Should We Vote In Today's Society?

[coirecfox]

Today I was thinking for whom I was going to vote and why, and I came to the conclusion that either choice is a terrible choice. Either way I choose, I am still giving my consent for whomever I vote to encroach upon my life. The only difference is the method of their encroachment. The Republicans use morality and the Democrats use the economy (in actuality, both parties use both methods, they just use the stated ones a greater amount of the time). My question is: Isn't this the sanction of the victim? When we vote for a particular candidate, aren't we giving our consent for whatever they are going to try to get done? In a truly free society, where the government FOLLOWS the limits that have been placed on them, I would say no, but in today's government the possibilities of what power the government will assume next are endless. Neither candidate is looking to reduce the size and scope of the government. Does my voting tell them I agree with what they are doing?

[DrJaneGalt]

I think your voting for either Bush or Kerry says you sanction what they stand for right now. Also, you could be held responsible for all the terrible things they do while they are in office if you had voted for them. (Although voting is all messed up and who knows if your vote actually maters.) Anyway, vote Libertarian if you are voting and at least want things to change for the better, but of course the non-vote is saying you don't sanction their evil system (I still don't know which of these two I will do). I know a lot of you do not like the Libertarian party, but I think you are way overanalyzing them not having a complete philosophy behind them. They are the only chance you have with the government ever getting better.

[BurgessLau]

I think your voting for either Bush or Kerry says you sanction what they stand for right now. Also, you could be held responsible for all the terrible things they do while they are in office if you had voted for them.

What do you mean by "sanction"? A formal definition would help this discussion.

How can an anonymous vote be a sanction?

Who would hold the individual anonymous voter responsible for the actions of an elected official? Under what rule of law?

[DrJaneGalt]

What do you mean by "sanction"? A formal definition would help this discussion.

How can an anonymous vote be a sanction?

Who would hold the individual anonymous voter responsible for the actions of an elected official? Under what rule of law?

If you vote in an election of the US government, it means you are actively participating in that system and therefore accept it to exist and allow it to continue to be how it is. Just because your name is anonymous on that vote doesn't mean that you can act like it wasn't you who made that vote! anonymous to other people doesn’t mean it's anonymous to justice and what is moral. Since you don't have your own dictionary here is Merriam Webster’s def of sanction: explicit or official approval, permission, or ratification. So, if you vote it means you approve of the system that is in place. For example, I have a problem with Mob Rule aka democratic system, so I have trouble deciding whether or not to vote. (If I do vote, it will be for the Libertarian candidate only because that is the only possibility of the government someday changing down a path to what is right.) Edited October 11, 2004 by GreedyCapitalist

[coirecfox]

I simply mean that by voting for a candidate KNOWING that his philosophy concerning government is diametrically opposed to mine, i.e. he wants it to get bigger and have more control over my life, what protests can I make when he enacts his philosophy? If Bush gets elected, he will continue to "mysticize" the government. If Kerry gets elected he'll screw with the economy more(like I said before they'll both do both of these things only in different ways, just that they'll do what is stated more than anything else). So if I vote for one of them, how can I say "You shouldn't be doing that." when I could have said it with my vote, i.e. not giving it to either of them?

DrJaneGalt, I hope that you would vote according to the candidate, not the party, because I have met many Libertarians who are anarchists, and that is not the direction I would want my government to take. I didn't used to know why Objectivists hated Libertarians either, but the more I find out about the party and their lack of a consistent(and non-stolen) political philosophy, the more I understand why.

[MentzerLivesOn]

I apologize if the essence of this post has already been written elsewhere, but I didn't have time to look.

On Dr. Peikoff's website, I found a lecture he gave on this subject. His views are as follows:

Both candidates, indeed, are very bad. In terms of policy, they are equally undesirable. However, Bush is clearly much, MUCH worse than Kerry. The reason for this is Bush's explicit attempts to make religion and faith a central part of our government. He has presented a faith-based initiative to Congress, expressly supported and proposed funding to faith-based organizations, and even appointed a fundamentalist to head the FDA's department of reproductive health (who, in his book, blended accounts of Christ healing women with case studies from his practice). He is actively pushing a fundamentalist core into our country's government.

Kerry, however, is not doing this. Though his views are at odds with ours every step of the way, he has no such agenda. Now who would you rather have?

He also condemns anyone who abstains from voting on the basis that both candidates are bad, calling it an immoral evasion. If you do not vote, then the chances of our lives falling further into the hands of a religious fundamentalist are greatly increased. If we do not attempt to get Bush out of office, this is the way we are headed.

[GoodOrigamiMan]

Kerry, however, is not doing this. Though his views are at odds with ours every step of the way, he has no such agenda. Now who would you rather have?

I think I would rather have Bush. I concede that he is going to do some damage, however as far as religion is concerned I think Kerry will make it a lot stronger in the long run. The reason for this is simply that even if Kerry gets that one thing right and doesn’t try to pull religion into the government all his other policies are bad and are going to hurt this country. Personally I think that the consequences of Kerry’s policies are going to make the Christian church a very attractive sanctuary and the whole thing will snap back. Better to let people get sick of the church with Bush in office and nominate a non-religions non-democrat (if we can find one) next next election.

[Jerry Story]

Today I was thinking for whom I was going to vote and why, and I came to the conclusion that either choice is a terrible choice.  Either way I choose, I am still giving my consent for whomever I vote to encroach upon my life.  The only difference is the method of their encroachment.  The Republicans use morality and the Democrats use the econonmy(in actuality, both parties use both methods, they just use the stated ones a greater amount of the time).  My question is: Isn't this the sanction of the victim?  When we vote for a particular candidate, aren't we giving our consent for whatever they are going to try to get done?  In a truly free society, where the government FOLLOWS the limits that have been placed on them, I would say no, but in today's government the possibilities of what power the government will assume next are endless.  Neither candidate is looking to reduce the size and scope of the government.  Does my voting tell them I agree with what they are doing?

Options:

First choice: Libertarian

Second choice: None of the above

Third choice: Don't vote

[FlashFour]

There are always write-ins. Theres got to be someone that you think could be a good president. I know write-ins a total joke, but I think that if you don't even *try* to get someone good in office, you are pretty much as guilty for what the idiot who gets in does as the person who voted for him. But short of that, I guess its a lesser of two evils decision.

[Yes]

I think your voting for either Bush or Kerry says you sanction what they stand for right now. Also, you could be held responsible for all the terrible things they do while they are in office if you had voted for them.

Are you serious? How can an anonymous voter be held responsible for the foibles of his government?

Anyway, vote Libertarian if you are voting and at least want things to change for the better, but of course the non-vote is saying you don't sanction their evil system (I still don't know which of these two I will do). I know a lot of you do not like the Libertarian party, but I think you are way overanalyzing them not having a complete philosophy behind them. They are the only chance you have with the government ever getting better.

Baloney

If I do vote, it will be for the Libertarian candidate only because that is the only possibility of the government someday changing down a path to what is anarchy.

[Yes]

I apologize if the essence of this post has already been written elsewhere, but I didn't have time to look.

On Dr. Peikoff's website, I found a lecture he gave on this subject. His views are as follows:

Both candidates, indeed, are very bad. In terms of policy, they are equally undesirable. However, Bush is clearly much, MUCH worse than Kerry. The reason for this is Bush's explicit attempts to make religion and faith a central part of our government. He has presented a faith-based initiative to Congress, expressly supported and proposed funding to faith-based organizations, and even appointed a fundamentalist to head the FDA's department of reproductive health (who, in his book, blended accounts of Christ healing women with case studies from his practice). He is actively pushing a fundamentalist core into our country's government.

Kerry, however, is not doing this. Though his views are at odds with ours every step of the way, he has no such agenda. Now who would you rather have?

He also condemns anyone who abstains from voting on the basis that both candidates are bad, calling it an immoral evasion. If you do not vote, then the chances of our lives falling further into the hands of a religious fundamentalist are greatly increased. If we do not attempt to get Bush out of office, this is the way we are headed.

Amen!

[Jerry Story]

Baloney

From the above link:

This is as profound an evasion as I could ever imagine. It is the single worst example of blaming the victim that I have ever encountered in this age of blaming the victim (i.e., the United States). It completely ignores the fact that Muslim terrorists attack us because they hate us. They hate our separation of church and state; they hate our political freedoms; they hate our essentially secular society; and they hate our economic liberties, such as they are. They don't merely want us out of Iraq. They don't merely want us out of Israel. They want us off the face of the earth. This is not solely my interpretation. This is what they say; this is what all of their actions, time and again, imply; and this is what they are seeking to accomplish, bit by bit.

Can anyone provide a quote from bin Laden or somesuch person saying that the motive of Muslim aggression against the US is that they hate US wealth and freedom?

[y_feldblum]

The word "Islam" means "submission". That's proof enough that Muslim aggression against the unsubservient is on account of their unsubservience, ie, freedom and wealth.

[Yes]

Can anyone provide a quote from bin Laden or somesuch person saying that the motive of Muslim aggression against the US is that they hate US wealth and freedom?

Actions speak louder than quotes.

Osama Bin Laden, who spearheaded the 9-11 attack against America, has communicated this very clearly through his heinous actions against us.

[Jerry Story]

Actions speak louder than quotes.

Osama Bin Laden, who spearheaded the 9-11 attack against America, has communicated this very clearly through his heinous actions against us.

The action 9-11 does not tell me the motive.

Can anyone provide a quote from Bin Laden saying that his motive for 9-11 was hatred of US wealth and US freedom?

[tommyedison]

The action 9-11 does not tell me the motive.

Can anyone provide a quote from Bin Laden saying that his motive for 9-11 was hatred of  US wealth and US freedom?

Let's see,

Bin Laden says that he has waged jihad or holy war against America as America is destroying Islam.

Now, America is not physically attacking Islamic buildings or Muslim people just because they are Muslim. This can only mean that it is the American values which are destroying Islam.

What is the difference between Islamic and American values?

Islam advocates submission, America advocates freedom.

Thus, Bin Laden is waging a war against America because he detests American freedom which is destroying the core premises of Islam.

His actions don't need quotes. They speak for themselves.

[Jerry Story]

Bin Laden says that he has waged jihad or holy war against America as America is destroying Islam.

Now, America is not physically attacking Islamic buildings or Muslim people just because they are Muslim. This can only mean that it is the American values which are destroying Islam.

What is the difference between Islamic and American values?

Islam advocates submission, America advocates freedom.

Thus, Bin Laden is waging a war against America because he detests American freedom which is destroying the core premises of Islam.

Maybe Bin Laden and other Arabs see the US wars against Iraq and other Islamic countries as aggression against Islam. US denies this, but perhaps that's their perception. Maybe 9-11 was retaliation against US war against Islamic countries. Maybe 9-11 had nothing to do with hatred of freedom and hatred of wealth. I don't know. I would have liked to see Bin Laden's answers to direct questions such as:

Why 9-11?

Do you hate US freedom and US wealth?

What constitutes US attack on Islam?

http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

[Yes]

Jerry, I think we've answered your question.

Your repeated refutations of our answers is indicative of what I perceive to be an attitude problem, and, as such, I have placed you on my Ignore List.

[gadfly]

I would have liked to see Bin Laden's answers to direct questions such as:

Why 9-11?

Do you hate US freedom and US wealth?

What constitutes US attack on Islam?

I would like to see Bin Laden's face on the live video feed from a U.S. guided missile.

[Tryptonique]

He also condemns anyone who abstains from voting on the basis that both candidates are bad, calling it an immoral evasion. If you do not vote, then the chances of our lives falling further into the hands of a religious fundamentalist are greatly increased. If we do not attempt to get Bush out of office, this is the way we are headed.

How is it an "immoral evasion" to tell both candidates to screw themselves because they have no MORAL RIGHT to invade our lives (social-Republicans or economic-Democrats)?

Didn't John Galt himself say "Get the hell out of my way" to the looters?

Is Dr. Peikoff forgetting the whole shrugging thing or am I missing something?

Can any of you picture John Galt voting for Kerry or Bush? How about any of the Rand heroes?

I can see Dominique doing it if she was in a particularly bad mood and playing a joke on the world or attempting to make herself less (like her marriage to Keating).

Has Peikoff gone buggers?

[Godless Capitalist]

The reality of the election was that there were only 2 candidates who had any chance of winning. No matter how bad the candidates were, if you had any reason to prefer one major candidate over the other you should have voted for that candidate. It's not a "sanction"; it's just acting as self-interestedly as possible within the possibilities open to you.

(Disclaimer: If you really had no preference or live in a state where one candidate had an overwhelming lead, it would be acceptable to not vote, or spoil your ballot, or vote Libertarian, or whatever else you might choose that would have no effect on anything.)