AdamReed

James, You have not been paying attention. Even when the facts are identical, different men make their decisions in their different, individual contexts. After all, Objectivism is NOT intrincisism.

I think that there may be other reasons for disagreement than differences of knowledge. I would not deny that differences of knowledge may be playing a part in this disagreement, but the context of *individual* self-interest is also important. I know that it is important for me. In a free society, men's interests are in harmony. But in a choice between two presidential candidates *both* of whom promise to initiate force against me in different ways, I must choose the one who is less likely to kill me. And that choice may be different for different men. For me, the one difference that is most likely to make a difference to *my life* is whether in 20-30 years, when I am most likely to need organ replacement to remain alive (I am 58 now) the technology for making those organs will be available to me. The only technology that is likely to become available for this purpose in the relevant time frame, and that would provide organs not susceptible to immune rejection, is human therapeutic cloning. Bush pressed Congress to prohibit cloning, and Bush would certainly veto any attempt to repeal his legislation. The United states still accounts for close to 80% of all medical research in the world. To date, Bush has caused at minimum a 3-year delay in the development of therapeutic cloning technology. His re-election, if it takes place, would result in a total delay of about 7 years. If I were to need organ replacement 20-30 years from now, and cloning technology were 1-7 years short of availability for this purpose - as is likely with an actuarial probability between 25-30% - then I will have been murdered by the re-election of George W. Bush. In comparison, the chances of my being killed by terrorists, under a future administration by either candidate, are less than 1%. That is the basis of my decision to vote for Kerry. Now, I don't know whether or not HB's or LP's decisions are based on differences in knowledge, or differences in their evaluations of their separate interests, or some combination of the two. But in any case, the assumption that their different recommendations are based *only* on differences in knowledge is not justified.