I Only Defend President Bush When He's Right

[Richard_Halley]

It effectively is a compromise when you present it as a false dilemma. Which selection will be the least harmful: Bush, Kerry or None of the Above?

"None of the Above" is not an option. While one may abstain from voting, this action is merely an abdictation of the choice, it leaves the decision up to others. I would hate to be the one to break it to you, but, next January, either Bush or Kerry is going to be president. In November, you have a decision to make: which one do you prefer?

[slave]

"It effectively is a compromise"

A compromise of what/between what?

It is a compromise of principle. If we are born free, why do we voluntarily turn over our freedom to the government? What does the effects of Bush vs. Kerry have to do with anything when the issue is that neither of them have the authority to tell me what to do? By debating the benefits of one over the other, the outcome is bound to be a compromise.

The compromise is not only between the voter and his representative, but it is also between every one that the government goes after trying to get him to vote the same way in the next election.

[Richard_Halley]

Again, Slave, when you only have two options, picking the best of the two is not a compromise.

[Betsy]

It is a compromise of principle. If we are born free, why do we voluntarily turn over our freedom to the government?

We do it because the government has a gun to our heads and it ISN'T voluntary. Morality ends where a gun begins.

[oldsalt]

We have damned little to say about what the government does, no matter who is elected. I disagree, however, that it behooves us to abdicate what little power we have to try to slow the descent into socialist hell. If we are to have any chance at all for a better country, we must first have a country left in which to fight for what we believe in.

I despise just about everything George Bush stands for, but at least I have a handle on what motivates him. I can't begin to tell you what John Kerry stands for. I don't think he knows from one poll to the next what his stand will be. Bush has the courage of his convictions, Kerry has no convictions and no courage, just an overweening ambition to rule that has remained the same from young manhood to this day. Bush's foundation is religious conviction (abhorent, but there are worse). Kerry has no discernable foundation; the only thing I can see that moves him is the expediency of the moment.

If there were a "None of the Above" choice on the ballot, that is what I would mark. But there isn't and no wish for a different government will give us one. So, my choice boils down to this: I can vote for Bush and trust to the fact that, however flawed, he puts American interests (as he understands them) first. I can vote for Kerry and hope that he won't sell this country's right to defend itself to the UN. Or I can disengage and point my finger at everyone else. How should I determine what to do?

I'm happy to see this discussion. I admit that it is a subject that has filled my thoughts for some time now. It isn't an easy question. If we weren't at war, it would be easy to abstain from voting -- which, under most circumstances, I consider a valid form of protest. But we are under special circumstances at the moment. The biggest war we are fighting right now is the war right here in America against home-grown anti-Americans -- whose candidate of choice is John Kerry. It is on this premise that I will vote: I will not concede this most important battle to those who hate the very idea of America. Instead, I'll hold my nose and vote for Bush.

[amagi]

AutoJC has tried to use particular policy statements on Kerry's part to argue that Kerry might actually have a good plan for fighting terrorism. First of all, any given isolated statement of Kerry's that appears to support America's right to defend itself, made in an election year with the knowledge that he has to at least appear to be tough on terror, is bound to be a fabrication. AutoJC himself has noted that Kerry has no qualms about disregarding entirely his own assertions whenever it seems expedient. Moreover, there is an abundance of counterexamples that could be found, some of which have been presented, in which Kerry contradicts such statements, explicitly endorsing atrocious, appeasing, self-destructive foreign policies. But perhaps more compellingly, the very best indication of the direction Kerry will take us in is this:

the overwhelmingly consistent reaction of the left, which Kerry represents perfectly, to every single assertive US action, military or otherwise, since Afghanistan, has been rabidly hysterical, outraged denounciation.

AutoJC, I'd like to know, did you not notice this? Have you not noted how, at every step, it has been the liberals, the vast majority of the Democrats that have sought to prevent the US from taking any military action whatsoever? That have sought to subjugate entirely our actions to the dictates of the corrupt UN, or to the America-hating "world opinion"? Do you think that Kerry will just decide to switch sides once he's elected? To take literally any pre-emptive action, to actually act on any of his promises to use military force (without UN permission), he'll have to.

Kerry has been one of the loudest voices attacking the "arrogance" of the Bush administration; he has cried to no end about the contempt with which the world now holds us--a result Kerry blames directly on our acting ("unilaterally") to take down terrorist states. I suspect that John Kerry will deliver on his promise to give the UN control of American foreign policy. The result will be 4 years of victory for Islamic fundamentalism.

Not voting for either Bush or Kerry is no solution. It is worse than useless. Bush will do a vastly superior job on terrorism than Kerry, no matter how poorly Bush does. Not voting for Bush increases the chances that Kerry will be elected--thereby decreasing drastically the chances that America will be properly defended from terrorists.

[slave]

Again, Slave, when you only have two options, picking the best of the two is not a compromise.

"Instead, we should vote for those, to whatever extent they can be found, who are defenders of the essence of America: individual freedom."

The prescription drug plan and rights to the unborn children which I think Bush has signed are an attack on individual freedom. I shall chose the third option that will not acknowledge.

http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/meaningof...ghttovote.shtml

AMAGI:

"Not voting for Bush increases the chances that Kerry will be elected--thereby decreasing drastically the chances that America will be properly defended from terrorists."

You have a problem with the question. Why is it only a concern when the attack is foreign? My concern is the attacks that are internal. Until the internal probems are resolved, the rest are beyond our control.

[slave]

If there were a "None of the Above" choice on the ballot, that is what I would mark.  But there isn't and no wish for a different government will give us one.

The only diffference between None of the Above and not voting is the fact that you move the lever. None of the Aboves would be counted just as non-voters are able to be deduced from the turnout.

Not voting is none of the above - option three!

[always_learning]

Slave, you need to come to grips with the fact that there are only two options for the presidency. Yes you can choose not to vote, but what you are essentially doing then is not making a decision. You are choosing to let others decide for you.

Why is it only a concern when the attack is foreign?

I am more concerned with foreign attacks because they are an immediate threat. The way I see it if Bush wins he will continue to slowly kill America from the inside and if Kerry wins he will continue to kill America from the inside and allow terrorists to plot against us which could kill me now. Like it or not there are only two possible winners here. Who will you pick, or will you allow others to decide for you.

[Richard_Halley]

Why is it only a concern when the attack is foreign?

My assesment was not: only foreign attacks are a concern, but: foreign attacks are more of a concern than domestic ones. If you wish to argue otherwise, that is fine, but you will be discussing the topic of who to vote for, not whether or not to vote.

If neither candidate was preferable over the other, than your argument not to vote would be perfectly legit. However, if you consider both candidates, conclude that one is x amount better than the other, then decline to vote, you have turned your back on x amount of your rights.

Now, if you want to argue that, morally, Bush=Kerry... I would be happy to discuss it with you, but to aruge that voting, as such, is immoral is absoutly absurd.

[kesg]

How do you seperate "voting for" and "not supporting"? They are the same thing. By voting for Bush, you are giving him the only support you are able to offer him - 100% of it.

This argument is a non sequitur. Voting for candidate A over candidate B means only that, all things considered, you consider candidate A either better or less worse than candidate B. It does not imply that you support or agree with everything that candidate A says or does.

[slave]

You are choosing to let others decide for you.

You have a serious errror here. I am making a decision not to vote. In no way, shape or form is that a concession of anything or anyone to decide for me. I agree that the guy you will elect will do exactly that - but that was my point.

Who will you pick, or will you allow others to decide for you.

I will not allow others to decide for me. That you do by force.

[slave]

This argument is a non sequitur.  Voting for candidate A over candidate B means only that, all things considered, you consider candidate A either better or less worse than candidate B.  It does not imply that you support or agree with everything that candidate A says or does.

You have just made my point. It is a compromise. So far, you are the only person aside from me to admit it.

If you did not compromise, supporting candidate A would insinuate agreement on everything that candidte A says or does.

Imagine for 10 minutes that everyone stopped compromising with their vote. How many election cycles do you think it would take before you saw candidtates catering to principled people? It may never happen for the same reason why no one will agreee that they are compromising.

[Capitalism Forever]

Slave, if a mugger offered you to choose whether he should take your wallet or your life, would you consider it a "compromise" to give him your wallet?

Imagine for 10 minutes that everyone stopped compromising with their vote.

Three words: "Visualize World Peace."

Everyone will never stop "compromising with their vote." The fact that you are rational does not make everyone rational.

[always_learning]

I am making a decision not to vote. In no way, shape or form is that a concession of anything or anyone to decide for me.

A choice will be made, with or with out you. You can chose to contribute to the decision or leave the decision up to others. If you find one candidate to be better than the other you should vote for him. If you find them to be so similar that you do not wish to make a decision then by all means do not vote, but by doing this you are leaving the decision up to others who will chose your president, which is fine if you find that neither candidate is better then the other.

My focus was not that others will choose for you, but that by not voting you are not making a choice. If you think the candidates are equal, then no decision is required. But if they are not then a decision should be made. In this year’s election the two running for office, I find to be extremely different. Both will continue to destroy our country from the inside out, but one will allow terrorists to plot against us, and one will and already has attempted protect our freedom to exist. I will fear for my life if Kerry wins. I only fear for my pursuit of happiness if Bush remains in office.

Do you not think that Bush will protect us more than Kerry would from terrorists? Or do you not find the thread eminent enough to care?

[Capitalism Forever]

I will fear for my life if Kerry wins.

Exactly. Iran needs to be dealt with before they nuke us, and Kerry is not only unwilling to do so, he even wants to "cooperate" with them.

[slave]

Slave, if a mugger offered you to choose whether he should take your wallet or your life, would you consider it a "compromise" to give him your wallet?

No. It appears to be a compromise since money is being stolen from me, but there is no concession on my part.

1) If I do not pay the money, I get killed for a principle.

2) If I allow the money to be stolen, I have made a value judgement for life over liberty. In the Declaration of Independence, they are listed as "Life, Liberty..." Chosing what appears to be the compromise is a judgement that life is more valuable than liberty as the country's founders thought.

In contrast to what happens with voting, I accept the socialized medicine by Bush or higher taxes by Kerry. At no point does this compromise come close to what appears to be the compromise you suggested. In 2 above, I get my life. When voting, I accept blame for having things taken from me according to some whim. I am the loser. It is like being shot after handing over the money to the mugger.

Everyone will never stop "compromising with their vote." The fact that you are rational does not make everyone rational.

I agree.

[slave]

Do you not think that Bush will protect us more than Kerry would from terrorists?

Bush is less incompetent when it comes to defeating our enemies than Kerry.

The president should have bombed Iraq until they surrendered without the US losing any Americans lives. If a few didn't understand and continued to fight, he should have bombed again until they were dead or convinced that couldn not win.

"The weak and the botched shall perish... And one shall help them to it." (Neitsche) In this war, we have taken a path where the the weak and the botched are killing the virtuous. He should not allow this to happen to the soldiers when it is not for our benefit. Our only benefit is the death of our enemy. Freedom in Iraq is for their benefit - it stinks like altruism.

[Living Student]

Slave:

If our neighboors force you to drink poison, but they offer you a choice between a variety of kinds, what should you do?

I assert that you should take the least harmful poison.

And it seems that you assert that this would be wrong because I would be comprimising my principles and supporting my neighboors use of force.

Is this a correct account of your position?

[Richard_Halley]

In contrast to what happens with voting, I accept the socialized medicine by Bush or higher taxes by Kerry.

This is not the issue at hand. The issue is the following: with Bush some protection from/action against terrorists, with Kerry you get none.

If you do not vote, you are evaluating that these two--when summed with the other policies held by each candidate--are equals. The choice is between being robbed and life, or being robbed and death (or leaving the country). There is no other option, there is no none of the above. It is a betrayal of life not to make a stand for the first, as opposed to the second.

Also, I think the situation is different from the one provided by CapFo, as the man with the gun is a different man from the one taking your wallet. What you really have is a choice between two men who will both take your wallet, one who will prevent you from being shot by a third man, and one who will not.

It is like being shot after handing over the money to the mugger.

Only if you pick Kerry. As pointed out above, Bush will try to stop the shooting.

Now remove the third man (the one with the gun), and pretend one of your two candidates will take slightly less of the money in your wallet than the other. Just as not picking the one who will prevent you from being shot is a betrayal of your life, not picking the one who will take less is like betraying that extra bit of money, handing it over.

The point here is, you only have two options (assuming you are not prepared to leave the country or go on strike a la Galt), if one is better than the other, it is immoral not to try to pick the better one.

And, again, a vote says nothing except that you believe the candidate you voted for is better than the other option.

[Capitalism Forever]

If I allow the money to be stolen, I have made a value judgement for life over liberty. In the Declaration of Independence, they are listed as "Life, Liberty..." Chosing what appears to be the compromise is a judgement that life is more valuable than liberty as the country's founders thought.

Come on, don't tell me you haven't heard the quote from Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty, or give me death!" The meaning of this is that life without liberty--life as an, ahem, slave--is even worse than death.

Life is listed first because the right to one's life is the foundation of all the other rights. The right to liberty is derived from the right to life, as you need liberty to be able to enjoy your right to life: As I said above, life as a slave is worse than death.

Letting the thief take your wallet rather than your life does not mean that you give up your right to liberty for the sake of your right to life. You don't even give up your right to property. You just give up your custody of some of your property in order to preserve your life. You still remain the rightful owner of your wallet.

In other words, you do NOT compromise your principles. You do not think "OK, I'm giving up my right to property and in exchange he won't kill me--sounds like a reasonable compromise" and then walk on thinking the thief is now the rightful owner of the wallet. You do not proudly tell your friends what a cunning compromise you have made and suggest that they make similar compromises.

What you do is simply accept the fact that some of your rights are going to be violated and you act to have the smallest subset of your rights violated. After the violation has happened, you support the police in prosecuting and punishing the violator; if you get a chance to get your property back, you accept it gladly without feeling like you have stolen something from the mugger--because you continue to believe that you have a right to your property.

It isn't "Yes, Mr. Mugger, it's a deal" to which you stick like a gentleman; it is "OK, take my wallet, scumbag" and as soon as the threat is over, the pretense of cooperation is over.

THIS is why giving the mugger your wallet does not mean you accept blame for the muggery.

When voting, I accept blame for having things taken from me according to some whim.

The government is the mugger. By voting for Bush, you give your wallet; by voting for Kerry, you give your life. Do you now see the analogy?

[oldsalt]

In my earlier post, I said that I thought the biggest war we are fighting is the one here in America, against fellow citizens who hate this country. On rereading, I see that I failed to connect it to the context from which I was speaking -- the war with Islam. I would like to do so now because I think it is even more important than whatever military strategy is being used at the moment. (I say "strategy at the moment" because I don't think that altruism will necessarily remain the guiding principle. No matter what the premise of Bush's war, the military will not allow a continued slaughter of its people, and if we are hit again, I don't think it will be as hard politically to fight more aggresively. As much as I despise this kind of politics, its what we are working with and must take it into consideration.)

What I was speaking to was the danger of the propaganda war that is being waged in this country. It is easy to look at the 15 morons who show up at the anti-war protests and dismiss them. They deserve it. But there are many insidious -- and influencial -- groups out there who are more dangerous than any weapon. Islamists cannot beat our military. Academics and the media can. All they have to do is convince enough people that this is an unjustified war. It is in this way that the present war IS like Vietnam. The fact that Vietnam was an unjustified war doesn't change the horror of what happened to this country in the 60's and 70's, which horrors occurred because of the Marxist nature of the principles held by the protesters. (This is a perfect example of how one's premises make all the difference in determining why something is right.) People forget that we were as close to anarchy as the country has ever been. We came out of it badly wounded, I don't think we will survive another such time.

John Kerry is an exemplar of this latest bunch of anti-life America haters. For all of Bush's faults, which are many and grave, he does not hate this country and will do his (severly lacking) best to protect it. As bad as he is militarially, he is even worse on the propaganda front and needs all the help in the country he can get. I'm not even sure that he recognizes the dangers on the home front, but I do, and I will continue to beat this drum because of it. History teaches us that time matters. I want to make sure that we have as much time to change things as possible. It may be too late already, but I don't know that. We don't know what will happen to change people's minds.

[slave]

Is this a correct account of your position?

It is no where close.

It was said that I am to blame for not accepting what someone's elected politicans are doing to the country. Did I put them into office? No. Did you (2nd person plural) put them into office? Yes. Who is to blame?

He looks at my lack of action (zero, nothing) as the cause while dismissing his action (voting) as nothing. Now tell me, can nothing be a cause? If the nothing that I did caused this, how so as opposed to the vote he cast?

That is my whole point. He accepts the blame for what they do since he willingly played the game at knife point.

In reference to your example: You know your neighbor is a homocidal maniac. You go over for to complain about the skulls he throws into you back yard. Then he kills you. The choice of poison is as irrelevant as the color of glass that it s served in.

[slave]

This is not the issue at hand.

If this issue were not at hand, I would vote for him. Since he wants me to pay for prescription drugs w/o my consent, I say it is. He taking my income for his political gain.

With regards to unborn victims, he is undermining the the foundation for the constituiton - the individual. He is going to divide individuals into classes. After we have unborn and born individuals, what is next? Unborn malnourished. Unborn alcoholic. Unborn black. There will be a civil rights group for every type of unborn individual that there is for born individuals. On second thought, they are individuals - why can't they vote? At an election in the future, your choice will be between a wartime president who supports rights for unborn voting and a socialist who supports unborn voting but is against the war.

If you do not vote, you are evaluating that these two--when summed with the other policies held by each candidate--are equals.  The choice is between being robbed and life, or being robbed and death (or leaving the country).  There is no other option, there is no none of the above.  It is a betrayal of life not to make a stand for the first, as opposed to the second.

I agree that they are equals. The difference is a measuerment not a principle.

It may be a betrayal of your life, but it is a stand on the principle of liberty. I make a judgement between life or liberty. They are both principles. When you apply them to the context of your life, you may order them life, liberty or liberty, life.

The point here is, you only have two options (assuming you are not prepared to leave the country or go on strike a la Galt), if one is better than the other, it is immoral not to try to pick the better one.

Suppose I went on strike like Galt, would I be wrong? That is what this question comes down to. You are doing what Dagny did. You give them what they want!

[slave]

Come on, don't tell me you haven't heard the quote from Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty, or give me death!" The meaning of this is that life without liberty--life as an, ahem, slave--is even worse than death.

I did read it before, but I was trying to point out that they could be ordered differently. I see things the same way as Henry, but I could just as easily seen it the other way around at an earlier time in my life.

The government is the mugger. By voting for Bush, you give your wallet; by voting for Kerry, you give your life. Do you now see the analogy?

I must not have written clearly. I do not think the analogy was a compromise, and I agree with your conclusion. I thought the analogy was an error becasue it used the word compromise. Giving my wallet to Bush has more effects to it which equate it to a compromise - unborn victims, steel tariffs, etc. It is unlike the analogy which has no hints of anything other than the wallet.