IDOAR #11: Damned to Repeat It, Pt. 3 - Voting

[lukeev]

I can't remember the last time I voted. I'm sure I never will again.

[truthadvocate]

Just to add my two cents, I believe the Democrat socialist programs in the U.S. have an incredible amount of momentum, and represent the greater of two evils when compared to mystic Republicans, most of which don't even go to church. Entitlement programs have caused poverty, social pathologies, crime, dependence on government, unemployment, broken families, a violation of our private property, a permanent poor class, the enslavement of our workforce, and on and on.

[PaulMcKeever]

Speaking for myself: if you can vote for a party the policies of which are committed to, and founded upon, a strictly rational consideration of the facts of reality, and a recognition that a person's own happiness is their own highest purpose, then, yes, vote for that party. Libertarian parties are NOT such parties.

[gtarmom]

I disagree with you. If it is best to vote against the greater of two evils, then you should never vote for a libertarian or any independent candidate who doesn't have a hope of winning against whichever of the two dominant political party happens to be the greater evil. Wouldn't you have to say that sometimes you should vote for the candidate with the best philosophy, even if that means you are "wasting" your vote with regard to who actually gets elected?

[msdragonfly1]

where is part four??

[PaulMcKeever]

There is no part 4.

[Vodka2389]

You said that the forces of mysticism currently have a greater momentum than socialism; I'm not so sure about that. Seems like the number of atheists are growing while the popularity of socialized health care and the left are worshiping Europe's socialistic policies.

[grantsinmypants2]

Good video. I think another important distinction is that by voting one is voting for government and against anarchy. Sure, alot of what a Democratic government and/or a Republican government do are evil, but what either provides is still better than no one running the police, military, and court system.

[Oleksandr]

Very good stuff, thanks for all the work, Paul.

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

Government is evil.

I think Ayn Rand had minor inconsistencies but I don't think that means we should throw away Objectivism and egoism all together.

[UzbekUkuleleist]

...but it seems as if you were saying that we should just keep voting for the lesser evil to keep the greater evil out of power, if there's no political party whose views represent us. If you have a response, I'd be glad to hear it.

[UzbekUkuleleist]

...So if there's no political party whose views you support, rather than voting for one party to keep all the worse ones out of power, and thus sanctioning their irrationality, wouldn't it be wiser just to not vote? Of course that doesn't mean you can't still be politically active; you can expound your views on the Internet, in letters to newspaper editors, etc. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you said,. . .

[UzbekUkuleleist]

...wouldn't those people just be sending the message that they support socialism? Then, if enough people vote for the Democrats/socialism in order to stop the momentum of the Republicans/mysticism, the Democrats will soon become the political party (and socialism the political ideology) with the most momentum, and those same people will have to return to voting for the mysticism of the Republicans. And it ends up being a constant dogfight between mysticism (or fundamentalist Christianity). . .

[UzbekUkuleleist]

I think Aaron has a point, that when you're voting for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil. Why not abstain from the whole process altogether, if there's no one whose views you support or even come close to? For example, when you say that Peikoff encouraged people to vote for Kerry instead of Bush in 2004, because the mysticism of the Republican Party was stronger than the socialism of the Democratic Party (mind you they're also mystics),. . .

[continued]

[PaulMcKeever]

A quick follow up: check out Dr. Leonard Peikoff's most recent podcast (#10), which I just finished hearing. The last question he answers deals with the Republican (religion) vs. Democrat (socialism) question (quite well, as usual). Dr. Peikoff's podcasts are at peikoff[dot]com .

[Oppp2]

gj paul! i love your videos. very instructive.

[horvay]

Oh wow. That was one funny Photoshop.

Great job on a another good series.

[aaron0883]

If the majority wants government to do more than to defend life, liberty and property than no amount of paper will stop them. However, how I stated in my video ... these conflicts were based off of my previous statements. Thank you for your responses. It is rare to not be straw manned and have your ideas treated fairly.

[Youhavethebody]

This is simply an appeal to the fact that men can act irrationally.

Even in someone's pet "Anarchist" theory, the possibility of irrational people using unjustified force against others cannot be denied--it can only be prepared for. No rules or regulations (or "paper") that an Anarchist society proposes would stop someone hellbent on using force to violate a person's rights.

I don't see this as a valid criticism.

[aaron0883]

I was being perfectly civil. I don't know what I did to make you feel the need to degrade my ideas. Even if they are wrong, that wouldn't justify the rude comment.

[Youhavethebody]

I was simply commenting that your criticism isn't sound, since Anarchy would face the same problem.

Sorry if my post sounds uncivil.