The number one reason Libertarians should vote for Romney is that Obama wants them to vote for Gary Johnson. One of Obama’s goals he wants to achieve through making the election so ugly is to turn off the electorate and depress turnout for anyone who isn’t part of his base.
Depressed with the character of the election and might stay home or vote third party? Obama’s strategy is working.
This libertarian (small l, Classical Liberal version, mostly, with hints of objectivism and an odd communitarian bent that comes from being Gen X) doesn’t care what Obama wants, nor does this libertarian think that the article makes a good case for voting for Romney. It seems to boil down to “I accept the inevitability of Republican/Democratic control of the political apparatus now and forever more, and so will therefore adsorb to the false choice it offers. And hey, at least we know how bad Obama is at the job, right?”
This libertarian considers both the Republican and Democratic candidates to be plutocrapparatchiks, and will not be a party to the collusion that is looting and pillaging our nation. Voting for least worst evil is still voting evil. I’m voting for good and an agenda that actually makes sense, and I’m going to keep working however I can on putting this nation back on the road to growth and prosperity.
Don’t kid yourself, every choice is about less worst evil. The question you need to ask yourself is pragmatically how do you influence that level of evil.
Mitt had a solid chance to win my vote this time around, and completely failed. I actually did vote for a few Republicans at the state level (and one democrat), but quite frankly voting for a sucky candidate just because he happens to be slightly less sucky in a few areas is hardly a big motivator. Even though I live in a fairly swingy swing state like Colorado.
Mitt probably could’ve sold me if he’d proposed a real plan for dealing with our fiscal situation, but all I ever saw was pledges to solve the problem all while refusing to touch any of the areas that would be needed to solve the problem, and in fact protecting the defense spending sacred cow and suggesting we need to spend even more.
I was quite happy throwing away my vote. I’d rather vote for someone I actually would like to win, even if they don’t have a chance, than to vote for someone I actually don’t want as president, but who might have a chance of winning.
all I ever saw was pledges to solve the problem all while refusing to touch any of the areas that would be needed to solve the problem
Obama has made it clear his campaign is all about demonizing Mitt. Anything he touches is subject to fraudulent vicious attack. Therefore he can’t give details. This is what makes his deduction cap proposal so brilliant. It’s a jiu jitsu move against all the lobbyists devoted to particular deductions.
You are claiming not to be supporting lesser evils? I don’t think you could even convince yourself of that and there is much I like about both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Your logic fails.
In other words, no matter which side wins, by your own acts y’all will have neither leverage nor voice in the system.
But, no matter which side wins, you WILL feel okay with complaining about the result.
Hey, complaining about government is a traditional American past time. What do you think most of our ancestors were kicked out of their home countries for? Or left on their own so they could complain freely without nasty folk from the government coming to arrest them.
You really can just boil it down to 1 issue: SCOTUS appointments.
That alone makes it worth prefering the Mormon Obama to the half-black one…unless you mean to hasten the destruction of the Republic and start with a clean slate…but those of us with status to quo might see things differently. But, hey, I’m adaptable….
Regarding the point made on the linked thread about Sandy stimulating the economy; it is arguable that a sufficient amount of damage is indeed a stimulant, long-term. The reason is indirect; for many industrial operations, keeping semi-obsolete and inefficient machinery and equipment going keeps the numbers looking good short-term but in the long term dooms the company (or the country) using it.
As an example in international terms, it is arguable that one of the reasons for Germany being the economic powerhouse of Europe is the fact that most of its industrial infrastructure was destroyed in WWII and they just HAD to build new stuff.
Another long term effect of really serious damage is to turn the minds of people going through the educational system towards science and engineering and away from “modern art”, political philosophy, wimmens’ studies…
While you’re treading pretty close to the broken window fallacy I think there is some truth to what you are saying. It’s a variation of creative destruction. People want to be secure and build themselves such a place in layers (otherwise known as one kluge on top of another.) Wipe all that away and people have to start over fresh, eliminating much of the crap in the process. It’s why some programming schools of thought say do everything twice by throwing away your first attempt. In your second attempt you will not include most of the crap you did in your first and end up with a much better product.
ken anthony – I’m well aware of the broken window fallacy, although it might not apply to individuals; I’ve heard a few stories about self-employed glaziers going around with an air rifle, for example.
IMHO the broken window fallacy also applies to planned obsolesence. Does it really benefit anyone to (for example) build cars or “consumer durables” carefully designed to fall apart just after the guarantee runs out?
On the subject of the OP, personally I think one way of improving the UK’s electoral system (and probably the one in the USA as well) would be to introduce a “none of the above” option. Many MPs, and probably many Congresscritters, are a total waste of space. Some of them are a waste of oxygen.
One might debate about whether re-running the election for the empty seats, or leaving them unoccupied, would be a better option. But IMHO if we had in the UK an option not to fill parliamentary seats at all, Westminster Hall would look like a ghost town. Ditto the Capitol?
Forgive me Fletch if it seemed I was impugning your knowledge. Not the intention. Others are fully embracing the fallacy however. As I said, I partly agree with you.
As for planned obsolescence: That’s a decision the consumers make. The assumption is that in a free open market with competition people will make choices that approach better value over time. If somebody chooses to produce crap for sale it creates an opportunity for others… not that it is an opportunity that will be taken or work in the marketplace if it is.
They tried to take air puffed wonderbread off the market but consumers refused to let it die.
Here’s an article with a link to Reason’s web site with their staff’s endorsements. I agree with most of them that there is little difference between Obama and Romney, which is why on election day, I won’t be voting for the lesser of two evils, but instead someone with whom I largely agree. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dr-mccloskey-jim-webb-is-the-retiring-virginia-senator/
Every vote for Gary is another vote for the Republican party to put forward a Libertarian candidate next election. You’re literally taking away that option by voting for Romney.
Except we have to survive this one. Four more years of ‘a more flexible’ Obama is too much to even contemplate. Our system allows us to put forth and promote any candidates we like, but also to abandon those that aren’t going to make it. Even staying behind a candidate that has slim chance. But there is a huge difference between slim and none. The ones we abandon aren’t out completely. They just have to wait another four years to put their case out there again. Given the right circumstance, Ron Paul could be a winner. Now he’ll have to face the facts and perhaps Rand Paul will take up the torch. It really is a marathon.
Four years of a President Romney is no more appealing to me than four additional years of a President Obama. One’s going to loot the commonweal for his rich buddies, the other for his fabulous buddies. It doesn’t matter which of your false choice plutocrapparatchiks is elected, the looting will continue, the system will be continue to be collusively gamed to the advantage of the connected few, and our economy will continue to founder instead of heal. We can’t Empire ourselves to prosperity; we can’t print ourselves to prosperity; we can’t value-extract our way to prosperity.
We have to grow our way to prosperity (such as by growing the space economy) through sound investment. That won’t happen with either of your false choices, so I won’t be a party to it. Understand, no Democratic or Republican candidate is getting my vote anywhere on the ballot. I will not support their destructive ways and what it’s doing to our nation.
Let’s agree they are both bad. You are saying there is no significant difference. That is a profound [how in the world can I emphasize this strongly enough?] lack of perception.
The number one reason Libertarians should vote for Romney is that Obama wants them to vote for Gary Johnson. One of Obama’s goals he wants to achieve through making the election so ugly is to turn off the electorate and depress turnout for anyone who isn’t part of his base.
Depressed with the character of the election and might stay home or vote third party? Obama’s strategy is working.
This libertarian (small l, Classical Liberal version, mostly, with hints of objectivism and an odd communitarian bent that comes from being Gen X) doesn’t care what Obama wants, nor does this libertarian think that the article makes a good case for voting for Romney. It seems to boil down to “I accept the inevitability of Republican/Democratic control of the political apparatus now and forever more, and so will therefore adsorb to the false choice it offers. And hey, at least we know how bad Obama is at the job, right?”
This libertarian considers both the Republican and Democratic candidates to be plutocrapparatchiks, and will not be a party to the collusion that is looting and pillaging our nation. Voting for least worst evil is still voting evil. I’m voting for good and an agenda that actually makes sense, and I’m going to keep working however I can on putting this nation back on the road to growth and prosperity.
So long as we employ plurality voting, 2 parties will dominate in any given area.
Don’t kid yourself, every choice is about less worst evil. The question you need to ask yourself is pragmatically how do you influence that level of evil.
If that’s what helps you sleep at night…
That’s a non response.
Mitt had a solid chance to win my vote this time around, and completely failed. I actually did vote for a few Republicans at the state level (and one democrat), but quite frankly voting for a sucky candidate just because he happens to be slightly less sucky in a few areas is hardly a big motivator. Even though I live in a fairly swingy swing state like Colorado.
Mitt probably could’ve sold me if he’d proposed a real plan for dealing with our fiscal situation, but all I ever saw was pledges to solve the problem all while refusing to touch any of the areas that would be needed to solve the problem, and in fact protecting the defense spending sacred cow and suggesting we need to spend even more.
I was quite happy throwing away my vote. I’d rather vote for someone I actually would like to win, even if they don’t have a chance, than to vote for someone I actually don’t want as president, but who might have a chance of winning.
~Jon
all I ever saw was pledges to solve the problem all while refusing to touch any of the areas that would be needed to solve the problem
Obama has made it clear his campaign is all about demonizing Mitt. Anything he touches is subject to fraudulent vicious attack. Therefore he can’t give details. This is what makes his deduction cap proposal so brilliant. It’s a jiu jitsu move against all the lobbyists devoted to particular deductions.
I agree with Murphy and Goff, and will not knowingly support evils of the lesser kind. I’m writing in Ron Paul even though he ran as a republican.
You are claiming not to be supporting lesser evils? I don’t think you could even convince yourself of that and there is much I like about both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Your logic fails.
In other words, no matter which side wins, by your own acts y’all will have neither leverage nor voice in the system.
But, no matter which side wins, you WILL feel okay with complaining about the result.
Hey, complaining about government is a traditional American past time. What do you think most of our ancestors were kicked out of their home countries for? Or left on their own so they could complain freely without nasty folk from the government coming to arrest them.
Right on target. Must be that broken clock thang…
Your naiveté is amusing. If you’re the kind of person who has actual leverage or voice in our system, it doesn’t matter which “side” wins…
You can still bitch about Romney if you vote for him but if you want Obama gone, any vote not for Romney is a vote for Obama.
I don’t know how Romney will do as President and there are a lot of things I dislike about Romney but I already know how terrible Obama is.
You really can just boil it down to 1 issue: SCOTUS appointments.
That alone makes it worth prefering the Mormon Obama to the half-black one…unless you mean to hasten the destruction of the Republic and start with a clean slate…but those of us with status to quo might see things differently. But, hey, I’m adaptable….
Regarding the point made on the linked thread about Sandy stimulating the economy; it is arguable that a sufficient amount of damage is indeed a stimulant, long-term. The reason is indirect; for many industrial operations, keeping semi-obsolete and inefficient machinery and equipment going keeps the numbers looking good short-term but in the long term dooms the company (or the country) using it.
As an example in international terms, it is arguable that one of the reasons for Germany being the economic powerhouse of Europe is the fact that most of its industrial infrastructure was destroyed in WWII and they just HAD to build new stuff.
Another long term effect of really serious damage is to turn the minds of people going through the educational system towards science and engineering and away from “modern art”, political philosophy, wimmens’ studies…
While you’re treading pretty close to the broken window fallacy I think there is some truth to what you are saying. It’s a variation of creative destruction. People want to be secure and build themselves such a place in layers (otherwise known as one kluge on top of another.) Wipe all that away and people have to start over fresh, eliminating much of the crap in the process. It’s why some programming schools of thought say do everything twice by throwing away your first attempt. In your second attempt you will not include most of the crap you did in your first and end up with a much better product.
ken anthony – I’m well aware of the broken window fallacy, although it might not apply to individuals; I’ve heard a few stories about self-employed glaziers going around with an air rifle, for example.
IMHO the broken window fallacy also applies to planned obsolesence. Does it really benefit anyone to (for example) build cars or “consumer durables” carefully designed to fall apart just after the guarantee runs out?
On the subject of the OP, personally I think one way of improving the UK’s electoral system (and probably the one in the USA as well) would be to introduce a “none of the above” option. Many MPs, and probably many Congresscritters, are a total waste of space. Some of them are a waste of oxygen.
One might debate about whether re-running the election for the empty seats, or leaving them unoccupied, would be a better option. But IMHO if we had in the UK an option not to fill parliamentary seats at all, Westminster Hall would look like a ghost town. Ditto the Capitol?
Forgive me Fletch if it seemed I was impugning your knowledge. Not the intention. Others are fully embracing the fallacy however. As I said, I partly agree with you.
As for planned obsolescence: That’s a decision the consumers make. The assumption is that in a free open market with competition people will make choices that approach better value over time. If somebody chooses to produce crap for sale it creates an opportunity for others… not that it is an opportunity that will be taken or work in the marketplace if it is.
They tried to take air puffed wonderbread off the market but consumers refused to let it die.
Here’s an article with a link to Reason’s web site with their staff’s endorsements. I agree with most of them that there is little difference between Obama and Romney, which is why on election day, I won’t be voting for the lesser of two evils, but instead someone with whom I largely agree.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dr-mccloskey-jim-webb-is-the-retiring-virginia-senator/
Are you saying you know someone that can beat Obama other than Romney?
Here’s an outsider’s perspective:
Every vote for Gary is another vote for the Republican party to put forward a Libertarian candidate next election. You’re literally taking away that option by voting for Romney.
Except we have to survive this one. Four more years of ‘a more flexible’ Obama is too much to even contemplate. Our system allows us to put forth and promote any candidates we like, but also to abandon those that aren’t going to make it. Even staying behind a candidate that has slim chance. But there is a huge difference between slim and none. The ones we abandon aren’t out completely. They just have to wait another four years to put their case out there again. Given the right circumstance, Ron Paul could be a winner. Now he’ll have to face the facts and perhaps Rand Paul will take up the torch. It really is a marathon.
Who’s this ‘we’, kemosabe?
Four years of a President Romney is no more appealing to me than four additional years of a President Obama. One’s going to loot the commonweal for his rich buddies, the other for his fabulous buddies. It doesn’t matter which of your false choice plutocrapparatchiks is elected, the looting will continue, the system will be continue to be collusively gamed to the advantage of the connected few, and our economy will continue to founder instead of heal. We can’t Empire ourselves to prosperity; we can’t print ourselves to prosperity; we can’t value-extract our way to prosperity.
We have to grow our way to prosperity (such as by growing the space economy) through sound investment. That won’t happen with either of your false choices, so I won’t be a party to it. Understand, no Democratic or Republican candidate is getting my vote anywhere on the ballot. I will not support their destructive ways and what it’s doing to our nation.
We is the nation. If you can’t figure that out… I guess your vote makes sense.
Your We is hosed no matter which of your false choice plutocrapparatchiks is elected. If you can’t figure that out…I guess your vote makes sense.
Let’s agree they are both bad. You are saying there is no significant difference. That is a profound [how in the world can I emphasize this strongly enough?] lack of perception.