Unprincipled Politicians And Gas

[nimble]

I don't know about anyone else, but the whole gas hype has been irking me. I can't stand the two political parties or the big huff they make about gas prices. For one, with all the commotion about global warming, it would seem that the world would embrace the thought of higher gas prices, because it will mean less consumption of gas (although not by a large factor since the demand for gas is very inelastic). Secondly, it is just normal economics, if demand exceeds supply, then prices rise. I am sure consumers have noticed this in every other sphere of the economy, so why the outrage over this. Lastly, who cares how much the CEOs of oil companies retire with?

As for the political parties, republicans are wanting to take measures to bring oil prices down. I swore republicans used to believe in staying out of markets.

As for democrats, they used to support green taxes and reducing oil usage, yet they too are proposing to limit corporate profits, roll back gas taxes and add subsidies. This will only work in opposition to their goal of reducing oil consumption.

I hate that they are willing to betray that which is most precious to them to win a vote.

The last thing I wanted to mention in this rant is that I watch The Daily Show, and I usually like it. However, John Stewart was complaining about the subsidies that these rich oil companies receive even though they already are rolling in the dough. Now I realize that this is just a semi-comedic left-leaning response to the issue, but any research into the subject would show that oil companies have been receiving federal subsidies for decades. This isn't a Bush Administration idea. So, why choose to complain about it now?

Thanks

PS-Why do Objectivists vote republican? I can see why they did it 40 years ago, but I have no idea why they still do. I know why they won't vote libertarian, but why not start another 3rd party or something?

Edited May 3, 2006 by nimble

[Lemuel]

Why do Objectivists vote republican? I can see why they did it 40 years ago, but I have no idea why they still do. I know why they won't vote libertarian, but why not start another 3rd party or something?

I'll let another address the oil question.

Not all Objectivists vote Republican. Some do for economic reasons, fearing a Democrat might raise taxes. Others vote Democrat for civil liberty reasons. Some vote Libertarian because they think it's important to at least get those surface-level issues out there.

"Objectivism" does not endorse a political party, or at least any that are around now. Within the sphere of Objectivists, opinions vary on what one should consider when voting. For example, Leonard Piekoff urged people to vote for John Kerry to prevent Bush from installing more religious Republicans in appointed positions. I read several Objecctivist blogs that supported maintaining Bush in office while the war was on.

Some Objectivists just don't vote, seeing as there are rarely any candidates worth the time. Why put a ton of time and energy into a catch-22?

As for an "Objectivist Party", this has been discussed a lot in this forum. The most consistent answer is that the ideas Objectivism describes aren't "engrained in the public consciousness" enough for here to be a "Capitalist Party" yet. Getting Rand's books into the hands of high school and college students is much more important right now; in the meantime, vote your conscience.

Edited May 3, 2006 by synthlord

[The Guru Kid]

The global warming point that you made reminds me of many other such contradictory viewpoints held by certain people. On one front they worry about the overpopulation of earth. "Who will we feed and clothe 9 billion people by 2010?" that question is so out of context it's not even worth spending time over. How can you worry about Global warming killing humans and about overpopulation at the same time?