Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Who are you voting for?

Rate this topic


Who are you voting for?  

76 members have voted

  1. 1. Who are you voting for?

    • Democrats
      14
    • Republicans
      13
    • Libertarians
      11
    • Mixed ticket based on individual candidates
      12
    • Other
      1
    • Not voting this election
      7


Recommended Posts

Time_Maker: I believe you got a little mixed up, or mistyped. I'm pretty sure we would all love to vote for a pro-abortion/anti-tax candidate. The discussion was about a pro-abortion/pro-tax candidate vs. an anti-abortion/anti-tax candidate. Well, almost. It was actually about choosing between an anti-abortion/anti-tax and an anti-abortion/pro-tax candidate.

Given those choices, I too would have voted for the candidate who said they would rather lower taxes than raise them, even though they were anti-choice when it comes to reproduction. It is a choice between two evils, which is never a fun one, but choosing the lesser evil is certainly better than choosing the greater evil.

softwareNerd, I believe you have gravely misunderstood and misrepresented dark_unicorn's position. Although he said he is Catholic, he certainly has not mentioned Aquinas, and is clearly pro-choice. Actually, he has been clear about that since his first post on this thread, which was not at all ambiguous (even though he claimed it was to avoid further argument.) The people who pose a danger to me are the ones who wear the cloak of reason but do not read other people's posts before engaging in personal attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

softwareNerd, I believe you have gravely misunderstood and misrepresented dark_unicorn's position. Although he said he is Catholic, he certainly has not mentioned Aquinas, and is clearly pro-choice. Actually, he has been clear about that since his first post on this thread, which was not at all ambiguous (even though he claimed it was to avoid further argument.) The people who pose a danger to me are the ones who wear the cloak of reason but do not read other people's posts before engaging in personal attack.
I apologize for mis-reading his pro-choice position. As for Aquinas, yes he has mentioned it, more than that, he thinks of him as a kind of philosophic hero. You can find it in his other posts on the forum.

As a Catholic, he obviously believes in faith, despite his praises of Aquinas and appeals to reason. No position he takes is really justifiable. If he agrees with me on anything, it is a matter of coincidence; perhaps tomorrow his faith will reveal otherwise to him.

If you think that someone who misreads a post or makes any other type of mistake is a real danger to you, that's fine. I disagree. As long as people are willing to live by reason, they can be shown they're wrong, as you so clearly showed me. On the other hand, if someone is going to leave space in their minds for faith, then all bets are off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I stated that I wouldn't post on this thread again to avoid further confusion, but I wish to address one thing as to avoid any further arguements

I have stated that I am Pro-Choice, however, I have also often invoked Aquinas on other threads, just not this one. I think what softwarenerd was concerned about was the fact that my comment disagreeing with the separation of church and state arguement that Peikoff made for supporting Democrats, because given the fact that I was once a student for the Priesthood under the Dominican order and they, like most of the Catholic Holy Orders, oppose abortion. This information is on my account here for all to read, so it is naturally an issue that is fair game in discussion.

My intention regarding my support for Santorum was to articulate my disapproval over several issues plaquing this country, as well as my own state. It is not merely my own money that is being threatened by the PA state government. In addition to being a private music teacher, I also work for my parent's dog breeding business part time. Governer Rendell plans on regulating the hell out of many businesses, including dog breeders. My family's business is well established already, we stand to gain alot from his plans as they will completely ruin our competition, and all of us opposed his re-election because of it. The value of the money we make is dependent on the trade that makes it possible, and no one in my family (myself included), are going to see that trade raped so we can become millionares. We make our money honestly, and I am not going to stand by and let myself or anyone else be looted by any government, be it religious or secular in nature.

Furthermore, Bob Casey made it one of his promises to increase Medicare spending 10 fold of anything any Republican I know of would. This is done for one reason, to buy votes from the elderly, and it is done by looting their own grandchildrens' college savings. I swear I am so mad at the way politicians play off of the issue of Americanism in order to fool old people into taking free money, stolen from producing businesses, simply on the capricious reason that the recipient is old.

Abortion is one issue, an important one, not to mention the fact that many members of the Christian Right and the Catholic Church oppose contraception. I caught a good deal of grief from fellow Catholics for my constant bashing of Pope Paul VI and his writings, particulary "Populorum Progressio" (Populorum Malefactum would be a more accurate title) and "Humanae Vitae" (or as Ayn Rand accurately put it, "Of Human Death"). I have studied history for the better part of my tenure as an adult, and I know full well what happens when any Church, or if all Churches become a government, I am not an opponent of the Separation of Church and State. If I was, I would not be carrying a Thomas Jefferson quote on my signature.

I came to this site for one reason, to learn about Objectivism and also about myself in the process. I appreciate the kind words in my defense, but they are unnecessary, I was not fully clear on all of my views and softwarenerd reacted based on that. I will now cease my posts here.

@softwarenerd:

I wrote this before you had responded so I will add this simply to clarify things further. I own all of Aquinas' writings both in English and Latin, he is a philosophical hero of mine, but he is not the only one. I've seen flaws in his views, and I found some of the answers to these flaws in the works of many Enlightenment Philosophers, particularly Voltaire and Locke. This is how I happened upon Ayn Rand's writings and why I own and am currently re-reading several of her philosophical writings. God and faith are dear to me, but what I am seeking is the truth, and up until now I have found most of it in the symbiotic nature that Faith can have with Living happily when it is in harmony with reason. Had I lived in a different time, one may have used either the term "heretic" or "deist" to describe some of my views.

No one has yet been able to convince me that faith is destructive, but many have made eloquent and accurate statements about the destructive nature of faith divorced from reason. I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive, they must always be in harmony with each other. I could be wrong and faith could well indeed be the antithesis of reason, but I have observed nothing to tell me that.

Edited by dark_unicorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize for mis-reading his pro-choice position. As for Aquinas, yes he has mentioned it, more than that, he thinks of him as a kind of philosophic hero. You can find it in his other posts on the forum.

As a Catholic, he obviously believes in faith, despite his praises of Aquinas and appeals to reason. No position he takes is really justifiable. If he agrees with me on anything, it is a matter of coincidence; perhaps tomorrow his faith will reveal otherwise to him.

If you think that someone who misreads a post or makes any other type of mistake is a real danger to you, that's fine. I disagree. As long as people are willing to live by reason, they can be shown they're wrong, as you so clearly showed me. On the other hand, if someone is going to leave space in their minds for faith, then all bets are off.

I do not think that people who make mistakes are a danger to me. However, his stance for abortion was clear enough that I thought you hadn't read his posts at all, which would be dangerous to anybody who posts here. That was my mistake, and I apologize for that. I also haven't read any of his posts where he references Aquinas, and felt that the personal attack was unnecessary.

In my experience, having faith does not automatically invalidate all arguments a person can make. It simply means that more depth is necessary if you disagree with that person on a position. I doubt that all of dark-unicorn's ideas rest on his faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience, having faith does not automatically invalidate all arguments a person can make. It simply means that more depth is necessary if you disagree with that person on a position. I doubt that all of dark-unicorn's ideas rest on his faith.
Perhaps such people are completely reasonable and merely hang to faith as some type of floating abstraction. Perhaps they are Deists who do not use faith for any real purpose. As long as the person does not rely on faith in any decision they make and stick to their Church-State separation, that's really fine with me.

Anyhow, my original diatribe was based on reading his "pro-choice" and "pro-life". I understand why reading my post would arouse your sense of justice. So, thanks for pointing it out. My retort to you was not to pooh-pooh the irritation or anger in your barb, just it's factual content. If you'd said "if you expect others to read your posts carefully, do the same with theirs", or "clean your spectacles, Mr. Four-Eyes", I wouldn't have had any complaint!

And, to Dark_Unicorn, I apologize again. My misreading made me think you were using your faith in real life. Since you do not, I happily take back almost all I wrote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@softwarenerd:

I accept your apology, and I hope you will accept mine, my first response to you did not address your comments regarding the issue of reason in politics. Had I addressed that first, this could well have been avoided. When I first came to this site, I was given the impression by those whom disagree with Objectivism that this site was a propaganda outlet and that all of you were cultists. Everything that I have encountered here contradicts that, I have observed a variety of informed opinions, and have seen no one here who can be labeled as a dogmatist. Leonard Peikoff is a brilliant man, and I have admired much of what he has done, particularly his eloquent dissent over what was done to Elian Gonzales during the Clinton Administration. There is much that I still have to learn about the Ayn Rand Institute, particularly the way in which the various leaders form their opinions and how they maintain unity while simultaneously disagree on issues such as politics.

You could say I am a deist, although I don't know how many deists there are in the Catholic Church, most of them were Protestants. My faith has only ever applied to one thing, and that is to the existence of a creator, a benevolent consciousness that animates and moves. I am well prepared for the eventual truth that I may discover this to be an error.

Well, seeing as I have now twice broken my word not to post here again, I think I may want to back pedal on that before I become too much like today's typical politician. :worry:

Edited by dark_unicorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't know why you're apologizing, but I'll accept it as an acknowledgement of water under the bridge, just as soon as I get done washing the egg off my face!

Fair enough, when it comes to discussing things I am something of a perfectionist and when something goes wrong, the first thing I do is make sure that it wasn't me who made the mistake. I do need to do a better job of emphasizing my view on an issue before I go into a rant, and that was what I was apologizing for. I can understand how you might have thought that I was a religious conservative, as I have not gone into to much length about my religious views, mostly because I didn't desire to unintentionally contradict the purpose of this forum.

Anyhow, it's water under the bridge, I look forward to further discussions on this topic.

Getting back to the original topic, I am beginning to resent the Pennsylvania Democrats so much I'm wondering if one day I might just pack up and move to Kentucky or perhaps Idaho. This state's private medical practices are being raped and plundered to no end by a cabaul of looting Trial Lawyers, all of whom live in Philadelphia and rule like Kings from a fortified fortress. Within 10 years we will likely have a state run health care system, and I'll be leaving here faster than you can say Atlas Shrugged. No Democrat will be getting my vote unless they have taken absolutely no money from those looting jackals.

Edited by dark_unicorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

I'm surprised democrats won this poll, especially considering the fact that their front runner is a socialist (Hillary).

Ideally I would vote Libertarian. However, the most urgent issue for me is keeping the dems out, so I always vote Republican. They are certainly not the best, but it's still better than letting the dems have power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Libertarians are not ideal in any sense. They're extremely unpopular so theres no hope or point in voting for them, they're rabidly anti-war ( Moreso than the Dems it seems ), they're a Political Party with no solid philosophy, despite calling itself " The Party of Principle ".

Though the election mentioned here has been done for almost a year, back THEN I would have voted Republican or Libertarian for the most part. Now, I think I would have gone with the Dems, but I was too young anyway.

In the upcoming election, unless someone absolutely perfect comes about I will simply be voting Republican for President, as to keep the system " Gridlock " in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Libertarians are not ideal in any sense.

HERE are some valuable quotes from Ayn Rand on Libertarianism that the ARI has up on their website.

In the upcoming election, unless someone absolutely perfect comes about I will simply be voting Republican for President, as to keep the system " Gridlock " in place.

In so doing...you will be sanctioning that which the Republican Party is...one that is affliated with religion. Do you think that there should be a separation between state and church, that the government should not hold any religious views? Or do you think that it's okay to vote for a POLITICAL PARTY that is affiliated with religion? I don't care whether their candidates are religious or not, because they are sanctioning and continuing such a parties existence simply by being a member/candidate of that particular party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HERE are some valuable quotes from Ayn Rand on Libertarianism that the ARI has up on their website.

In so doing...you will be sanctioning that which the Republican Party is...one that is affliated with religion. Do you think that there should be a separation between state and church, that the government should not hold any religious views? Or do you think that it's okay to vote for a POLITICAL PARTY that is affiliated with religion? I don't care whether their candidates are religious or not, because they are sanctioning and continuing such a parties existence simply by being a member/candidate of that particular party.

The only other option is the Democrats. So let's turn this around?

In so doing...you will be sanctioning that which the Democratic Party is...one that is affliated with socialism and refuses to recognize the need to fight Islamic terrorism. Do you think that there should be a separation between state and market, that the government should not involve itself in the market? Or do you think that it's okay to vote for a POLITICAL PARTY that is affiliated with socialism? I don't care whether their candidates are socialist or not, because they are sanctioning and continuing such a parties existence simply by being a member/candidate of that particular party.

True, the Republicans do a pitiful job of fighting the war and have some socialist leanings of their own. But the Democrats are also dabbling in religion, more than ever. I can envision scenarios whereby I would vote for a Democrat...but not if Hillary is the nominee. I will vote for whoever opposes her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only other option is the Democrats. So let's turn this around?

In so doing...you will be sanctioning that which the Democratic Party is...

I need not read further than that. By voting Democrat rather than the Republican party in the last election...I did not sanction the greater of two evils. I was using self-defense by voting Democrat and not morally sanctioning the party itself by voting that way. There is a moral world of difference between self-defense and moral sanctioning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By voting Democrat rather than the Republican party in the last election...I did not sanction the greater of two evils. I was using self-defense by voting Democrat and not morally sanctioning the party itself by voting that way. There is a moral world of difference between self-defense and moral sanctioning.

So, according to you, a vote for the Republicans is a sanction, but a vote for the Democrats is self-defense? That's a valid claim if and only if the voter holds that the Democrats are the lesser of the evils. You clearly hold such a view. Some here hold the opposite view: that a vote for the Republicans (or a vote on a candidate-by-candidate basis, or a vote to enable gridlock) is the lesser of the evils. While it is certainly fair game to debate whether or not that is a valid claim (though, by the complex nature of politics and based on past related threads, you will not have much luck), it is certainly not valid to state: You are sanctioning evil while I am simply defending myself. It is not a sanction so long as the voter a.) holds that the person for whom he is voting is the lesser of the evils, b.) recognizes the bad as well as the good of the party/candidate, and c.) makes it clear, when appropriate, that he does not whole-heartedly support the party/candidate, but rather supports the other parties/candidates even less. If the person is wrong about a.), then he is wrong but he is not granting moral sanction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is certainly not valid to state: You are sanctioning evil while I am simply defending myself. It is not a sanction so long as the voter a.) holds that the person for whom he is voting is the lesser of the evils,[...]

That sounds like judging based upon the motivation of the voter. When Objectivists make a decision they apply principles to the particular situation. Those that misapply those principle...either directly or indirectly...we still judge exactly what had taken place. The motivaion behind it can be used to explain why they did, but that still does not change the outcome of what happened when they did. There was sanctioning taking place, whether directly or indirectly.

b.) recognizes the bad as well as the good of the party/candidate,[...]

When we have a choice between the lesser of two evils... I do not speak of the "good" of the lesser evil, campaign for the virtues of the lesser evil, but instead recognize which is the more evil of the two. Since both are evil, I personally would not say something like, "Voting Democrat is better then voting Republican" in the last election. I would just identify the greater evil, and vote for the only moral/practical self-defense against it that I had had at the time...the party running against them.

c.) makes it clear, when appropriate, that he does not whole-heartedly support the party/candidate, but rather supports the other parties/candidates even less.

I disagree with your use of the word "support" here. I did not "support the other parties/candidates even less" by voting Democrat...I DID NOT SUPPORT THEM AT ALL.

If the person is wrong about a.), then he is wrong but he is not granting moral sanction.

The action was wrong and it was moral sanctioning - even - if his motivation behind the act was to vote for what he had thought was the lesser evil....the consequence did not change at all. He was wrong, even though he thought that he wasn't... At best it falls into an "honest error" on his part...but that does not change that he was wrong or sanctioning in his actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ideally I would vote Libertarian. However, the most urgent issue for me is keeping the dems out, so I always vote Republican. They are certainly not the best, but it's still better than letting the dems have power.

Are you familiar with any of the arguments from the leading Objectivist intellectuals on why the Republican Party should not have been supported during the past few elections? This includes arguments from Leonard Peikoff, Yaron Brook, John Lewis, C. Bradley Thompson and Craig Biddle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Are you familiar with any of the arguments from the leading Objectivist intellectuals on why the Republican Party should not have been supported during the past few elections? This includes arguments from Leonard Peikoff, Yaron Brook, John Lewis, C. Bradley Thompson and Craig Biddle.

I am aware of the arguments that you are talking about, but I have to disagree with Piekoff's sentiment that voting for democrats is best because their policies are the "most easy to change".

Ex: Universal Healthcare, Global Warming legislation, Poverty Tax Hikes....

Easy to change? I don't think so. I'd rather do what's best for my interests/the country now than worry about which evil will be the easiest to fix later (which I still think that fixing the mistakes republicans make will be easier). Especially with candidates like Clinton and Obama threatening to take my money by force to help push our country towards socialism.

(Edited to to include explanation)

Edited by Jon Pizzo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am aware of the arguments that you are talking about, but I have to disagree with Piekoff's sentiment that voting for democrats is best because their policies are the "most easy to change".

Then you need to reread the article since Dr. Peikoff says nothing of the sort. Even if he states such reasoning elsewhere, the reasons he supported the Democrats in 2006 were primarily on recognizing broad philosophical trends. The world's foremost authority on Objectivism definitely would not urge that we vote on a unprincipled reason such as "their policies are easier to change."

Ex: Universal Healthcare, Global Warming legislation, Poverty Tax Hikes....

On the other hand, with the Republicans we get No Child Left Behind, the Prescription Drug Bill Medicare Expansion, The Office of Faith Baith Initiatives (religious-based charity), a trillion dollar altruistic war in Iraq, additional regulations on airline carriers, the freezing of subprime mortgage APRs, and the like. We also have Republican Presidential candidates such as Mitt Romney proposing Universal Healthcare and candidates such as Mike Huckabee claiming that "God wants us to combat global warming."

Are the Republicans really that much better on these issues?

Anyway, I am not necessarily advocating voting an all-Democratic ticket in 2008. I am just against thinking that the Republicans will somehow combat Statism considering that the current administration has just orchestrated one of the greatest expansions of Socialism since LBJ.

we should start a new thread with all the candidates for presidency......

I think it would be easier if you started using the search function. You can find many relevant threads here.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you need to reread the article since Dr. Peikoff says nothing of the sort. Even if he states such reasoning elsewhere, the reasons he supported the Democrats in 2006 were primarily on recognizing broad philosophical trends. The world's foremost authority on Objectivism definitely would not urge that we vote on a unprincipled reason such as "their policies are easier to change."

On the other hand, with the Republicans we get No Child Left Behind, the Prescription Drug Bill Medicare Expansion, The Office of Faith Baith Initiatives (religious-based charity), a trillion dollar altruistic war in Iraq, additional regulations on airline carriers, the freezing of subprime mortgage APRs, and the like. We also have Republican Presidential candidates such as Mitt Romney proposing Universal Healthcare and candidates such as Mike Huckabee claiming that "God wants us to combat global warming."

Are the Republicans really that much better on these issues?

Anyway, I am not necessarily advocating voting an all-Democratic ticket in 2008. I am just against thinking that the Republicans will somehow combat Statism considering that the current administration has just orchestrated one of the greatest expansions of Socialism since LBJ.

I think it would be easier if you started using the search function. You can find many relevant threads here.

Good point. What I read of Piekoff's view on the issue was from an interview he gave on the 2004 elections in "The Individualist" magazine. In the interview, he says that he would vote democratic because of the Republicans' report of theism in government. That is the main point that I disagree with him on, because I don't see that as such a large threat, though perhaps taking into consideration the points you made, it may be. My main point is, the republicans would have to do a lot of horrible things to make me consider voting for Hillary or Obama. However, I wasn't really looking at it from the point of view that you propose.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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