RoR: Forum

Yes, why vote for a Republican with a chance, when you can vote for a pretend-Libertarian religious-right Republican with no chance? Send the message that you too can be had by an opportunist.

Post 1

Sunday, November 2, 2008 - 10:41pm

"Yes, why vote for a Republican with a chance, when you can vote for a pretend-Libertarian religious-right Republican with no chance? Send the message that you too can be had by an opportunist."

Yes, why vote for someone articulating the principles of liberty and free markets / free minds that you actually believe in, thereby sending the message that you believe in limited government, not socialism, when you can choose between a center-left big-government socialist and a far-left big-government socialist, thereby allowing your vote to have a miniscule chance of tipping the balance if and only if you live in a handful of swing states, though most likely not the state you personally live in? Send the message that you are willing to abandon your principles and endorse one of two socialist opportunists and ignore an alternative theory of governance based on Objectivist and libertarian ideals.

Post 2

Sunday, November 2, 2008 - 11:12pm

Oh, so now you respect Objectivism, James?

Post 3

Monday, November 3, 2008 - 12:33pm

I saw this posted on-line as an anonymous reply to a George Will column:
---------------
Subject: Third party votes are NOT a waste

There are several good reasons to vote third party if you have a longer-term view than just winning this election.

* Many states have minimum percentages to ease ballot access in future elections. Your vote can set the stage for a third party become a serious contender.

* Third-party votes show where voter dissatisfaction lies. Abstaining does not.

* If a major party attributes its loss to a third party, it will have a real incentive to adopt some of those principles to attract those voters next election.

* EVERY election is the most important election ever. Don't be fooled by the hysteria that "Third parties are great, but THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER so vote your cute little conscience sometime when the stakes aren't as high." Well, I have heard this exact refrain every single election for the two decades I have voted. What they mean is, "Vote third party when MY party has comfortable majorities in no danger of losing." Hmmm... So that's when this party would be open to change? When it thinks it has a solid voter mandate? Not likely.

* A vote for a major party is a vote begging them to continue fielding substandard candidates and ignoring your voice. We're all about competition, so why not apply that to political parties?
--------------------

Post 4

Monday, November 3, 2008 - 1:37pm

I would like to see instead a bigger push for things like instant run-off to allow third parties to be counted without the "wasting your vote" issue. This needs to get some grass roots support as it is in the best interests of the voter and NOT in the best interests of the sitting parties. THEN I would consider that. Until them, with the exception of a few local elections, we are a 2 party state.

Post 5

Monday, November 3, 2008 - 7:16pm

"Oh, so now you respect Objectivism, James?"

Hell, I even respect you, Ted. :o)

I respect Objectivist principles. Some of the odd notions allegedly based on those principles, such as shoveling money and lives into pre-emptive wars against people who pose no imminent or grave threat to the security of the citizens of this nation, thereby fueling the continuation in power of the kind of statists that Ayn Rand abhorred and railed about in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead -- those notions I'm not so wild about.

Including the notion that it's a good idea to vote for someone whose beliefs and actions are pretty much the opposite of Objectivist principles regarding the proper role of government, when there is someone else on the ballot who comes a lot closer to Objectivist ideals.
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 11/03, 7:30pm)

Post 6

Monday, November 3, 2008 - 8:18pm

It's hard for me to understand how someone can feel that a vote for McCain is a vote for big government and then go and vote for Bob Barr. Barr, the great freedom fighter?

I guess freedom is voting against the right of women to direct their own lives. If that's freedom then vote for Barr.

Perhaps freedom is protecting marriage, something the Church can't even do. If meddling in the affairs of people is freedom, vote for Barr.

More than anything freedom must be voting for a bill that will allow the government to spy on us, the citizens. If we must have freedom through terror, vote for Barr.

I'm pleased with someone not voting for Obama. I'm fine with someone not wanting to vote for McCain. I can't understand how you could pass up McCain for Barr though. I just don't see it.

Post 7

Monday, November 3, 2008 - 11:03pm

Steve, I can't, for the life of me, understand your last post. Maybe you are looking at Barr's positions from the past. Maybe you haven't compared them side by side.

McCain is flat out a statist when you compare him to Barr - take a look! Then tell me who is in favor of freedom!
----------------

There is no question that McCain is more of a big government guy than Barr was even when Barr was in congress and a conservative. Most of the information below is copy paste or summarizing from Wikipedia.

------- Barr on spending and size of government -------
Bob Barr's belief that we need a reduction in the size of the government was cited as the primary reason for his candidacy. From his campaign site: "Every area of federal spending can and should be cut. Entitlements must be reformed and welfare should be cut, including subsidies for business sometimes called corporate welfare."

--------Barr on patriot act -----------
On the Patriot Act, Barr said, that he regretted voting for it and during the last five years has been "working to take the USA PATRIOT Act, drive a stake through its heart, burn it, shoot it, [and] burn it again..." And he has been working on a committee to do just that, for years.

---------Barr on Gay marriages ---------
The federal government should neither regulate personal relationships nor discriminate against individuals for their personal preferences. The federal government should not define marriage, whether by statute or constitutional amendment. This is his current position and he publically apologized for his support a decade ago on the Defense of Marriage Act which prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

--------Barr on taxation -----------
Barr advocates the repeal of the 16th Amendment, which gives the U.S. Congress the power to levy an income tax without apportionment.

-------- McCain on Abortion (Wikipedia) -----------
"McCain has stated that he believes personhood begins at the moment of conception and that embryos should be afforded full human rights.[240]

In June 1984, McCain voted for H.AMDT.942, the Siljander amendment, to H.R.5490, "An amendment to define "person" as including unborn children from the moment of conception".[241]

In 1999, McCain said of Roe v. Wade, "I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."[242][243]

However, on February 18, 2007, McCain stated, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."[244] McCain has said he supports amending the U.S. Constitution to ban abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or risk to the mother's life.[245]

McCain has voted 119 times on pro-life measures in the Senate[246] including co-sponsoring the Federal Abortion Ban.

McCain has a consistent 0 percent rating from the Pro-Choice group, NARAL, and a 75% rating from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).[247]"

------ McCain on Patriot Act (Wikipedia) ---------
McCain voted in support of the USA PATRIOT Act.[264] In a speech in Westport, Connecticut, he said that "sometimes democracies overreact" during times of national security crises, and pledged to periodically review the Patriot Act in order to safeguard civil liberties.[265]

McCain voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act...
McCain voted to extend the Patriot Act�s Wiretap Provision...

------- McCain on Draft -----------------
McCain publically considered reinstating the draft in 1999. He also has said the draft was not a good idea - he waffles back and forth.

-------- McCain on Bailouts --------
McCain is okay with the bail-outs - one after the other and wants to have the government bail out individuals with mortgages they shouldn't have taken out.

-------- McCain on Intelligent Design ------------
In 2005, McCain announced that he supported the inclusion of intelligent design teaching in schools.[277]

-------- Barr on Education ------------
Would abolish the Department of Education and eliminate federal grants and regulation; also opposes No Child Left Behind. Believes that education should return to the local level. Supports state-level tax credits to parents who use private education or homeschool. "Ultimately, education will best serve the children of America if it occurs within a competitive private system rather than a government system."[212]

-------- McCain on 2nd Amendment --------
2nd Amendment: McCain has received fair to poor ratings on gun issues from the National Rifle Association, garnering a C+.[285] According to a review by Gun Owners of America (GOA), "in 2001, McCain went from being a supporter of anti-gun bills to being a lead sponsor".[286] McCain's GOA rating went from a "C-" in 2000 to an "F-" in 2006.[287]

--------- McCain on Gay Marriage -----------
McCain supported the failed 2006 Arizona initiative to ban gay marriage,[301] and supports a similar initiative in California that will be on that state's November 2008 ballot.[302] He also voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 which barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.[303] He voted against the federal act in 2004.

-------- McCain on Foreign Aid ----------
John McCain plans to expand foreign aid, specifically targeting malaria in Africa...

------- Barr on Foreign Aid ------------
Bob Barr says, "[F]oreign aid has proved to be a drain on the U.S. economy while doing little good for the recipients. Aid is routinely used by corrupt foreign governments to oppress their people and enrich powerful elites. Foreign aid almost always discourages economic and political reform, while subsidizing nations which often work against U.S. interests."[136]

--------- McCain on Environment -----------
McCain believes that Global Warming is caused by man and take other Green-friendly positions, including not drilling in Anwar.

-------- Barr on Environment -----------
Bob Barr pledges to eliminate restrictions that inhibit energy production, as well as all special privileges for the production of politically-favored fuels, such as ethanol; supports the exploration and production of America�s abundant domestic resources, including oil in the Outer Continental Shelf and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and alternative sources such as shale oil, which would lower costs to the consumer and assure more adequate and consistent supplies. [146]

Post 8

Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - 1:38pm

I think you guys are having a linguistic breakdown. What's all this talk of big government and reducing the size of government? Since when did the size of government matter?

It all sounds very similar to those dreaded liberals who lambaste 'big' business and 'big' oil and 'big' anything. Stop falling for that garbage guys. The size of something is not what matters. Is the fact that a business is huge any reason to fear it? If not, then why the terror at 'big' government?

I don't know why you are so afraid of size. We're not women.

Post 9

Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - 2:24pm

Steve, someone is giving you bad information. Women are NOT afraid of size :-)

I am afraid of big government. Size correlates directly with cost (the amount of taxation, deficit, inflation, and debt) and it correlates directly with the interference in private lives and with the violation individual rights.

The reason that big government is different from big corporations is that government's service is confiscation and prohibition (which is why we want it small and limited to defending individual rights), whereas corporations' service is customer satisfaction which is why big is not bad.

Post 10

Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - 2:52pm

I'm glad to hear that Bob Barr is a politician. I was afraid, only for a moment, that he might have been different.

It warms my soul to know that Barr has apologized for authoring a bill that would deny me the option of marrying my boyfriend if I wanted to. I'm glad he is sorry about that choice.

I'm glad Barr has switched sides, and just in time to get the nomination of the Libertarian Party, on the War on Drugs. His years of fighting to involve the government in the private affairs of Americans can be forgiven since he did become a lobbyist for a pro-medical marijuana group.

Glad to hear that Barr is against the 'bailout', the bailout that his (and our) government created the need for.

Glad to hear that Barr is against the Patriot Act after he was for it.

I'm not sure, but that all sounds familiar to me.

Post 11

Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - 3:13pm

So, Steve, now that you are glad so many times with Barr, and have so few equivalent areas of gladdness from McCain, are you voting differently? :-)

Post 12

Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - 3:17pm

It's too late. I've voted. The evil deed is done.

Post 13

Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - 5:15pm

The evil deed is done.

Damned if ye do, and damned if ye don't, huh...

Post 14

Thursday, November 6, 2008 - 6:48am

Gennady Stolyarov -- I thought this an exceptionally well-argued video. It's a sheer pleasure to see it on YouTube.

It's nice to see someone who doesn't embrace that amoral, unprincipled, intellectually-confused-and-befogged "Don't throw your vote away!" nonsense. Anyone who votes Republican or Democrat is truly throwing his vote away in my view -- and doing something profoundly evil as well.

Still, it's worth noting that Ayn Rand and, more recently, Robert Bidinotto [on his www.econot.com blog] don't seem to agree. I have immense respect for both, but I still tend to go along with the cliche you cited: "The lesser of two evils is still evil."

You make an interesting point that if either the Republicans or Democrats were slightly pro-freedom, at least relative to the status quo, that you would then possibly vote for them. You hold this out to the two major parties as a kind of "carrot" to motivate them to change their ways. This is a reasonable and plausible argument, but I disagree a bit anyway. Possibly I'm more radical than you (or anyone! ;-) ). I personally would only vote for a person I think genuinely represents my views, and is objectively proper and virtuous. Being relatively morally good isn't good enough for me. I'd feel sick and polluted inside to cast my vote for even comparative or "soft" tyranny.

I certainly agree with you when you say that your recent vote for Bob Barr "signals that you disapprove of the current political establishment." You're right-on to say neither McCain nor Obama will hold office "with my sanction."

But I still think it wrong to vote for slavery and evil. However "soft" in terms of welfare-state statism, I nevertheless refuse to morally sanction, or participate in, my own political destruction. I've never voted for slavery or evil in my life, and I never will. And I've vigorously rejected and denounced welfare-state semi-totalitarianism for more than two decades. Big Brother tyranny may exist everywhere on earth -- but not with my sanction. Not thru my vote.

And it may be worth noting that if it were possible for me to defeat tyranny by physically hurting people who vote Republican or Democratic, I would do just that.

Any thoughts on this, Gennady? ;-)

Post 15

Thursday, November 6, 2008 - 7:02am

Steve Wolfer writes:

Third party votes are NOT a waste

There are several good reasons to vote third party if you have a longer-term view than just winning this election.

* Many states have minimum percentages to ease ballot access in future elections. Your vote can set the stage for a third party become a serious contender.

* Third-party votes show where voter dissatisfaction lies....

* If a major party attributes its loss to a third party, it will have a real incentive to adopt some of those principles to attract those voters next election.

* EVERY election is the most important election ever. Don't be fooled by the hysteria that "Third parties are great, but THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER so vote your cute little conscience sometime when the stakes aren't as high." Well, I have heard this exact refrain every single election for the two decades I have voted....

* A vote for a major party is a vote begging them to continue fielding substandard candidates and ignoring your voice. We're all about competition, so why not apply that to political parties?

I think this supplements Gennady Stolyarov's video nicely.

Post 16

Thursday, November 6, 2008 - 10:24am

Regarding post #15, I was not the author of that content, as I said, when I posted it, it was an anonymous reply to a George Will column that I copy-pasted.

In post #14 Zantonavitch states his willingness to physically harm anyone who voted Republican or Democrat. Can anyone give me a reason why RoR would want to have the kind of person that would make that statement posting here? Can anyone provide a reason not to ban this person for the racist remarks that he has a history of making?

The kind of posts that he makes cause this site to look like a home for violent, unbalanced loons. If anyone on this site had a worry about the strange associations of Obama then shouldn't they also worry about allowing this person to keep 'walking in the door' and associating his 'thoughts' with ours?

At least stick him 'Dissent,' so we can say that we recognize a difference between someone who wants to physically harm people for voting, and the rest of us, between racists and those who are disgusted by it.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 11/06, 10:36am)

Post 17

Thursday, November 6, 2008 - 12:50pm

"The kind of posts that he makes cause this site to look like a home for violent, unbalanced loons."

LOL

(These are, of course, grebes, and not loons.)

(Edited by Ted Keer on 11/06, 1:23pm)

Post 18

Thursday, November 6, 2008 - 12:51pm

Steve Wolfer: I thought the observations you posted were pretty good and pretty true, which is why I repeated most of them.

Altho' I don't really like to respond to such odd negativity, part of my point above was voting is serious, and necessarily involves personal responsibility, which few today seem to note (even Objectivists). You shouldn't vote to enslave your fellow man, but if you do, you should take responsibility for your act. Voting per se isn't the problem or the source of my (or Mr. Stolyarov's or your writer's) objection. But in my view voting isn't a morality-free zone either. As I see it, you can't properly or morally give the Adolph Eichmann excuse of "just doing my job," "just following orders," "just going along with the system," "just doing what everyone else is doing," "not my fault -- the world or the system is guilty," etc. I mean: What about serving jury duty and being deputized, or being a police officer or soldier? Is serving and advancing tyranny also in order here, and not your responsibility or fault? Just how innocent should these seeming totalitarian-facilitators and -enablers be judged? I wanted to possibly hear Gennady Stolyarov's and Bill Dwyer's thoughts on these and related subjects.

(As for my supposed "racist remarks" [sigh], I think I oppose bigotry more and better than everyone else here combined. It's a subject I take with more seriousness than anyone can possibly imagine. But I don't do so in the "politically correct," "multi-cultural," "diverse," "inclusive" manner almost all others today evidently do. I reject that methodology and approach completely. My way is extraordinarily, proudly, defiantly, radically different from yours. This issue has been discussed to death. I seem to know certain people can't handle certain things, so I try to keep the level of controversy/provocation on this issue, and several others, at a low ebb. Still, I occasionally like to have a little fun, and say things in a semi-interesting way. Maybe you should just not read my remarks (ever). They're only really meant for a select audience anyway.)

(Edited by Kyrel Zantonavitch on 11/06, 12:54pm)

Post 19

Thursday, November 6, 2008 - 12:52pm