Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

I have been proved wrong

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I've always maintained that there is nothing, short of the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, that would make me vote for Hillary Clinton.

I just found an unsettlingingly possible scenario in which I would do just that. That would be the nomination of Mike Huckabee. I knew the man was a religious conservative, but I didn't know he was this far gone. I recognize that he was speaking to a bunch of Southern Baptists, so it's not surprising that he would turn up the religious rhetoric a bit. But this is more than "a bit."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't vote for Hillary if Kucinich was the republican nominee.

I'm with Moose on this one. Given a choice between Huckabee and Hillary Clinton, I will vote for Hillary. It's a choice between socialist tyranny and theocratic tyranny, and I think the socialist variety is more likely to implode more quickly. It's a horrible situation to face, though, and I'll probably vomit in the bushes outside the polling place after I'm done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always felt that in an un-ideal situation where you have to chose between either living under economic constraints (Socialism, Keynsianism, Communism, etc.) or social constraints (Theocracy) that living with the economic constraints would be better.

Living with high taxes is bad, but at least it might be possible to find loopholes in the system and unless its gone so far gone that it is collapsing, for a while I could at least live and at least what I do beyond my paycheck is not being regulated

Under a Christian theocracy, or a government friendly to Christianity, my private life, how I conduct my business with other people without involving finance, whether a hypothetical wife of mine would want an abortion, whether I would not want my hypothetical child to attend a school that is not using religious imagery, will all come under scrutiny. Having what I do in the privacy of my own home, what to chose to believe and what ideas I want to spread, having that be regulated or prevented is worse then just having a smaller pay check.

Both are bad, but at least in the American situation, one seems worse then the other.

Edited by Strangelove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if it were a choice between Hillary and the pope and the pope believed in free market capitalism, I'd vote the pope. only because there IS a seperation of church and state, and the pope has little power to controle teh private lives of private people. OTOH, a socialist sociaty will completely destroy everyone's freedom.

DEMOCRACY IS NOT FREEDOM ___ FREEDOM IS CAPITALISM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I Agree with Marty completely.

Hillary is a socialist / collectivist and Democracy is a Compromise between Socialism and our Republic.

I dont know about you guys but I dont like my Republic being compromised. Democracy is mob rule where the Collective can decide for the individuals. It Expedites big government police state because they can pass law after law after law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if it were a choice between Hillary and the pope and the pope believed in free market capitalism, I'd vote the pope. only because there IS a seperation of church and state, and the pope has little power to controle teh private lives of private people. OTOH, a socialist sociaty will completely destroy everyone's freedom.

DEMOCRACY IS NOT FREEDOM ___ FREEDOM IS CAPITALISM.

There is separation of church and state, but it won't be for long if we have candidates like that in power trying to knock it down. Conservatives have been trying to do that of late. So, short term you may be right, but in the long run I'm not so sanguine.

I think I'd actually go for Hillary over Huckabee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll probably have nightmares once the election starts getting closer. I thought my not voting for Hillary was the only certain decision I had made about the election, but you guys have made me aware of my ignorance of the candidates. I would still like to avoid Socialism as much as possible, though.

Is Hillary popular in the polls? I'm getting conflicting information: I read in the newspaper how popular she is and online I see nothing but hate ads and satire.

Do what I do and refuse to vote FOR anyone. I can't STAND the thought of sanctioning EITHER party at this point, regardless of who they nominate. So I don't vote and I'm vocal about the reasons why I don't vote.

Shouldn't we at least vote for the lesser evil to, in Leonard Peikoff's words, by ourselves more time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After 6 years of Bush, most of it with a republican congress, I didnt see any lurch toward the dreaded theocracy. Can anyone here say with a straight face that 6 years of Hillary and a democratic congress will not produce dramatic movement toward socialism? Socialized medicine would be a virtual certainty. Tax increases would be a lock, as would greater regulation of business, and Kyoto would be back in play. Am I leaving anything out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do what I do and refuse to vote FOR anyone. I can't STAND the thought of sanctioning EITHER party at this point, regardless of who they nominate. So I don't vote and I'm vocal about the reasons why I don't vote.

I couldn't be more with Jen on this one.

Jen, how do you reconcile this with all the talk about DIM Hypothesis / Peikoff saying to vote Democrat? I have not listened to the lectures, and by abstaining, I apparently do not understand the practical role of philosophy in man's life.

But for the life of me, I can't bring myself to support either side this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't we at least vote for the lesser evil to, in Leonard Peikoff's words, by ourselves more time?

I think so. It's the best and only practical and moral self-defense that you do have, at least in the last election. By not voting, when there is a known difference in the degree of evil, is sanctioning the greater evil by abstaining, because you could vote for the lesser one, thus buying time, as you had said.

When I vote, which was for the first time in the last election btw, I do not say I voted FOR the Democrats, I say I voted Democrat. Big difference...to me that is. I don't think I sanctioned them either, since I only used them in self-defense against the GOP. Am I wrong in saying that? I'm also not a part of any of the political parties of today, so I clearily am not sanctioning any of them in that respect at least.

But for the life of me, I can't bring myself to support either side this time.

I don't see it as supporting either side, but rather defending oneself. If you can identify that there is a difference in the degree of evil between two parties, and do not vote, you would be sanctioning the greater of evils, for having not done what you could to try to stop them from rising to power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Moose on this one. Given a choice between Huckabee and Hillary Clinton, I will vote for Hillary. It's a choice between socialist tyranny and theocratic tyranny, and I think the socialist variety is more likely to implode more quickly. It's a horrible situation to face, though, and I'll probably vomit in the bushes outside the polling place after I'm done.

I wouldn't vomit in the bushes after voting for her or whomever is running against the GOP in the next election. I'd walk out the same way I did while walking in, not feeling nauseous about what I was about to do - defend myself.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After 6 years of Bush, most of it with a republican congress, I didnt see any lurch toward the dreaded theocracy. Can anyone here say with a straight face that 6 years of Hillary and a democratic congress will not produce dramatic movement toward socialism? Socialized medicine would be a virtual certainty. Tax increases would be a lock, as would greater regulation of business, and Kyoto would be back in play. Am I leaving anything out?

The fact that there is even discussion about changing the constitution to define marriage. The establishment of "faith based initiatives". More importantly, there is the informal level of power which has been given to the religious right which manifests itself in destructive ways. For example, the Defense Department's contract with Blackwater did not come because Backwater proved they would be best for the job in Iraq, but because their CEO is an evangelical and that was good enough for them. It has also meant that our Air Force academy is full of evangelical preachers who are trying to associate military success with religious devotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/national...amp;oref=slogin

A report sent to the Air Force in late April by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an advocacy group based in Washington, said that academy officers and staff members opened mandatory events at the academy with prayer, sent e-mail academy-wide with religious taglines, and published advertisements in the academy newspaper asking cadets to contact them to "discuss Jesus." The report is based on interviews with current and former academy staff and faculty members and cadets.

...

Captain Morton said, "People at the academy were making cadets feel an obligation that they are serving the will of God if they are engaging in evangelical activities, and telling them that this is harmonious and co-extensive with military service."

...

.

One staff member who spoke on condition of anonymity said on Wednesday: "There's certainly an impression that evangelicals here have that the leadership is kind of on their side. And there's a feeling among people who are atheists or people who are other varieties of Christian that the leadership does not really accept them."

Captain Morton said she had decided to step forward without authorization from the public affairs office because: "It's the Constitution, not just a nice rule we can follow or not follow. We all raised our hands and said we'd follow it, and that includes the First Amendment, that includes not using your power to advance your religious agenda."

She added, "I realize this is the end of my Air Force career."

This is no different then if we were subtly discourage people from a working environment because they are not communist enough. What that sort of ridiculousness can be legally tolerated in an university (if it is a private institution) the idea that our government pays lip service to this sort of weakening of our defense, I feel, is representative of the kinds of dangers that come with letting evangelicals get leadership roles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do what I do and refuse to vote FOR anyone. I can't STAND the thought of sanctioning EITHER party at this point, regardless of who they nominate. So I don't vote and I'm vocal about the reasons why I don't vote.

Robert Heinlein stressed the importance of voting. He said even if there was no one you want to vote for, there surely must be someone you want to vote against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other day I heard Huckabee described as a "Christian Socialist", which seemed pretty appropriate given his record in Arkansas. Huckabee would certainly rival Hillary when it comes to expanding government's influence on our lives. Wow, talk about a choice between shit and garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other day I heard Huckabee described as a "Christian Socialist", which seemed pretty appropriate given his record in Arkansas. Huckabee would certainly rival Hillary when it comes to expanding government's influence on our lives. Wow, talk about a choice between shit and garbage.

Why settle for the lesser of evils? Vote C'thulu in 2008.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that there is even discussion about changing the constitution to define marriage. The establishment of "faith based initiatives". More importantly, there is the informal level of power which has been given to the religious right which manifests itself in destructive ways. For example, the Defense Department's contract with Blackwater did not come because Backwater proved they would be best for the job in Iraq, but because their CEO is an evangelical and that was good enough for them. It has also meant that our Air Force academy is full of evangelical preachers who are trying to associate military success with religious devotion.

I was going to back a post like this myself, but you nailed it already. 7 Years of Bush also produced thousands of dead soilders and no real plan to end it. They actually wrote themselves a way to spy on everyone if they wanted (like that's not going to be abused). Not to mention passing Sarbanes-Oxley, one of the biggests intrusions into the economy in years.

Seriously, you guys crack Hillary up to be a lot worse then she is. You act like if she got voted all the sudden a dark spiral of thunder clouds will appear over the White House and she wil reveal her Ulimate Form as the Socialist Ice Queen of Washington in the classic Disney Film style. Yeah, she's an evil bitch, but hey she's read Atlas Shrugged and used to be influenced by Rand... maybe the good will come out of her when she gets into office? I doubt that. But, the point is the Founding Fathers gave us protection against situations like this. That protection will still stand unless.... oh, I don't know... someone undermines it.

And who, might you ask seems to be doing a lot of that latetly? The Republicans. It seems if they can shrugged off half Bill of Rights when they please, doesn't that just open the door for are supposed Socialist Tyrannt? You guys are fools for clinging to this idea that the Republicans actually give a damn about Capitalism. They make lip-service to it because most of them and the people who elect them just don't want their money taken away. (They think they are getting their money taken away any kind of competition as well.) Well, unless it's from evil liberal atheists. They have no problems with God-fearing Republican's doing the exact thing they said they were running against. Christians love having wool pulled over their eyes.

"Socialist are bad, but Christian Socialists are probably okay because it has the word Christian in front of it, and that can only be a good thing because I'm a Christian and Christians are good and moral!" -- That's about the extent of thought that's going to go into that decision.

Does it come down to socialism or theocracy? No, because theocracy is socialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why settle for the lesser of evils?
Vote for the one on the right. When it is certain that evil will be elected, and probable that voting for one will result in a lesser eevil being elected, then it is wrong to vote for the greater of two evils, or fail to prevent the greater evil from being elected. However, in Nixon v. McGovern, the greater evil had less than a snowball's chance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that if the election came down to Hilary or Huckabee, the Constitution would implode and blood would come out of the White House walls, like in The Shining.

Is it ever surprising when polls of Americans find them generally socially "Liberal" and fiscally "Conservative," and yet no viable party has risen espousing these wide held views?

I think it would be great if Huckary faced Hillabee in the generals. It would reveal the true nature of American politics: That we have two wings of the same party running a pullocracy, profiting perpetually from legalized bribery, while balancing their powers against all comers through the deliberate division of individual rights issues between the two wings: with the Democrat/altruists trumpeting behavioral freedoms and the Republican/mystics defending economic freedoms. Thus the true nature of power-hungry collectivists is shrouded by the false choice of individual empowerment.

Maybe it will take a revelation on the order of these two clowns to wake America up to the necessity for a third way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vote for the one on the right. When it is certain that evil will be elected, and probable that voting for one will result in a lesser eevil being elected, then it is wrong to vote for the greater of two evils, or fail to prevent the greater evil from being elected. However, in Nixon v. McGovern, the greater evil had less than a snowball's chance.

I have heard this notion of voting for the lesser of two evils very often always with the assumption that the lesser evil is preferable. I truly wonder if that is the case though. "Less evil" would obviously imply "more good" and who doesn't want more good, right? The thing is, that at this scale, if increasing evil(more government control, less freedom, more socialism, more religious autocrats assuming power), is inevitable, then by supporting the good, we seem to be simultaneously providing a scaffold to hold up a crumbling system while promoting our values. Like bringing capitalist pigs with apple in mouth for the socialists to feed on we promote our values all the way up a hill only to find that the hill is a volcano and these values are to be sacrificed to the god who wants to destroy the hill.

The red, hot, burning evils such as Nazi Germany and North Korea seem to burn themselves out relatively quickly. However, these slow growing monliths of partial freedom and mixed economies eventually get to the same place but only after many many more years of difficulty. As quickly as reformed economies can rebound, is it possible that a better route would be to support the worst canidates and hope for a bankrupt state sooner rather then later?

A possible disproof of this notion would be a culture that slid in the socialist direction and then worked it's way back up to a love of liberty. I do not know of any. The pattern seems to match that of a self-destructive drug addict who must reach rock bottom before being able to alter his behaviour in a fundemental way. The closest I know of are communist systems like china and the former USSR with their 5 year plans which wasn't sincere change, but only a last gasp of a dying system pragmatically trying anything to maintain power. Does anyone know of historical examples to counter this idea? And if so, what process ultimately caused the change?( I mean change on a grand economic scale and not a minor movement that caused some improvement in a limited area or capacity)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jen, how do you reconcile this with all the talk about DIM Hypothesis / Peikoff saying to vote Democrat? I have not listened to the lectures, and by abstaining, I apparently do not understand the practical role of philosophy in man's life.

Because I don't do what Peikoff tells me to do just because it's Dr. Peikoff. (Likewise with Robert Heinlein.) Personally, I think Peikoff is likely right about theocracy being a bigger threat than the democrats. The problem is that you *can't* vote against candidates. You can only vote *for* someone, and I refuse to do it. When some moronic issue hits the ballots, I'll vote against. But the only thing I have to go up against Hillary and Huckabee are the words I write on my blog or here or the things I talk about when people will listen. My vote will just vanish into obscurity among millions of other voters, but I *know* some people listen when I talk, and that's good enough for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...