[Best Of: Politics] EWV Hits It Outa The Park Again
"You can't say who you would or would not vote for until you know who he is running against. If Obama were running against the Stalin/Mao ticket, you would have to vote for Obama. Morality pertains to the choices you have in reality, and your political choice is necessarily very constrained, so be sure to learn what you can about the candidates and choose accordingly when the time comes. It usually does make a difference when you know what is going on in Washington, how the system works, and where the greater threats are. "
when quoting I suggest you use quote marks or a message to say you are quoting.
For a moment I thought your account had been hacked!
Agreed that A is bad.
But suppose the opponent in the election is B, a combination of George III and bin Laaden. So it is correct to vote for A who is not quite as bad.
The argument fails as B is not standing.
There are other arguments against the proposition as in the other postings, for example not voting has to be considered.
Deciding how and if to vote even with just 2 candidates can be quite difficult, you can be coldly rational and list the evaluation criteria. But the weightings you apply are unique to you, that is what I call 'subjective'. And, why should you be coldly rational, (= enlightened self-interest)? Being idealistic by refusing to partake has its merits. This is what I think freedomforall is saying, that integrity and values can over-ride pragmatism.
(I often agree with what EWV writes, the earlier post on 'intellectual battle' a "best of" today being one example, but I can't support this surrender to the system.)
It does not mean we have no choice in any other realm influencing political events, which each of us should be fighting in to the extent we are able without sacrificing goals in our personal lives. Practical activity you can engage in ranges from grass roots activism to speaking out intellectually for long term cultural change.
We do not have the choices the Founders did. The English King wasn't telling them what to do when they drafted the constitution. They had something we don't today: the country was of the Enlightenment, culturally dominated by reason and individualism despite the flaws of philosophy at the time.
Before the constitution, the colonists had a better chance of defeating King George in the revolution, as difficult as that was, than we do today at the ballot box. And the idea of an armed revolution against the US government today is obviously hopelessly suicidal.
This isn't "surrender to the system". It's the meaning of physical compulsion under which you literally have no choice. As long as you continue to speak out and and do what you can you aren't surrendering. Sometimes you have to "give up" in some specific realm because you have no choice, but never, ever, give in.
By voting for people that are virtually guaranteed to act against my interests, I would be acting against my interests. If there is to be a peaceful change for more liberty and less statist policy then it must ultimately happen that more people must vote against statist candidates. I want people to vote against statist candidates. The sooner the better. I do not vote for people that I think are statist candidates.
Those serious about changing the system do a lot more than vote, because simply voting for the candidates dished out to us (or for someone who will not win, in the name of a "statement" that no one understands or cares about) cannot possibly change it.
Changing the course of a nation is a long term, large scale effort that takes a lot of work by a lot of people who know what they are doing and realize they may never live long enough to see the results. The population will not magically wake up one day and decide to vote for "libertarians" for the same philosophical reason that it has been increasingly voting for statists and running them for office for over a century.
Voting for candidates who do less damage can buy time and make possible a better life than otherwise would have been, but it will not change the system. That is much, much harder. It takes a lot more than a handful of people stamping their feet and shouting no, then hoping that all will change for the better in the next election cycle. It won't. The culture is headed down, in a zig-zag fashion with some corrections and some improvements in areas such as technology, but overall downward into worse statism.
There is a lot that must be done to reverse that, but it isn't hoping that libertarian candidates suddenly start to win on Ron Paul slogans while otherwise refusing to vote. In the meantime if you want to live you had better make decisions that matter where you still have choices here in reality.
I think that voting for statist candidates is inconsistent with my thinking and encourages greater state power and dictatorship, so I encourage people to act for liberty and against statism, and to vote in a consistent way, against statist candidates. In my opinion your arguments are not rational in view of the record of the statists you have voted for in the past. Your votes have been and will be to encourage greater state control and dictatorship. Mine will oppose statists and state power. Your arguments do not justify your proposed action in my view. Continuing to vote for the candidates chosen for us by those who believe they are our masters is the wrong action and is inconsistent with working to increase individual liberty.
Ayn Rand addressed the principle of moral sanction versus imposition by government in the "Wreckage of the Consensus" (in CUI) in the context of military conscription:
"There is, however, one moral aspect of the issue that needs clarification. Some young men seem to labor under the misapprehension that since the draft is a violation of their rights, compliance with the draft law would constitute a moral sanction of that violation. This is a serious error. A forced compliance is not a sanction. All of us are forced to comply with many laws that violate our rights, but so long as we advocate the repeal of such laws, our compliance does not constitute a sanction. Unjust laws have to be fought ideologically; they cannot be fought or corrected by means of mere disobedience and futile martyrdom. To quote from an editorial on this subject in the April 1967 issue of Persuasion: 'One does not stop the juggernaut by throwing oneself in front of it....')"
A briefer statement was "morality ends where a gun begins" in AS. You are not morally guilty for actions constrained by government. Living your life the best you can is not a sanction of the government limiting it. Casting a vote to do the best you can to save yourself from an even worse politician (if there is in fact a difference) is not immoral.
I don't see any moral superiority for either people who vote against statist candidates or people who choose not to vote when there are only statist candidates. Voting for a statist candidate is support for statist policy unless there is no other choice available.
Voting for a bad candidate who would do less damage than the other is not support for statism. It is about choosing which of the two you will have to live under given the fact that one of them will win no matter what you do.
You aren't following the distinction in principle between imposition of government versus granting a sanction. Voting is not about making "statements"; it is for selecting candidates from the limited choice before you. If you don't think there is a practical difference then don't vote. If you vote only because you think you are supposed to regardless of the significance of the potential outcomes, that would be sanctioning the system.
Then he describes my political choices as 'necessarily' 'very constrained.' Why? And who decides that its necessary? That's nonsense.
"A majority vote is not an epistemological validation of an idea. Voting is merely a proper political device—within a strictly, constitutionally delimited sphere of action—for choosing the practical means of implementing a society’s basic principles. But those principles are not determined by vote." ON, '65, 8
If that's too extreme, take a home robbery with the robber giving you the choice of being tied up and trusting him to only steal what he says he wants or pistol whipping you and he'll take everything. None of it works for me and it shouldn't work for any human.
Be specific. Suppose your home is being targeted for a taking by the National Park Service. There are two candidates for President, or, say, the Senate seat open in your state. One of them is pandering to or is ideologically in league with the viro preservationsists campaigning and lobbying to take your property and more. The other opposes it and could make the difference if in office (such as the President directing Interior Dept. policy and action.) would you not vote, and do more in support of the candidate who would help you, because neither is a libertarian?
This is only one of many very real examples in today's politics experienced by people all over the country. People are actively struggling to make a difference to save themselves and then see some "libertarian" who knows nothing about grass roots politics sitting on the sidelines defiantly claiming moral superiority for not voting and making appeals about "Austrian economics" to people who don't know what he is talking about and accomplishing nothing, while real people here on earth are shaking their heads in disbelief. This is why libertarian politics is known for not operating in the real world. What would you do?
I will vote for someone whom I believe will reduce the scope of government in my life, and who has not spent their life in or made a career of politics.
While working for change, the current state of the culture still determines the kinds of candidates we get, the kinds of candidates who have any realistic chance of winning an election, and the kind of power they have -- for good or bad -- once in office. That limited option is imposed, not "accepted". You can only "accept" it in the sense of recognizing and acknowledging the nature of the imposition. That does not condone it.
I advocate voting for the best you are able that will make a difference in who is running the government that we all have to live under, not condoning the lousy choice you are constrained to. Condoning those limits would be immoral, recognizing them as fact is not.
The point about it not being immoral to vote for a candidate you regard as immoral is that the moral pertains to actions possible to make in reality. Recognize that an election is selection of who among (usually) two candidates you will in fact be living under, it is not a moral endorsement of what he is in the broader context or a moral endorsement of the limits on the choice you are presented with.
Your vote is that specific choice, not a statement. If you want to make a statement then speak, but don't confuse that with the reality of what a vote is. If you imagine that a vote is more than that and refuse to participate when it could make a difference, then you are limiting yourself beyond the constraints already imposed.
The necessity of having to choose among constrained options is not a moral sanction of the constraints. Whether you vote or not, one of those two candidates will in fact be in power. That much you cannot change. All you can do in reality at the time of the election is try to influence which it will be. The question of morality at that point of pulling a lever into one of two positions pertains to a specific action you take within constraints you can do nothing about. You don't have to like it, but don't feel guilty about making a choice under constraints you can at the time do nothing about.
The only way to ever change such a system is to say NO. Never by going along to get along.
When the "least worst" is imposed on you, the moral responsibility for it is with those who did it, not on you for not ignoring the difference between that and a worse evil.