Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Which candidate to vote for?

Rate this topic


Which candidate to vote for?  

70 members have voted

  1. 1. Which candidate to vote for?

    • John McCain (R)
      18
    • Barack Obama (D)
      10
    • Ron Paul (R)
      5
    • Bob Barr (LP)
      7
    • Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party)
      0
    • Brian Moore (Socialist Party)
      0
    • A Green Party candidate
      0
    • Ralph Nader (I)
      0
    • Alan Keyes (I)
      0
    • Won't vote
      12


Recommended Posts

The number of choices has narrowed substantially since the last poll. So, which candidate is the least terrible of the two most popular (if that's how you'll vote), or which candidate will you show support for based on matching beliefs?

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I can't believe you included Ron Paul. Writing him is like falling on your sword. It's self-defeating. Many states won't even count the write-in votes.

I supported RP with donations but I'm backing Bob Barr. He is the only liberty-oriented candidate left in the race!

I included him because he has not withdrawn and is well-known.

As for Bob Barr, I'm not sure what is "liberty-oriented" about the infamous Defense of Marriage Act (introduced by Barr) or his record with the War on Drugs (Anti-Drug Coordinator for DOJ, member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America, personally blocked the "Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998" and prevented the final vote tally from being known, etc)

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe you included Ron Paul. Writing him is like falling on your sword. It's self-defeating. Many states won't even count the write-in votes.

I supported RP with donations but I'm backing Bob Barr. He is the only liberty-oriented candidate left in the race!

In an effort to not rehash a very simple topic, please go here and read this: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...t=0&start=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I chose McCain because I would rather have an ineffective leader of the left as opposed to an effective leader of the left. As to the other candidates, none are Objectivists and all will lose, so there is absolutely no advantage to be gained in voting for any of them.

I did question at first whether to vote at all; as a resident of California, the outcome is all but certain, except that that begs the question: on principle, not voting because you're certain you'll lose guarantees that very outcome, while were you and others similarly situated to vote on principle, it might actually go your way. So I'll vote for McCain for the reasons described above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I included him because he has not withdrawn and is well-known.

As for Bob Barr, I'm not sure what is "liberty-oriented" about the infamous Defense of Marriage Act (introduced by Barr) or his record with the War on Drugs (Anti-Drug Coordinator for DOJ, member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America, personally blocked the "Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998" and prevented the final vote tally from being known, etc)

Barr has recanted most if not all of that, and very publicly. People can have epiphanies.

Voting for the LP candidate shows that there are voters who care about liberty. This can give pause to statist policians - RP showed us that. It helps undo the republicrat duopoly, which is an impediment to serious reform. It's a step in the right direction.

Also, voting for the LP candidates helps the LP get and keep ballot access in some states, which is another step in the right direction.

McCain is a statist warmonger. A vote for him is a step in the wrong direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barr has recanted most if not all of that, and very publicly. People can have epiphanies.

Voting for the LP candidate shows that there are voters who care about liberty. This can give pause to statist policians - RP showed us that. It helps undo the republicrat duopoly, which is an impediment to serious reform. It's a step in the right direction.

Also, voting for the LP candidates helps the LP get and keep ballot access in some states, which is another step in the right direction.

McCain is a statist warmonger. A vote for him is a step in the wrong direction.

The LP dying and never coming back would be a step in the right direction - for liberty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Care to explain why you hold this opinion?

I have, already, several times, in the other thread, which I linked to just a few posts ago. You can read it (and many other good reasons why the LP is anti-liberty in principle) there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A vote for the Republicans is a vote for getting nothing done.

Do nothing! That'd be a dream come true. We don't want this government getting in the way of our lives.

I'm afraid that the McCain would push to get a lot done and all of them bad, with the possible exception of his position on defense.

Edited by Thales
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it, in terms of concretes, Obama and McCain are essentially the same. They both call for the destruction of Capitalism in various ways. While the Democratic party explicitly rejects Capitalism, the Republican party does it while claiming to represent free markets, principles and individual rights, effectively destroying the concepts at the root. This is something that Obama and the rest of the Socialists are incapable of doing. This makes it much harder for any party who actually does represent the defense of Capitalism to be effective politically any time in the future. To vote for a party because you will see less taxation for a few years or something similar is to vote for pragmatic reasons, not principled ones.

Leonard Peikoff and Diana Hsieh provide a great deal of arguments and examples that help concretize this to anyone else who's interested. Here's a start: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2006/10/wy...-democrats.html

edit: I'm shocked at the alarming number of people voting for Bob Barr.

Edited by West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do nothing! That'd be a dream come true. We don't want this government getting in the way of our lives.

I'm afraid that the McCain would push to get a lot done and all of them bad, with the possible exception of his position on defense.

That should read "a lot of things done"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it, in terms of concretes, Obama and McCain are essentially the same. They both call for the destruction of Capitalism in various ways. While the Democratic party explicitly rejects Capitalism, the Republican party does it while claiming to represent free markets, principles and individual rights, effectively destroying the concepts at the root. This is something that Obama and the rest of the Socialists are incapable of doing. This makes it much harder for any party who actually does represent the defense of Capitalism to be effective politically any time in the future. To vote for a party because you will see less taxation for a few years or something similar is to vote for pragmatic reasons, not principled ones.

Agreed. I am voting for Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have, already, several times, in the other thread, which I linked to just a few posts ago. You can read it (and many other good reasons why the LP is anti-liberty in principle) there.

Actually no, you did not. You simply made related assertions without explaining or supporting them there either.

It's your right to have unsupported opinions, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it, in terms of concretes, Obama and McCain are essentially the same.

edit: I'm shocked at the alarming number of people voting for Bob Barr.

You're ignoring the fact that there is one liberty-oriented candidate in the race.

Someone said a vote for McCain is a vote to do nothing. Wrong. It's a vote to continue the pre-emptive wars, the erosion of civil liberties and the budget deficits.

Why are you shocked at people supporting Barr? He's the least-worst candidate in a poor lot. McCain is a big-government, free-speech-limiting warmonger. Obama is a warmongering socialist. Baldwin is a protectionist. You can bet the Green Party candidate will be in favor of government controls in order to 'protect the environment. Don't forget about Nader, his positions are socialistic too.

While Barr did not distinguish himself in Congress, he has recanted most or all of his previous positions. He's not a perfect candidate, but then they say the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually no, you did not. You simply made related assertions without explaining or supporting them there either.

It's your right to have unsupported opinions, of course.

Darkwaters said:

Arguably, the Libertarians are worse in many respects than Republicans or Democrats. Unlike the two major political parties, the Libertarians more heavily rely on ideas than they do on pragmatic policies. Thus, when the Libertarians embrace a wrong idea that is deadly, such as they often do when it comes to a proper foreign policy or when they support State's rights over individual rights, the Libertarians are potentially more dangerous (if they came to power) than either of the major parties.

Khaight said:

No.

For a longer explanation of why, go get a copy of Peter Schwartz' essay "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" and read it.

There are also a number of threads on this forum explaining in some detail why Objectivists do not support the Libertarian party. (In brief, the "ideals" of the Libertarians are not merely 'skewed' or 'disjointed', they are somewhere between empty and absent. Without the deeper philosophical grounding which they explicitly eschew, they cannot even identify what being for 'liberty' means. Hence the spectacle of Libertarians who think preventing immigration -- or outlawing abortion, or regulating pharmaceutical companies, or refusing to defend ourselves from Islamic totalitarianism -- are examples of defending liberty. What is desperately needed in the culture today is greater respect for reason and the individual's right to live for his own happiness. Voting for, or otherwise supporting Libertarians does nothing towards that end.)

[...]

The problem with Libertarians isn't that they're wishy-washy. The problem is in their ideology -- more precisely, in their lack of one.

Libertodd said:

That's what I meant, they have a tendency to say stuff which boils down to "we are an organization for lactose intolerant people, but a lot of us drink milk at the meetings." I imagine there must be a lot of infighting within that party especially considering how Bob Barr is against legalized drugs and gay marriage.

Branden said:

I find that simply listening to the Libertarians own speeches often suffices to explain why Objectivists don't support them. I watched parts of the convention, and one of the contenders said (paraphrased, but almost exact) "Your brain doesn't matter; just follow your heart and feelings."

Statements like that, I think, highlight the differences between Objectivists and Libertarians, and show how corrupt of a philosophical base many Libertarians have (if they have one at all!).

Steve D'Ippolito said, concretizing a lot of the abstracts above:

Barr's nomination proves that the "Party Of Principle" has none. (Yes, the LP calls themselves the Party of Principle, but even when I was a member I hated that slogan. Party of which particular principle?) One thing we pretty much agreed on in our local LP affiliate was that there was no way a libertarian could favor drug prohibition or gun control, no matter what path he followed to decide he was a libertarian. (Abortion you can, proceding from the wrong premises, decide should be banned if you think the fetus has rights. But there was simply no conceivable justification for the other two issues.) My state party nominated anti-gun candidates in order to fill the ballot, and Barr is a prohibitionist.

Case closed.

And Khaight summed it up:

This raises an obvious question: What is the value in a non-viable candidate's lip-service to a set of concrete policy goals we may also happen to support? It seems to me that a lot of damage has been done by people who give lip service to freedom in some cases but who don't really understand or support it in principle.

Tough acts to follow. You're right, I didn't present any new arguments - thats because they've all been pretty thoroughly covered already. Still, they are there, no matter who said them, and they are also true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tough acts to follow. You're right, I didn't present any new arguments - thats because they've all been pretty thoroughly covered already. Still, they are there, no matter who said them, and they are also true.

Good recap. I wanted to do the same, but I'm just too damn tired from driving. ;)

ALSO: SIX VOTES for OBAMA! I wonder if they are joking, are drive-by altruists, or actually support individual rights but still have a valid reason for voting for Obama. If the third case, I'd really be interested in the rationale behind their vote.

Edited by brian0918
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...