8 was that I see a logical contradiction in people denouncing the Libertarian party as a matter of principle while being quite willing to vote for one of the other two parties. I am perfectly happy to entertain arguments from you as to why voting for McCain is the best strategic choice in this election, just as I am willing to entertain similar arguments from Steve for his choice of Bob Barr. You are both smart people, along with everyone else here, all of whom have given your decisions considerable thought, and I am sure that everyone is interested in seeing this country move closer to the ideal state that I would like. I simply felt compelled to interject my post into the discussion because I see this nit-picking over the Libertarian party as counterproductive to moving towards that ideal. I prefer to think of it more along these lines: Each of us is conducting their own experiment on how to most effectively move us towards freedom. It's likely that some of these experiments will not produce results, but hopefully some will. A better strategy than fighting among ourselves over who's experiment is the correct one, would be to increase our pool of freedom-loving individuals and get more manpower behind each of these experiments. That's a better strategy for winning.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 11

Wednesday, September 10 - 6:55am

Link

Edit

�In voting for [candidates so-and-so] . . . I am acting practically and in my own self-interest.�

�Everyone here has staked out a position on voting strategy that seems to make the most sense to them.�

My own: a, b.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Besides my parents and my pastor, one of the moral lights in my childhood was the Lone Ranger. He had an episode (for kids) on the moral value of voting.

Kids' stuff won�t wash. When I go to the health club to do my swimming therapy, there is an expected utility for the effort�an expected utility for me�that rationally warrants the exercise. When I go down the block to vote in a state-wide race, the effect of my vote�its expected utility for me or for anyone else�is effectively nil. That is so because there will likely be a few million votes cast in those elections.

Nevertheless, I think the practice of voting is a rationally warranted activity. That is because I accept much of Robert Nozick's conception of rationality that he laid out in his 1993 book The Nature of Rationality. There he argues for a broader conception of rationality, one based on not only expected utility, but on symbolic utility. When I visit the grave of my first lover each year these last 18 years, it is an action of symbolic utility, not the expected utility such as most theorists have supposed to be the basis of any action deserving the name rational. Ritual at sunrise each year for a lost lover or the action of this voter on election day, the same human stuff.

The Nature of Rationality

Robert Nozick

Check out:

"Rationality of Decision and Belief"

Kathleen Touchstone

Post 12

Wednesday, September 10 - 7:49am

Link

Edit

I have found all of Nozick's works well worth going thru - even when there is disagreement, there is much food for thought, and a need to better crystalize one's own thoughts to counter...

Post 13

Wednesday, September 10 - 5:28pm

Link

Edit

Jeff:

I do believe that given the opportunity to be in control, there are many theocratic individuals in this country that would gladly impose their religious dogma upon others as readily as is being done in Iran elsewhere. The specifics would differ. Maybe we wouldn't get our hands cut off for stealing or get murdered by our family for disgracing them by allowing our face to be seen, but I am sure that there are many who would not hesitate to impose as harsh a set of penalties on those who did not obey "God's law" as the Puritans did in the early history of this country.

Well of course, if they are given control but who are we talking about? Which Republican candidate wants to burn witches? I find these sentiments to be quite cynical and knee-jerk. I know a lot of Christians in my life, for the most part many of them are happy, put-together individuals. I think you have a very distorted view here. Some Christians I know have strong feelings about abortion and marriage (even Obama is against gay marriage), but to make this leap that they would want to bring back Salem Witch Trials and arrest people for not going to Church is just not credible and again a Platonic/Kantian virtue-focused view kind of morality, where such a morality views banning state recognized gay marriage as equivalent to Salem Witch Trials and laws against heresy.

Fortunately, at the moment we have a structure of law and customs in place that prevents these people from having any real power. But I can say exactly the same thing about anarchists. I think both groups have little chance of imposing their views upon the remainder of us at this time.

The difference here Jeff is that Bob Barr barely beat the anarchists in receiving his party's nomination, to the point the next election could mean the anarchists in that party can credibly succeed in nominating an anarchist for their party, does Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, or Mike Huckabee want to burn witches or throw you in jail for being an atheist?

However, I also believe, like Mark Twain, that our civilized society is really a much thinner protective veneer than most people believe. As evidence, I only have to point to the incredible loss of personal freedoms and the enormous increase in the power of the State since 9/11. The mass fear generated by this one event is solely responsible for this drastic turn away from freedom. I do not think it would take all that much to push us considerably further along the curve. Do you not think it at least conceivable that if the US was thrown into some sort of significant upheaval, a charismatic religious leader might be able to rally the fundamentalists into a mob using the rhetoric of Revalations, the Rapture, etc., with the promise that "God's will" be done and that all would find eternal reward in the afterlife? While reasonable unlikely, I think this scenario is much more plausible than anarchists ever getting elected or being able to convince people to give up the rule of law.

Well actually no, I don't believe civilized society has that thin of a veneer and I find that to be quite a cynical viewpoint. Why do you have such a low opinion of humanity? Nor do I believe it is credible that a charismatic religious zealot, the kind that would arrest people for not going to church or wanting to burn witches, could ever become a leader of this country. I don't know what would have to happen for that to happen, perhaps some doomsday scenario where humanity lost all of its infrastructure and scientific knowledge due to a mass extinction event like an asteroid or massive caldera exploding and thus hurling humanity into a new dark age, but I'm not sure what that would have to do with the Republican party. I think your scenario for all intents and purposes is actually impossible.

I'm sure you are aware that Peikoff has demanded that good little Objectivists must vote for the Democratics for the foreseeable future in order to rid the Republican party of its Fundamentalist Christian ideology which he sees as more dangerous than anything the Democrats can do to us. While I personally think Peikoff is once again running off his rails, I do agree with his observation that there is a very real potential threat present in this ideology when it becomes coupled with politics.

I think this goes at the heart of Bidinotto's criticism of the Platonic/Kantian virtue-focused morality. If the Christian Republicans are such a threat because of the potential threat of that ideology, it not only completely dismisses any degrees of good or evil and labeling them all as evil as Salem Witch burners and Christian Crusaders, but it also dismisses the ideology of Marxism that the Democrats harbor, an ideology which accounted for 100 million deaths by communist regimes in the 20th century. I don't believe Republicans are theocrats, but if Peikoff wants to put forth this line of reasoning he would have to reconcile the marxist threat democrats pose too and cite the history of blood and torture that communists have been responsible for. Again, I would never go so far as to compare Democrats to Communists like Stalin and Pol Pot, but one cannot pick and choose how to apply their assumptions to a particular line of reasoning.

I think you may have missed my point, John. I was not comparing the potential for a US theocracy against those in other parts of the world. I was pointing out that the perceived threat you see in the anarchist wing of the Libertarian party is really much less of a threat, or at least no more of a threat than the socialist aspects of the Democrats or the fundamentalist aspects of the Republicans (to name just two of many ideological flaws one could point to in the two major parties).

Well I don't think anarchists are a threat. They clearly only make up less than 1% of the voting public, but I was never concerned and never thought them to be a threat, you were the one that projected that argument on to me. My position was only that I don't find voting for the libertarian party to be a better strategy than voting for the current Republican candidates because of the high number of anarchists that exist in the libertarian party and many of its platforms that I and many Americans consider to be fringe. You are apparently concerned about a threat you perceive from the Republicans. But a political party that has such a strong contingent of anarchists that almost beat out their party's nominee does not bode well for the future of that party. I don't see a future for it unless it explicitly expunges any anarchist platform, so strategically, I see no hope for that party in its current form of ever getting any significant number of votes.

There may be good reasons to avoid the Libertarian party, but the mere presence of an anarchist contingent is not one that holds up to analysis unless you are willing to make the same argument regarding the Socialist Democrats and Fundamentalist Republicans. Note too, that I would make the argument that this is precisely the reason to avoid all three parties as I do!

Again Jeff, you are taking on a Platonic/Kantian virtue-focused view of morality by not voting at all, this view would regard all three parties to be morally equivalent, more specifically all equally evil. Considering the platform of McCain and Obama, to say they are morally equivalent is to dismiss any value focused analysis of these candidates. McCain is a mixed-economist no doubt, but he wants to deregulate energy exploration, wants to keep the Bush tax-cuts and veto bills that have earmark spending, and wants America to project a strong defense against her enemies, in contrast Obama wants national health care, wants to keep environmental restrictions on oil exploration, wants to increase taxes and wants to meet with dictators one on one, they are not the same candidate, and both would not do an equal amount of harm or good.

My sole point in post #8 was that I see a logical contradiction in people denouncing the Libertarian party as a matter of principle while being quite willing to vote for one of the other two parties

It's unfortunate you took my arguments that way, I think you missed the point of my posts. Steve Wolfer considered the libertarian party on principle to be better than the Republican party, and that by voting Libertarian and if it received a large enough number of voters to throw a loss to the Republicans, it would force Republicans to take on more libertarian platforms in future elections, but I questioned that strategy as I don't find many of the libertarian platforms to be on principle in harmony with my own principles. Paleo-conservative candidates like Ron Paul received a lot of attention for his largely isolationist views, would that be the platform that is incorporated into the Republican party if candidates like him got more votes? Yikes, I hope that wouldn't happen. But don't confuse my arguments here, because nor do I share such a perfect harmony of principles with the Republican candidates McCain-Palin either, but I find that as a matter of who can credibly win, and who shares more of my values comparatively to the other candidates, as a value-focused individual, I choose McCain-Palin.

Post 14

Wednesday, September 10 - 9:23pm

Link

Edit

John wrote:

I know a lot of Christians in my life, for the most part many of them are happy, put-together individuals. I think you have a very distorted view here.

John, I still think you are missing my point. I agree with you that there are a many fine, deeply religious people that I call close friends and whom I hold in high regard. But I also know many Libertarians that fit the same criteria and, believe it or not, I know a number of people who consider themselves anarchists of high character and to whom I would much rather entrust my life than many people I know that profess a deep belief in the rule of law - because I know that these "anarchists" have no interest in controlling my life, liberty or pursuit of my happiness, while I know with a certainty that that is not the case for the others who work tirelessly to create "laws" that impose restrictions on how I drive, how I practice my profession, how I interact with my doctors, what I can and cannot digest, and how I dispose of my income, to name just a few areas of intervention.

Are you suggesting that given the opportunity, these busy-bodies wouldn't just love to exercise even more control? Do you think that without external restraints, as President, John McCain wouldn't institute a mandatory military draft and immediately forbid you to get an abortion - or that freed from the same constraints, Barack Obama wouldn't immediately confiscate the majority of the wealth in this country and redistribute it, impose draconian regulations on businesses and nationalize many of them? Of course no one in this country even thinks to themselves that they are anything like the Puritans who burned the witches, but do you really believe that if circumstances allowed it, that the majority of people have principles that are so well defined, and resolution so strong that they would not let fear drive them to do unspeakable things? We already torture and lock up people indefinitely, giving them no chance to even know their supposed crime, let alone have an opportunity to defend themselves. We have warrentless searches as standard operating procedure. We can tap your telephone, confiscate your laptop at the airport, examine any aspect of your life, all without any sort of check or balance on the government's activity. And while some people complain about these things, there is no mass movement or outcry against them. It's not much of a leap to see what else could be coming down the road with only a little push.

When I said "arrest people for not going to church", I was, obviously I thought, speaking in hyperbole, using that phrase as a shorthand to describe the set of actions that any number of deeply religious people would take given the opportunity. But I wasn't actually focusing on religion, I was speaking to the full set of actions that I am convinced the majority of people in this country would easily be willing to impose on their fellow men if only the restrictions of "civilized" society could be lifted. If you wish to categorize this view as cynical, knee-jerk, and distorted, you're entitled to that view. But I'm not sure that you are reacting to what I actually meant. I am also shocked that you would think that I was literally suggesting that we might one day return to witch burning and such! It seems ludicrous that you could draw this inference, but you repeat it multiple times in your post above, so obviously I failed to communicate clearly.

Bob Barr barely beat the anarchists in receiving his party's nomination, to the point the next election could mean the anarchists in that party can credibly succeed in nominating an anarchist for their party

I'll assume this is true (I don't follow the Libertarian party closely), but what are you worried about? Barr has no chance of being elected and if an anarchist candidate was nominated, their chances would be significantly less! OK, later you say you are not worried about it, you just don't think voting for the Libertarian party is a good strategy and that the presence of the large anarchist block does not speak well to its future viability. I'm in full agreement with you.

Why do you have such a low opinion of humanity?

It is difficult for me to know exactly what you are getting at here. As I have observed above, we see all too clearly what people are willing to do to one another on a daily basis using politics as their instrument of force. And we already see what people are willing to tolerate and support to assuage their fears. What I would call a realists' opinion of humanity you call a "low" opinion. I don't care what you call it, the facts speak for themselves. But if you want a more explicit statement of what I actually believe, it is as follows:

I think that when not stressed, most people have a generally good disposition and operate on a personal level with a reasonable measure of respect and kindness towards their fellow men. I find that I can get along pretty well with most people on a one-to-one basis and enjoy many of them in that context. In general, people are capable of and do achieve may great things, and in general, I enjoy being a part of this world. However, I do not find that the great majority of people have an explicit understanding of the basic principle of individual human rights. In place of any such principle, there is typically a loose collection of concrete beliefs that have no unifying theme, except possibly that of altruistic self-sacrifice which they have picked up by osmosis from their church, school and culture. They also lack the tools of rigorous rational analysis required to perform real-time evaluation of the consequences of proposals that affect themselves and others. In addition, I think that many people actually crave the "Big Lie". They would rather deceive themselves by have someone tell them that "everything will be OK" than face the facts and accept responsibility for having to deal with them.

When people band together in large groups such as political voting blocks, I believe that the "mob" mentality that Mark Twain observed, kicks into gear and these same people are now swayed significantly by public opinion, moving them even further away from whatever level of rationality they possess. The result is that this large group of people is prepared to do things to others collectively that they would never consider doing on their own. Toss in the fear factor on top of this and you have a potential juggernaut. So, to sum up, I like most individual people, think that they have many wonderful attributes and capabilities, but find them extremely dangerous when empowered to act as a group that can hold sway over the direction of my life - a power they now have in spades with the abandonment in this country of the constitutional protection of my personal autonomy. Is all this a realistic assessment of the world, or is it an overly harsh and biased view? You decide.

you are taking on a Platonic/Kantian virtue-focused view of morality by not voting at all, this view would regard all three parties to be morally equivalent, more specifically all equally evil.

In the sense that is important to me, I do think that the two major parties are equally evil and that the Libertarian party is ineffectual. What I expect from my government is a protection of my rights. Nothing more or less. We can all continue arguing about interventionism vs. isolationism or other specific issues until the cows come home, but Rome has already burned while all this debate was happening. We no longer have any real limits on the potential powers of the US government other than inertia from the past. The Constitution has been breached and the ship is sinking fast. And neither the Republican nor the Democratic party has fielded a candidate in a long long time that speaks clearly and directly to this fact. Yes, you can strategize about who to vote for this November, but the best you can do is equivalent to sticking a finger into a fist-sized hole in the hull. Neither Obama nor McCain is truly dedicated to the preservation of individual rights. The cartoon got it right, it's just a choice between NATIONAL socialism and national SOCIALISM. Yes, McCain is a significantly better option than Obama on many fronts, but McCain is going to further erode my autonomy and independence nonetheless. I stand up and speak for individualism and I'm not willing to participate in a sham that offers me heads-if-I-win and tails-if-I-loose, because I believe to do so is to sanction and prop up that system that no longer represents its original intention. Maybe you believe that we are going to reverse this trend through voting. I do not. In fact, I think the act of voting makes things significantly worse. Now, if you want to call me Platonic for taking a clear stand in support of the basic principle that everyone here professes to uphold, well go ahead. But honestly, that really offends me.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 15

Wednesday, September 10 - 9:41pm

Link

Edit

I am also shocked that you would think that I was literally suggesting that we might one day return to witch burning and such! It seems ludicrous that you could draw this inference, but you repeat it multiple times in your post above, so obviously I failed to communicate clearly.
...................

It is called being concrete bound...;-)

Post 16

Thursday, September 11 - 2:52pm

Link

Edit

Jeff:

John wrote:

I know a lot of Christians in my life, for the most part many of them are happy, put-together individuals. I think you have a very distorted view here.

John, I still think you are missing my point. I agree with you that there are a many fine, deeply religious people that I call close friends and whom I hold in high regard. But I also know many Libertarians that fit the same criteria and, believe it or not, I know a number of people who consider themselves anarchists of high character and to whom I would much rather entrust my life than many people I know that profess a deep belief in the rule of law - because I know that these "anarchists" have no interest in controlling my life, liberty or pursuit of my happiness, while I know with a certainty that that is not the case for the others who work tirelessly to create "laws" that impose restrictions on how I drive, how I practice my profession, how I interact with my doctors, what I can and cannot digest, and how I dispose of my income, to name just a few areas of intervention.

Are you suggesting that given the opportunity, these busy-bodies wouldn't just love to exercise even more control? Do you think that without external restraints, as President, John McCain wouldn't institute a mandatory military draft and immediately forbid you to get an abortion - or that freed from the same constraints, Barack Obama wouldn't immediately confiscate the majority of the wealth in this country and redistribute it, impose draconian regulations on businesses and nationalize many of them?

But anarchists want to abolish the state, not just bring back laissez-faire capitalism. At worst American Christians want to ban abortion because they believe a fetus is a human life and killing it would be murder (logically that is internally consistent) and ban state recognized gay marriage. I have not heard a single Republican candidate want to burn witches or bring back heresy laws whereas every single anarchist wants to ban government in any form. While yes many Christians have different ideas of what they would like America to look like, every single anarchist in the libertarian party share the same dangerous philosophy that would be far far more destructive than any contemporary Republican or Democrat platform. Because anarchy would just pave the way for a far more totalitarian government than we have ever seen because of their incoherent philosophy of abdicating objective law and reducing life to law of the jungle. You can't seriously draw out a conclusion that both are equally dangerous in their ideas. And if you do that's your prerogative, but I don't understand how you can reasonably come to such a conclusion.

Of course no one in this country even thinks to themselves that they are anything like the Puritans who burned the witches, but do you really believe that if circumstances allowed it, that the majority of people have principles that are so well defined, and resolution so strong that they would not let fear drive them to do unspeakable things? We already torture and lock up people indefinitely, giving them no chance to even know their supposed crime, let alone have an opportunity to defend themselves. We have warrentless searches as standard operating procedure. We can tap your telephone, confiscate your laptop at the airport, examine any aspect of your life, all without any sort of check or balance on the government's activity. And while some people complain about these things, there is no mass movement or outcry against them. It's not much of a leap to see what else could be coming down the road with only a little push.

Well how should I respond to this sentiment? You are basically saying that humanity while largely civilized now, is only one calamity away from descending into a mindless sea of brutes. I'm surprised you hold this misanthropist idea having read Rand's work. Or I'm assuming you've read Rand. I don't believe man is inherently evil, and I don't believe what we see in our culture today as having some kind of thin superficial veneer of goodness while harboring vile malcontent underneath, I believe the Untied States has witnessed many disasters in its time and I have seen the best of humanity come out of these events. The civil liberties that have been curbed today is small potatoes when you compare the kind of liberties that were denied during past events. John Adams passed the Alien-Sedition acts that was a direct violation of the freedom of press and freedom of speech in response to a fear of French-Americans inciting a war between Britain and America. The act made it lawful for the government to arrest you if you made disparriaging remarks about it. During the Civil War Lincoln outright suspended habeas corpus, instituted a draft and after the war forcibly removed all the Southern states elected governors. During WW2 FDR placed Hawaii under martial law and placed millions of Japanese into internment camps against their will and many of them lost their private property. I'm not excusing things like wireless wiretapping, or Guantanamo Bay, but a little historical perspective can ground these runaway fears. Historically these suspension of liberties were temporary, although again I am not saying that is moral or necessary, I think it's no where near as bad as you seem to make them out to be. Considering what happened on 9/11, the government did not outright suspend habeas corpus, it did not open internment camps for muslims, it did not pass laws restricting what the press could say, it did not institute a draft, it did not place any state or city under martial law.

When I said "arrest people for not going to church", I was, obviously I thought, speaking in hyperbole, using that phrase as a shorthand to describe the set of actions that any number of deeply religious people would take given the opportunity.

Jeff, I took that as hyperbole as well which is why I took exception to it. I'd rather stick to reality.

I am also shocked that you would think that I was literally suggesting that we might one day return to witch burning and such! It seems ludicrous that you could draw this inference, but you repeat it multiple times in your post above, so obviously I failed to communicate clearly.

Well I give up then because I don't know how anyone could NOT interpret your comments that way? You said: "I do believe that given the opportunity to be in control, there are many theocratic individuals in this country that would gladly impose their religious dogma upon others as readily as is being done in Iran elsewhere. The specifics would differ. Maybe we wouldn't get our hands cut off for stealing or get murdered by our family for disgracing them by allowing our face to be seen, but I am sure that there are many who would not hesitate to impose as harsh a set of penalties on those who did not obey "God's law" as the Puritans did in the early history of this country. [emphasis mine]"

Mind you this was your response to why you don't vote for Republicans.

I think that when not stressed, most people have a generally good disposition and operate on a personal level with a reasonable measure of respect and kindness towards their fellow men. I find that I can get along pretty well with most people on a one-to-one basis and enjoy many of them in that context. In general, people are capable of and do achieve may great things, and in general, I enjoy being a part of this world. However, I do not find that the great majority of people have an explicit understanding of the basic principle of individual human rights. In place of any such principle, there is typically a loose collection of concrete beliefs that have no unifying theme, except possibly that of altruistic self-sacrifice which they have picked up by osmosis from their church, school and culture. They also lack the tools of rigorous rational analysis required to perform real-time evaluation of the consequences of proposals that affect themselves and others. In addition, I think that many people actually crave the "Big Lie". They would rather deceive themselves by have someone tell them that "everything will be OK" than face the facts and accept responsibility for having to deal with them.

Jeff I agree with this and I thank you for your clarification. But this is not what you originally suggested or at least that's not how I understood your original comments which was akin to suggesting America was one disaster away from becoming a theocratic totalitarian state because deep down, Americans such as Republicans are just vicious brutes that wish harm upon their fellow man. Your above paragraph paints a far more reasonable picture than what you originally were describing.

Yes, McCain is a significantly better option than Obama on many fronts, but McCain is going to further erode my autonomy and independence nonetheless. I stand up and speak for individualism and I'm not willing to participate in a sham that offers me heads-if-I-win and tails-if-I-loose, because I believe to do so is to sanction and prop up that system that no longer represents its original intention.

Then as your own life as your standard, you should vote for the candidate that does the least harm/most good. To do otherwise you are simply admitting that you wish to abdicate any personal responsibility for maximizing your values and simply strike a moral 'pose' as a Platonic/Kantian virtue-focused individual. To hell with the consequences, just let the worst candidate get elected while feeling morally superior about your inaction. I don't find that rational at all. To you standing up to your principles are more important than the actual consequences that will befall you. You are saying you have a moral duty in spite of the consequences rather than because of them.

Maybe you believe that we are going to reverse this trend through voting. I do not.

No I didn't say anything about reversing trends through voting and I don't mean to imply voting is a zero-sum activity that is done in lieu of any other actions I can take to try and maximize my values. I can vote, and advocate more liberty for man at the same time. I am not sanctioning evil when I vote for the candidate that will do the least harm/most good, I am instead doing what any rational selfish person would do, and that is take actions that are in the interests of my own life.

I think the act of voting makes things significantly worse. Now, if you want to call me Platonic for taking a clear stand in support of the basic principle that everyone here professes to uphold, well go ahead. But honestly, that really offends me.

I actually don't understand how voting for the candidate that will do the least harm/most good makes things significantly worse than not participating in the voting process at all, to which such inaction leads to its own consequences. I don't see how you can rationally say that without having some rational standard of evaluation between weighing the consequences of these decisions. To you action means sanctioning, while inaction is not sanctioning at all. But I don't believe that, as inaction has its own consequences to which must be weighed against the standard of your own life and your own values. My intent is not to insult you Jeff, only to get you to understand that what is rational can only mean weighing your options and making the best decision that holds your own life as the standard. Life is about making difficult decisions but feeling morally superior by abdicating from these decisions does not at all rationally take into account the consequences of the decision to not act.

Post 17

Thursday, September 11 - 3:25pm

Link

Edit

Robert, I think it is more accurate to call it a changing an opponent's statement into a lie - a false statement put into Jeff's mouth, and then using it as a slander while making it the false target to argue against. And the conclusion of the argument is often to label the opponent based upon this false statement.

Watch how this works: Jeff cites the historical fact that Puritans burned witches. The context makes it clear that he is showing that humans have done and could do awful things on behalf of religious beliefs. He did NOT say that burning witches is something that is going to happen in the future. And he is clear that is NOT a threat in the immediate future when he says, "I think both groups [fundamentalists and anarchists] have little chance of imposing their views upon the remainder of us at this time."

But John replies,
1) "Which Republican candidate wants to burn witches?"
2) And, "...to make this leap that they would want to bring back Salem Witch Trials and arrest people for not going to Church is just not credible..."
3) And he accuses Jeff of having a, "a Platonic/Kantian virtue-focused view kind of morality, where such a morality views banning state recognized gay marriage as equivalent to Salem Witch Trials and laws against heresy."
4) And, "...does Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, or Mike Huckabee want to burn witches or throw you in jail for being an atheist?"
5) And, "Nor do I believe it is credible that a charismatic religious zealot, the kind that would arrest people for not going to church or wanting to burn witches, could ever become a leader of this country."
6) And, "...labeling them all as evil as Salem Witch burners ... dismisses the ideology of Marxism that the Democrats harbor, an ideology which accounted for 100 million deaths by communist regimes in the 20th century."

Jeff is unfairly put on the defensive. In his next post, he objects by saying, "I am also shocked that you would think that I was literally suggesting that we might one day return to witch burning and such! It seems ludicrous that you could draw this inference, but you repeat it multiple times in your post above..."

No matter, John comes back and says, "Well I give up then because I don't know how anyone could NOT interpret your comments that way? You said: "I do believe that given the opportunity to be in control, there are many theocratic individuals in this country that would gladly impose their religious dogma upon others as readily as is being done in Iran elsewhere. The specifics would differ. Maybe we wouldn't get our hands cut off for stealing or get murdered by our family for disgracing them by allowing our face to be seen, but I am sure that there are many who would not hesitate to impose as harsh a set of penalties on those who did not obey "God's law" as the Puritans did in the early history of this country. [emphasis John's]" But notice that John left off the next part where Jeff says "I think both groups [fundamentalists and anarchists] have little chance of imposing their views upon the remainder of us at this time."

He misstated Jeff to create a lie. The lie is that Jeff sees Republican candidates as potential witch burners. That is so absurd that it is a form of slander. It attempts to win a debate point by smearing Jeff - with something he DIDN'T say. And the false statement becomes the target of his argument, instead of arguing against what Jeff actually said.

The labeling is then built on the false statement. "...a Platonic/Kantian virtue-focused view kind of morality... And, "distorted view"

And there were good points that Jeff made, but they go unaddressed.

Post 18

Thursday, September 11 - 7:16pm

Link

Edit

Steve the buzzing fly said:

Watch how this works: Jeff cites the historical fact that Puritans burned witches. The context makes it clear that he is showing that humans have done and could do awful things on behalf of religious beliefs. He did NOT say that burning witches is something that is going to happen in the future.

I'm sorry, but Jeff made the implication that supporting the Republican party may eventually lead to some future scenario where we go back to something like Puritan law. Was it explicit? No, but it was certainly a tacit argument. He said:

"I'm sure you are aware that Peikoff has demanded that good little Objectivists must vote for the Democratics for the foreseeable future in order to rid the Republican party of its Fundamentalist Christian ideology which he sees as more dangerous than anything the Democrats can do to us. While I personally think Peikoff is once again running off his rails, I do agree with his observation that there is a very real potential threat present in this ideology when it becomes coupled with politics.[emphasis mine]"

Then what is the threat posed? Jeff believes Republicans have mixed Christian ideology with politics, so this leaves the potential future scenario up to any vague interpretation. But Jeff gives us some tacit suggestions:

"However, I also believe, like Mark Twain, that our civilized society is really a much thinner protective veneer than most people believe. As evidence, I only have to point to the incredible loss of personal freedoms and the enormous increase in the power of the State since 9/11. The mass fear generated by this one event is solely responsible for this drastic turn away from freedom. I do not think it would take all that much to push us considerably further along the curve. Do you not think it at least conceivable that if the US was thrown into some sort of significant upheaval, a charismatic religious leader might be able to rally the fundamentalists into a mob using the rhetoric of Revalations, the Rapture, etc., with the promise that "God's will" be done and that all would find eternal reward in the afterlife? [emphasis mine]"

So I don't believe I am slandering Jeff. He chooses not to vote Republican because of the religious tinge to that party (not all that much more of tinge than Democrats or Libertarians actually), so far the only religiously held views that I see in Republican politics are:

1)Abortion
2)Gay Marriage

And many Republican candidates have not expressed much of a desire to touch either of those issues. So I don't fear voting for Republicans, but Jeff does. Why? He has left that to hyperbole and vague accusations of potential futures due to cataclysmic events.

Post 19

Friday, September 12 - 1:11am

Link

Edit

John:

I see what you are focusing on and how you are drawing your conclusions, and it's understandable that you have your own areas of concern which lead you to concentrate on these issues. But often, as is happening here, you tend to latch onto one narrow aspect of another person's post, and this causes you to miss the main message. Most of what you are dealing with in your last responses to me and Steve is really of little personal interest, so I don't want to waste a lot more of your and my time going back and forth over these nits. Suffice it to say that, no, I am not "afraid" to vote for the Republican Party because of it's fundamentalist contingent, and no, I don't think that if McCain wins, any witches are going to be burned in the foreseeable future. Neither am I "afraid" that the Libertarian party may be poised to institute anarchism and reduce us to the "law of the jungle". And like Bill Clinton, Obama is only likely to get 10% of what he proposes passed, so I suspect that his presidency would be painful, but I'm not "afraid" that it would be a total disaster. I had two main points in my previous posts and they are:

1: People who do not hold an explicit commitment to a well defined philosophy that recognizes and respects individual rights, are unreliable. Lacking the ability to marshal political force, these people are generally benign. But under shifting circumstances, they can, have, and likely will again, band together to support all sorts of policies that have monstrous results - usually in service of a fear, whether real or manufactured. Maybe you disagree with this observation, but I can't be sure because your arguments seem to be directed against very narrow applications of this view rather than mounting a defense for the counter position that, in general, people will make the correct choices under most imaginable circumstances and honor the rights of others. If that is your opinion, please acknowledge it so that I can better understand from what basis you are operating.

2: Both the Democratic and the Republican parties are hell bent upon widening the scope of government and increasing the realm of decision-making and control that they exert over the lives of the US citizenry. They each have different sets of issues that are most important to them which results in divergent concrete policy proposals. You are welcome to weigh the relative demerits of these different platforms if you wish, but all of it is immaterial to me. When I look at the current state of affairs, what I identify is that by agreeing to vote, you are participating in and explicitly endorsing that system. You are saying that through this mechanism, the government has the explicit right to decide: if I should be drafted; what percentage of my income it can confiscate; whether I must register and pay a licensing fee to practice my profession; whether or not I can smoke; what wage I can negotiate with my employer; who is going to haul my trash and how much I will pay for it; and on and on. No candidate from either party argues that any, let alone all of these areas is not the province of government. They merely argue over the details of how to exercise power in these arenas.

The entire purpose of the Constitution was to provide limits on the powers, and circumscribe the scope and reach of government so that it could not trample upon individual rights. I no longer see any limits whatsoever to our government. With the stroke of the pen from the courts, the administration or the legislature, government can now move into any area and exercise control over any aspect of our lives that it chooses. It has already decided that it can take your property without cause and give it to a developer. As I said earlier, it can spy on any aspect of your life without any checks and balances. Soon it will likely control your access to medical care and one day force you to bring an unwanted fetus to term, saddling you with a life-long responsibility. Really, what makes you think that censorship couldn't be imposed tomorrow if a significant enough "threat" where present? Yes, we still remain free to act in some capacity in this country. But all signs indicate that this is more the result of 200 years of massive cultural inertia rather than a clear commitment to the principles of individual rights and limited government.

When I look at the option of voting, while I see all the same differences and consequences from the platform of the two candidates that you do, I also see what I believe is a much bigger issue. I see that, in the long run, none of these campaign concerns amounts to a hill of beans if we give up the last vestiges of real freedom in this country and cede the remainder of our personal autonomy to the government. The last inspirational political statement that I recall was Reagan saying, "Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem! This is what I believe. (And neither Reagan nor I are anarchists, so please don't pick up on that thread!) I choose not to vote, not as an abdication of responsibility. I do so as a moral outcry of protest against what I perceive to be the greatest tragedy we currently face in this country. And I share my moral outrage with anyone who will listen. If you want to vote for McCain, do so. You think it is the best of the available choices. But I wonder how clearly you see his campaign of "national service" playing out? In some areas, your vote for McCain may have some real benefits over Obama, I would agree. But what if his presidency subsequently leads to some sort of compulsory conscription program for service? Let's face facts, you have to pay for all these programs that both McCain and Obama posit. When the tax burden finally gets too painful, forced labor could be a tricky new way to fill the coffers. And who could complain? It will all be proposed in the name of altruism, sacrifice to country, and duty. Now, who on the left or the right can truly argue with that? This is the message of the 2008 campaigns on both sides. Will you accept responsibility if something like that comes to pass? Does failure to consider this possibility absolve the voter from having to accept responsibility for unintended consequences? Is shortsightedness an excuse for having achieved results that turn out to actually be not in one's best interest?

I continue to live in this country and pursue my life to the best of my ability, hamstrung to a good extent by the current level of regulation being imposed upon us. I may be forced to acquiesce to paying my taxes and so on, but I still have the freedom to not vote - and I exercise it proudly. Like John Galt, they can point a gun in my side and force me to do and accept numerous injustices, but they cannot force me to think for them. I refuse to play the game. Now, there is no need to tell me that this is a line of reasoning that makes no sense to you - because you and others have already told me so many times in the past. But if you want to disagree with me, then let's please have the disagreement over fundamentals and not the detritus.

I live in WA, and intrade.net currently shows the probability for Obama being elected here at 89%. You, John, live in my old home state of CT and intrade indicates a 91% probability for Obama. Realistically, what impact do you think either of our votes for McCain will have on the outcome of the election? So, while you try to convince me that it is my moral duty (to myself) to vote, I would like to try and convince you that you would have a greater impact on the future of this country by vocally protesting the erosion of our rights and the government's overstepping its bounds, and then backing up those words with action through abstention at the polls. I realize that this type of message is only going to have meaningful impact if it gets coordinated nationally. But for that to happen, individuals must start somewhere. No politician is going to rise from the ashes with the message we seek. It is up to us to formulate it and spread it widely. An that message is "The Rebirth of Freedom", the political compliment to the epistemological title of this forum.

Finally, when you write:

My intent is not to insult you Jeff, only to get you to understand that what is rational can only mean weighing your options and making the best decision that holds your own life as the standard. Life is about making difficult decisions but feeling morally superior by abdicating from these decisions does not at all rationally take into account the consequences of the decision to not act.

Honestly, I believe you when you say you have no intent to insult me, but that doesn't change the fact that the implication of this statement is about as insulting as it gets. You are calling me irrational; saying that I am abdicating responsibility for making decisions; accusing me of not holding my life as the standard of my own values; and finally, you say that I do it all for the purpose of feeling morally superior to the rest of you. Wow! I wonder what you would have said if you were trying to be insulting? I believe that I demonstrate above that I have a firm grasp on my priorities and my self-interest and that I am in fact acting positively by choosing not to vote. I also think you confuse confidence and pride in one's decision with a feeling of moral superiority. I suggest you take another look at both.

Regards,
--
Jeff

(Edited by C. Jeffery Small on 9/12, 1:58am)

Platonic/Kantian vs. Randian/Aristotelian morality.