RoR: Forum

John,

I have seen your point many times - I have done so in restating and answering your arguments. I have done so in explicitly changing an element of my approach like I did here after Jeff's posts. I have on occasion apologized for language that hindsight showed to be too strong. I have no reason to believe my record here at ROR shows otherwise.

Here are examples of ME seeing the position of others - I pulled them from this thread - where is your example of YOU seeing my position in this thread?

"I still argue for voting a Libertarian ticket, and in my post I phrased that argument in some fairly strong language. But Jeff really has the best handle on this - there is no clear moral high ground. The current culture has dealt us all a poor hand and there are no happy choices. My decision to vote Libertarian seems most logical to me, but I respect the significant difference between McCain and Obama. I also understand if anyone chooses to not vote at all.

And in another post on this thread, "If you don't believe that the Libertarian party might ever grow to the point where it would shift the political spectrum, and if you don't believe that the Libertarian party provides a significant education service that is needed and requires support, or if you believe that there is a great, and immediate threat to the country from Obama, then you are NOT compromising your principles by choosing the lesser of two evils.

As for what Teresa just said, are you suggesting that I see her point that I'm supposed to be a moral coward?

Post 41

Friday, August 15, 2008 - 10:39pm

Steve:

I have seen your point many times - I have done so in restating and answering your arguments.

Ok fair point. But after having been told I sanction evil, you can understand I'm a bit annoyed for being given the accusation.

where is your example of YOU seeing my position in this thread

To Ethan (who shares your views):

I have sympathy for Ethan's comments but I don't entirely agree.

we can more often come together on the ideals we agree on but differ on the strategies we should implement to achieve those ideals.

Jeff I appreciate your non-confrontational approach to the issue, and I'm glad you understand that this simply a disagreement over strategy, not the ideals themselves. Regarding the strategy, it is of course controversial, and none of us have a crystal ball that knows precisely which strategy will yield the best results. I am of the belief that my strategy is the more rational approach, and I respect that others may disagree.

Then I broke down your argument, and isolated the variable of our disagreement in post 34 (voting for Libertarian as the greatest value)

If that's not going out of my to see the opposing viewpoint, I don't know what is.

Steve goes on to write:

As for what Teresa just said, are you suggesting that I see her point that I'm supposed to be a moral coward?

No. Is that what you think I meant? You accused her of an unwillingness to see your point of view, but she had your point of view in the past and voted Libertarian for years, as have I, and having received new information and having heard other persuasive arguments, as I did, she changed her mind.

Post 42

Saturday, August 16, 2008 - 5:42am

If Obama wins, I will look at the positive aspect of that ugly situation: We can now have a clear target to pin the blame on. Out of crisis there is a better chance to move forward.

If that's true, why not vote for Brian Moore, U.S. Socialist Party, outright? Why take the long way around? Just vote for it straight on. If crisis is the impetus for change, then go for it!

Seriously, though, I know why you would never vote for Moore, but I'm with John on this. It's a strategic mistake to vote outside of the two major, historical parties. At least it is right now.

"Those who vote the "protest ballot" only do so because they know they're safe... They know they're safe, because the rest of us will see to it that they are."

That, my dear, is insulting and condescending.

Maybe, but it's also, most probably, true. I don't have a problem with voters taking advantage of America's lavish and generous multi-party process. I have a problem with people who pretend their actions don't have real life consequences, and that a vote for someone is sometimes really just a vote against someone else.

I have stood behind my principles under risks to my freedom and risks to my life - in the real world as opposed to cyberspace where people can be as idiotic as they feel. I've earned the right to say that your accusation is unwarranted, mean-spirited, and just plain bullshit!

Oh, come on! Mean-spirited?? Please... If you just said, "Libertarian candidate Barr works for me because...." it would be clear that yours isn't purely a protest vote. But all I'm reading is how horrible McCain is, not how wonderful Bob Barr is. Big clue.

Be honest: A vote for Barr is actually a vote against McCain, right? I used to do the same thing.

Post 43

Saturday, August 16, 2008 - 6:05am

First off, I plan on voting for Bob Barr. As far as Obama and McCain are concerned, I slightly prefer McCain to Obama, but not enough to actually vote for him. I think the motivating factor for many of the McCain supporters on this thread may be the war in Iraq. I understand and sympathize with the concerns about Obama being a socialist, but when I read things like this:

I don't like obscene profits being made anywhere. I'd be glad to look not just at the windfall profits tax, that's not what bothers me, but we should look at any incentives that we are giving to people -- or industries or corporations -- that are distorting the markets," he said.
A spokeswoman said McCain had neither erred in his earlier comment nor changed his mind since. "He said he is willing to look at all ideas not simply Republican or Democratic ideas," said Jill Hazelbaker, McCain's communications director.

I'm not inclined to view McCain as a significantly better candidate. In addition, he still opposes drilling in ANWR, and has completely flip-flopped on the off-shore drilling issue and the Bush tax cuts. Don't get my wrong, I like his current views on the latter two, but he doesn't strike me as very principled. He and Obama are flip sides of the same coin, they're politicians who will do whatever it takes to get elected... even Obama has been softening his drilling stance.

An Obama presidency will not be the end of the world. I am of course leary of an Obama presidency with a Democratic congress, but as Steve hinted at, politics is a pendulum. People will realize that the Dems are incompetent and oust them in a favor of the Republicans, then realize that they're incompetent and oust them in favor... ad infinitum.

You may be able to influence the speed by jumping on the pendulum, but you cannot shift its path. For me, it's more important to shift the path, that is, to push the political landscape in general to a more liberty-minded scene, than to fight against the swing.

Post 44

Saturday, August 16, 2008 - 8:51am

I too, will be voting for Barr. Will he win? No. But I will not vote for McCain because he IS a politician in the literal sense of the word. Here are a just a few red flags with McCain : McCain-Feingold, The Climate Stewardship Act (which Obama co-sponsored)which among other things bans the incandescent light bulb, his support for continued Indian welfare, his votes in favor of confirming Stephen Breyer and Ruth B. Ginsburg to the Supreme Court, his anti-business crusade against tobacco companies, opposing the Bush tax cuts (which he has flip flopped on), Gang of 14,ad infinitum.................I am finished voting for the lesser of two evils. I will only vote based on issues and character. If my vote goes to the worst candidate because of it, then so be it. I show no honor and respect for the Founders of this greatest nation on earth by aligning my vote with a candidate who has done more than his fair share of dismantling the liberty whom those men gave their very blood for.

Post 45

Saturday, August 16, 2008 - 7:28pm

I accidentally ran across this sign that seems appropriate for this discussion.

Post 46

Saturday, August 16, 2008 - 8:40pm

LOL!

Saturday, August 16, 2008 - 10:08pm

Teresa,

You said, "...why not vote for Brian Moore,..." - I explained that I believed it best practically and morally to vote for the candidate that is closest to your principles even if they were likely to lose. And I said why. So, your question about Brian Moore doesn't even make sense.

You say, "...I have a problem with people who pretend their actions don't have real life consequences,..." - That's your new accusation - why don't you back it up by pointing out somewhere that I don't acknowledge consequences.

When you say, "Those who vote the "protest ballot" only do so because they know they're safe... They know they're safe, because the rest of us will see to it that they are." That is accusing me of moral cowardice. If you won't back that up with some kind of evidence other than just a bald assertion, or apologize, that is your responsibility.

You say, "Oh, come on! Mean-spirited?? Please..." What else do you say about posts that calls me a moral coward, someone pretending that actions don't have consequences, and being dishonest." Are you unwilling to acknowledge these accusations?

How many times and in how many ways can I say it? A Libertarian vote is a vote for principles I believe in. A vote for McCain or Obama are votes for two different versions of mystically-based, statists.

I made very clear my reasons for my vote and explained the principles behind the those reasons.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 8/16, 10:09pm)

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 8/16, 10:10pm)

Post 48

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 7:20am

Ted (and John,)

You asked for concretes and I've mentioned the underlying premises of the two candidates/parties. This didn't seem to satisfy you. The thing is, these concretes applying to these candidates don't really matter except for the next four years. I want to see a signifigant change and not be in the same place in four year; making a choice between bad candidates. It's always a "bad tiume" and there is always a reason given to vote for the Democrat or Republican "just for now to stop or prevent" whatever. That will never change. It's what keeps them in power. Fear.

This time I'll probably vote Libertarian, like Steve, and like I did in the last several elections. A vote for McCain or Obama is a vote for the status quo. By the way, I don't care who Rand voted for, it has no bearing on my vote. I made up my own mind about what to do. Below is a quote from Atlas Shrugged. This should be read and considered because it's true.

Mr. Thompson sighed. "I don't get it," he said in a tone of genuine helplessness. "Something's off and I can't figure it out. Why should you ask for trouble? With a brain like yours--you can beat anybody. I'm no match for you, and you know it. Why don't you pretend to join us, then gain control and outsmart me?"
      "For the reason that makes you offer it: because you'd win."
      "Huh?"
      "Becasue it's the attempt of your betters to beat you on your own terms that has allowed your kind to get away with it for centuries. Which one of us would succeed, if I were to compete for control over your musclemen? Sure, I could pretend--and I wouldn't save your economy or your system, nothing will save them now--but I'd perish and what you'd win would be what you've always won in the past: a postponment, one more stay of execution for another year--or month--bought at the price of whatever hope and effort might still be squeezed out of the best of the human remnants left around you, including me. That's all you're after and that is the length of your range. A month? You'd settle for a week--on the unchallenged absolute that there will always be another victim to find. But you've found your last victim--the one who refuses to play his historical part. The game is up, brother."   --Atlas Shrugged

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 8/17, 9:06am)

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 8/17, 9:07am)

Post 49

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 10:06am

Ethan,

That quote from Atlas Shrugged captures the spirit of the rejecting the lesser of two evils approach perfectly! I bow to the eloquence of your last post.

Post 50

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 10:34am

Ethan:

Thanks for that great excerpt from Atlas Shrugged. I had not remembered it specifically, but I apparently absorbed it's message since it exactly expresses what I think think is wrong with voting under the current political system. There is nothing wrong with voting per se, but the current system system has defined "its terms" to be an inversion of the original intent of the constitution. Both parties actively support the idea that limits are to be placed upon the citizenry while the powers and scope of the government are virtually unlimited. My refusal to vote is grounded in not being willing to sanction that underlying truth. However, I can really understand Steve's, Ethan's, and anyone else's decision to vote for the Libertarian candidate.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 51

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 6:37pm

What a great quote! And a nice, tidy repudiation of the Machiavellian ethics.

Post 52

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 7:02pm

Steve (and to the others voting Libertarian):

That quote from Atlas Shrugged captures the spirit of the rejecting the lesser of two evils approach

The moral hypocrisy here is picking and choosing when to stand up to your principles according to your line of reasoning of what that means. You feel sanctimonious when standing up and voting for a candidate that will probably not win. That is the extent of what you consider standing up for your principles instead of "choosing the lesser of two evils", but when it comes right down to it, you would still choose to stave off your execution (if the Atlas Shrugged quote is actually applicable here to choosing the best of available good) by continuing to pay your taxes and driving on public roads instead of taking a stand, and risk prison time (writing your letters of dissent to your fellow Libertarians) or take up arms against those that seeks to slowly poison you. But no, that would be foolish according to Steve because that would mean standing up to a juggernaut you could not stop, as if the Republican and Democratic parties are themselves not a juggernaut which can be stopped by voting for the Libertarian party.

Here, I am accused of choosing the best available option to me towards fulfilling the best possible life I can have as Machiavellian, or sanctioning evil, or whatever slander du jour I get these days. Yet Rand herself urged fellow Objectivists to vote for Nixon to prevent McGovern from taking office, she endorsed Gerald Ford over Reagan, and Barry Goldwater. She also used the most disparriaging language imaginable for the Libertarian party, joking that she'd rather vote for Bob Hope than vote for a Libertarian. If you and the other Libertarian voters here are to be consistent with the slander, you MUST call Rand Machiavellian and accuse her of sanctioning evil. Anything less is an absurd hypocrisy.

(Edited by John Armaos on 8/17, 7:04pm)

Post 53

Sunday, August 17, 2008 - 9:42pm

John A., just so you know, I haven't been following this thread, just came across this post with the quote. I was referring to Machiavellian ideas in general, not you (again, I haven't been following your posts.) Please don't take my comment to be directed towards you.

Post 54

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 12:57am

John,

You accuse everyone who votes Libertarian of moral hypocrisy, picking and choosing their principles, acting sanctimonious, and those here of engaging in slander. You are so out of line.

You keep bringing up that driving on public streets and paying taxes thing - didn't you bother to read my reply to that - it isn't the same thing at all.

Rand gave reasons for her choices on an individual basis and she had her own take on the Libertarian party. I don't agree with her. I also don't see her individual choices as any kind of argument for "lesser of two evils" as a policy. Her intense dislike of the Libertarian party left her with no third choice.

I don't know why you are bringing up Reagan or Goldwater, were they running on a third party ticket? As far a choice between Goldwater, Reagan and Nixon in the Republican run-offs, history might show Rand to have been wrong (I say might because we know what Nixon did, but can only speculate about what Goldwater would have done). And we know what kind of president Reagan made later. We know that Nixon lost to Kennedy - we don't know that Goldwater or Reagan would have. We know what Nixon did after Johnson, I doubt that Reagan or Goldwater would have imposed price controls or prosecuted the war in Vietnam as ineptly. Because republicans acted as she called for in the nomination of Ford over Reagan we ended up with Carter.

Personally, I think that choosing Nixon over Reagan or Goldwater and Ford over Reagan are good examples of why one should always make voting for the candidate that most closely fits one's political principles the first option to consider.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 8/18, 1:01am)

Post 55

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 2:35am

I have just posted a short piece in a new thread started by Ted titled What do you think of the Libertarian Party? where specific discussion on Libertarianism can take place.

For this particular thread I would like to make a suggestion. Rather than continuing to argue with one another over a narrow question of current US foreign policy which has now devolved into recriminations over who implied what insult to whom, what I think would be constructive would be for the major players here to each submit an outline detailing the principles upon which they think a proper US foreign policy and national defense should be based. Let's move this discussion to a higher level of abstraction and discuss what you see as the valid area of action for the US Government on the international stage and just what actions the US should take in its mission to protect its citizens from foreign aggression. I would be interested to see if there were any area of consensus on what a proper Objectivist government would look like in this arena. Any takers?

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 56

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 3:59am

I'll give it shot, Jeff. If for no other reason, because I don't like looking at my posts and thinking, "Yeah, but he called me a name first!" Your attempts to raise the quality of the debate are commendable.

Post 57

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 7:00am

Please be aware that I mean no disrespect or insult to anyone. We all come to our own conclusions. Sometimes the tone is lost in the written word, and I don't mean my posts to be interrepted as attacking anyone.

E.

(Edited by Ethan Dawe on 8/18, 7:01am)

Post 58

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 9:34am

Ethan,

There has been some harsh language in this thread, but I just went back and looked and I see nothing but respect and civility and not even a hint or faint glimmer of anything insulting in your posts. I'd say the same thing if you had been on the other side of this thread.

Post 59

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 9:47am