What is your point? Do you even have one (or are you just trying to outnerd me)?
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
Jaq Phule: It is absurd to believe that this forum topic was always way off topic. Therefore, once upon a time, it might have actually been about "Libertarians for Obama", and not some frankly absurd foray into mathematical theology.
It is absurd to believe that this forum topic was always way off topic. Therefore, once upon a time, it might have actually been about "Libertarians for Obama", and not some frankly absurd foray into mathematical theology.
I completely agree. Thank you Jaq for going back into Libertarians for Obama.
Jaq Phule: Ruben, a conservative is a very different thing from a libertarian. There are a lot of conservatives I know who plan to vote for Obama, for all the difference it will make in this bought-and-paid-for election.
Ruben, a conservative is a very different thing from a libertarian. There are a lot of conservatives I know who plan to vote for Obama, for all the difference it will make in this bought-and-paid-for election.
Thank you also for bringing up this crucial difference. I am under the impression that somehow these two concepts have been confused, perhaps because some conservatives also happen to be libertarians.
I am also under the impression that libertarians promote abstention because of a belief on a lack of a government, rather than endorsement to Obama or McCain.
Art transcends ideology.
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/ruben
nirgrahamUK: can you suggest any credible author in particular?
can you suggest any credible author in particular?
Solomon,
I was by no means trying to outnerd you. I am the very first one frustrated for the change in the topic. I just made a comment and was forced to all these pointless explanations. I quoted that extract of Mathematical Philosophy on the request above from nirgrahamUK. I apologize to you if I failed to quote him at that post, because of course you assumed I was directing it to you personally when I was not.
Mea culpa.
Rubén: Thank you also for bringing up this crucial difference. I am under the impression that somehow these two concepts have been confused, perhaps because some conservatives also happen to be libertarians.
If you think in terms of the "world's smallest political quiz", then it is possible that you could have conservative libertarians. I doubt that they will vote Obama. The conservatives who are voting for Obama are largely in the "centrist" block, or even more likely, in the "statist conservative" portion.
I don't think you will find many of either of those categories here at mises.
Rubén: I am also under the impression that libertarians promote abstention because of a belief on a lack of a government, rather than endorsement to Obama or McCain.
Most of the time, yes. I think it would be a mistake to classify us all in such a way. The root of "libertarian" means "freedom", implying that a human person is free to make whatever choice is deemed best for themself, by themself. Many libertarians will abstain, but many others will vote for Bob Barr, many others will vote for Chuck Baldwin, still others will write in Ron Paul. Some will even vote for Nader for various reasons, or McKinney.
You'll get a few oddballs who will vote for McCain ("at least he's not Obama!"), or else for Obama ("at least he's not McCain!").
Hell, I even registered to vote this year, so that I could vote for Ron Paul in the primary. I knew he wouldn't win, which in my eyes made it a vote against the system; an "anti-vote" that I deliberately "threw away".
I'll be voting on Tuesday, because I promised my congressmen that I would, depending on his vote on the bailout. I keep my promises. I wouldn't be voting otherwise. While I'm there, I will, excepting the bailout, follow this policy:
1. If there's an incumbent, vote against the incumbent.
2. If there's no incumbent, skip the vote.
For a while, Justin Raimondo, who's a strict Rothbardian libertarian, gave his endorsement to Obama. He ate his words, and very apologetically retracted that endorsement very shortly thereafter, after Obama's latest speech to AIPAC, but it's illustrative of what's possible. I won't begrudge him, but I would have been rather disappointed in him if he'd not retracted.
(In fact, the first thing I did after I read Obama's 2008 AIPAC speech was to flip over to antiwar.com and see if Justin had reacted. He already had, in quite satisfactory fashion.)
~jaq
liberty student:When I talk or write to an Obama supporter, a so-called true believer, they are like a zombie. They are not employing any rational thought processes. They have not become informed on issues. They are not weighing cause and effect. if Obama says, "Only I can feed you", they will shout "Lord, give us bread!".
That's SO true. My aunt is one of Obama's zelots. She says she'll stop talking to her husband if he doesn't vote for Obama. Normally, he also votes Dems, but this time, being a physician, he doesn't care for Obama's healthcare plans.
I understand people who want to vote for Obama because they're fed up with Republicans. But treating him like some kind of prophet? That's downright scary.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Natalie:I understand people who want to vote for Obama because they're fed up with Republicans. But treating him like some kind of prophet? That's downright scary.
It says something about who these people are, and what they perceive as answers. Religion and divine right replaced with democratic proselytizing.
This is why we have a huge challenge ahead of us to educate our less rational, more superstitious, under educated, uninspired fellow humans (if such behavior by grown ass people can be called "human")
liberty student: Natalie:I understand people who want to vote for Obama because they're fed up with Republicans. But treating him like some kind of prophet? That's downright scary. It says something about who these people are, and what they perceive as answers. Religion and divine right replaced with democratic proselytizing. This is why we have a huge challenge ahead of us to educate our less rational, more superstitious, under educated, uninspired fellow humans (if such behavior by grown ass people can be called "human")
I find it quite fitting that eventually becoming a cyborg will be possible, as many in society already seem perfectly programmable. This election only further proves such a scary prospect.I'm considering if either of them win, who would install Martial Law faster and/or stronger, as I would re-consider remaining in my current location. Frankly, I'm worried martial law will be declared amidst very mild "rioting" at a few voting booths (being magnified by the media & white house propaganda, of course, as a state wide emergency) due to the outcome regardless.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Obama has united the planet!
From the Economist,
"Obama sweeps the world"
BARACK OBAMA has won at least one election by a landslide. Voters in The Economist's Global Electoral College favoured the Democratic candidate over his Republican rival, John McCain, by more than five to one. Some 52,000 readers around the world cast a vote, with more than 44,000 votes going to Mr Obama. As candidates collected delegates according to the countries won (just as America's electoral-college system allocates delegates by state), Mr Obama's victory is all the more comprehensive: he claims 9,115 delegates, compared with a paltry 203 for Mr McCain.
Various patterns became clear during the course of voting. Candidates did best when they picked up backing from heavily populated countries with large tallies of delegates. Mr Obama quickly scooped support from readers in China, India and most of Europe, as well as from the United States itself. Mr Obama won the backing of an overwhelming share of voters in 56 countries—including the likes of Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Indonesia and South Korea—claiming the support of 90% (or more) of those who voted.
Rich countries tended to vote earlier than poorer ones (a reflection of where most online readers of The Economist are found), with African countries among the last to fall for either candidate. Unsurprisingly, countries where internet access is limited registered fewer votes. At least ten votes are needed within each country for its delegates to become available. North Korea did not express a preference, although Myanmar (Burma) did eventually give a view—first favouring Mr McCain, but then ending in a tie (in which case neither candidate gets the delegates). Zimbabwe was late in showing narrow support for Mr Obama.
The general result may look lopsided, but judging by opinion polls carried out in various countries, for example by the BBC, Mr Obama is widely considered to be the world's choice. Considering the rapturous reaction that he received in Berlin, and elsewhere, when he toured the Middle East and Europe in the summer, Mr Obama (and America) would be right to expect more goodwill if he becomes president than that enjoyed by George Bush.
Mr McCain did garner support in some unusual places. Andorra, Macedonia, Cuba, El Salvador and Georgia were coloured red during the earlier weeks of voting. Nearer to the close of polls the Republican also saw Iraq, Namibia, Congo, Sudan, Algeria and a few other countries offer him support. It may be that Cuban exiles in Florida chose to register themselves as residents of Cuba, and wanted to express their support for the Republican. Perhaps American servicemen in Iraq were backing Mr McCain. Some Georgians may feel that Mr McCain would be a tougher commander-in-chief than his rival, and thus would be more assertive towards Russia. Macedonia perhaps backed Mr McCain in reaction to the hearty enthusiasm for Mr Obama in neighbouring Greece. In the end, however, the Republican saw just four countries fall for him (and by narrow margins): Iraq, Cuba, Algeria and Congo.
Readers have been keen to express views on the Global Electoral College: over 1,800 comments were posted in the course of voting. A few American readers are unhappy that foreigners were expressing a choice, regarding it as an intrusion into domestic affairs. Others grumbled that we offered only a choice between the two main candidates (where was Ralph Nader, or Bob Barr? And where was the chance to abstain?). Others asked whether some readers are “gaming” the results, for example by registering as resident in a country where neither candidate has won, and then casting a vote in an effort to pick up remaining delegates. No doubt this practice happened to some extent, but it is most unlikely that the overall result was affected.
Some supporters of Mr Obama feared that his overwhelming global popularity could backfire at home, with American voters preferring a candidate less popular with the rest of the world. That seems unlikely. For what it is worth, our readers in America also massively favoured the Democrat over the Republican, by 81% to 19%. One thing is sure: America's voters, however enthusiastic they prove to be on voting day, will not support Mr Obama by such a margin.
A very good and close friend of mine, who claims that he hates government, even thinks that Obama is going to put this country back on track. From, Obama is going to reduce the size of government to if only Obama had the opportunity to switch out all the supreme court justices, I have heard it all.
In a recent, rather loud discussion, he asked me to pose the question here "what do the libertarians at mises think would happen if Obama could switch out all the supreme court justices". I replied that more than likely, libertarians will not think that this is a good idea.
Personally, I think the country would be even worse off if a socialist got to decide all of the justices.....any ideas?
Sometimes "majority" simply means that all the fools are on the same side
Ruben, we all know how to find mindless Obama propaganda online. No one cares what The Economist says. It's a pro-state magazine. I've already explained, most of us are anti-state, not big government socialists.
katja328:Personally, I think the country would be even worse off if a socialist got to decide all of the justices.....any ideas?
I dunno. I assume this is a minarchist question. Who is the better ruler? Who should be allowed to employ force? Who should have the monopolies?
I can't think within that paradigm anymore. My horizons have changed.
liberty student: Ruben, we all know how to find mindless Obama propaganda online. No one cares what The Economist says. It's a pro-state magazine. I've already explained, most of us are anti-state, not big government socialists.
I know that.
I just posted this to emphasize the point of what people around the world freely think on how it should be run.
Rubén:I know that. I just posted this to emphasize the point of what people around the world freely think on how it should be run.
And because a majority thinks it is right, that makes it valid? Is this more of the Tao of Subjectivity?
Rubén: liberty student: Ruben, we all know how to find mindless Obama propaganda online. No one cares what The Economist says. It's a pro-state magazine. I've already explained, most of us are anti-state, not big government socialists. I know that. I just posted this to emphasize the point of what people around the world freely think on how it should be run.
If the current world we lived in had no governments, & people suddenly decided "Ya know, this is awfully boring. Let's start forcing people to do things & call ourselves mandated leaders for the hell of it.", then yes, I would agree people are "freely" choosing how the world should be run.They are indeed choosing, but it is nonsense to say they are doing it "freely". In some cases, it would be "ignorantly"; in other's, "submitting", but neither ignorance nor submission implies freedom, save for freedom from responsibility.
Nitroadict: If the current world we lived in had no governments, & people suddenly decided "Ya know, this is awfully boring. Let's start forcing people to do things & call ourselves mandated leaders for the hell of it.", then yes, I would agree people are "freely" choosing how the world should be run.They are indeed choosing, but it is nonsense to say they are doing it "freely". In some cases, it would be "ignorantly"; in other's, "submitting", but neither ignorance nor submission implies freedom, save for freedom from responsibility.
And what is the market, then? Don't consumers choose if they purchase brand A or brand B? If brand A is more popular and has more sales the market rewards the manufacturing company increasing its net worth while brand B might even become bankrupt if consumers do not purchase their products. That is market competition. Why is market competition accepted in this forum as desirable according to consumer preferences? and competition between political candidates according to voter's preferences, why is it not desirable in this forum?
It seems to me that in politics democracy has some equivalence with market competition in economics.
Rubén:It seems to me that in politics democracy has some equivalence with market competition in economics.
No it doesn't.
1. It is coercive.
2. It's mob rule. If 51 people want blue jeans, then 49 people can't get slacks. That's not how a market works. For a higher cost, the minority can satisfy their needs in the marketplace. One cannot even secede (choose not to purchase) from a democracy and social contract they never agreed to!
3. Equivalence. Ugh.
liberty student: Rubén:It seems to me that in politics democracy has some equivalence with market competition in economics. No it doesn't. 1. It is coercive. 2. It's mob rule. If 51 people want blue jeans, then 49 people can't get slacks. That's not how a market works. For a higher cost, the minority can satisfy their needs in the marketplace. One cannot even secede (choose not to purchase) from a democracy and social contract they never agreed to! 3. Equivalence. Ugh.
That's precisely the reason why there is a separation of powers, checks and balances, and congresses and local governments with representations of the minorities. And after eight years of Bush, now what were previously the minorities will now have a majority government with Obama!
Rubén:That's precisely the reason why there is a separation of powers, checks and balances, and congresses and local governments with representations of the minorities. And after eight years of Bush, now what were previously the minorities will now have a majority government with Obama!
Even if this is true, it does not follow that this is in any way like a market, where the availability of resources is dependant on demand for those resources. Government assumes existence reguardless of whether it's existance is wanted, a clientele reguardless of their demand. It is the opposite of free.
Bush may have been in for 8 years, but the Democrats took over the Congress in 2006. They were supposedly the will of the majority to end the war, and they did nothing. In fact, they passed legislation to further antagonize Iran and Russia, and have marched lock stepped with Bush all of the way. They have refused to impeach Bush for what are obvious crimes the world knows about 10 times over. Where is this even a 2 party system? Democracy is a sham!
Even the bailout, which was running 95% against from massive public demonstrations, was voted against the will of the people, BI-PARTISAN.
Democracy always leads to fascism. That is what we are witnessing in many countries, specifically the US right now.
I'm not an American, but I know more about American politics than most Americans. You can't try to play the "voice of the minority made majority" crap on me. It's completely fallacious.
Obama is being elected because the American people only have two choices. An old dud, or a young firebrand. If you look at what Obama has done in the Senate, he's not a change candidate. He has been pro-Bush. If you listen to his foreign policy as he campaigns now, he is pro-Bush. But the media has cultivated (along with his campaign) the image that he is a change agent.
If so, why does he receive 4 times the special interest money McCain does?
Obama is 100% establishment, and putting these heartstring pulling articles, that read like fan letters, aside, I'd like for you to explain, specifically what it is about Obama, that you Ruben, believe sets him apart. Politically.
liberty student:If so, why does he receive 4 times the special interest money McCain does?
He has the ability to get so much more done for the special interest groups than McCain does.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Oh, but I thought he was going to implement the will of the minority made majority. I thought he was going to work for the people, not special interests!
Ruben, please explain this too!
Internationally, Obama is as aggressive as McCain is (maybe even more as he doesn't want to be perceived weak).
Domestically, I think he has a potential to be much worse. Obama is pure socialist when it comes to economy. McCain is no Austrian, of course, but at least he's not calling to raise taxes to solve every issue. He wants to screw up the judicial system even more. He wants to socialize healthcare (not explicitly, but he wants to pave the way for complete government takeover). Oh, and there's also a small, insignificant issue of the amendment... the evil that Dems have been fighting against for many years...
I disagree, you just cannot say that McCain is not as bad as Obama. They are both horrible. I agree with everything you said about Obama, but let's not forget that McCain not only voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act, but voted to extend its wire tapping ability. McCain also believes in continuing the war on drugs. Just becuase he doesnt say he will raise taxes does not mean that he wont cut spending. He will just spend money that we dont have, driving the country further into debt and weakening the dollar even more. McCain is no better than Obama on domestic issues.
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
What makes you think that Obama is going to stop the war on drugs or cut spending? They're both bad, of course, and both parties are different only in talk, not their actual deeds. But I still think Dems in general are worse because of the gun control and a few other issues.
Nitroadict:This is a forum of individuals: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.” Michael S. seems unable to except that, but at least you are not forcing your views, however possibly controversial, onto others.
You sir..... should throw your anti-social judgmental mind set and thinking out the window! Judgments are false opinions and assumptions that are not true due to the lack of not understanding someone or something!
The old saying: use your best judgment means to do the best you can. You know what they say about opinions don't you? Opinions are like A-holes, everyones got one!
If someone does not understand me and thus judges me, I have the right to the argument and to set them straight!
Not to Judge should be added to th 10 commandments, Right there with lying, stealing, murder and etc, ect!
If anyone is judging it is you!
Thank you!
Michael S: Nitroadict:This is a forum of individuals: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.” Michael S. seems unable to except that, but at least you are not forcing your views, however possibly controversial, onto others. You sir..... should throw your anti-social judgmental mind set and thinking out the window! Judgments are false opinions and assumptions that are not true due to the lack of not understanding someone or something! The old saying: use your best judgment means to do the best you can. You know what they say about opinions don't you? Opinions are like A-holes, everyones got one! If someone does not understand me and thus judges me, I have the right to the argument and to set them straight! Not to Judge should be added to th 10 commandments, Right there with lying, stealing, murder and etc, ect! If anyone is judging it is you! Thank you!
You're just now responding? You're taking this way too personally.
Nitroadict: Michael S: Nitroadict:This is a forum of individuals: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.” Michael S. seems unable to except that, but at least you are not forcing your views, however possibly controversial, onto others. You sir..... should throw your anti-social judgmental mind set and thinking out the window! Judgments are false opinions and assumptions that are not true due to the lack of not understanding someone or something! The old saying: use your best judgment means to do the best you can. You know what they say about opinions don't you? Opinions are like A-holes, everyones got one! If someone does not understand me and thus judges me, I have the right to the argument and to set them straight! Not to Judge should be added to th 10 commandments, Right there with lying, stealing, murder and etc, ect! If anyone is judging it is you! Thank you! You're just now responding? You're taking this way too personally.
I responded a couple days ago! I'm not online 24/7. No i am not taking anything personally. You're not listening! Don't judge people. is that so hard to understand?
Michael S: Nitroadict: Michael S: Nitroadict:This is a forum of individuals: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.” Michael S. seems unable to except that, but at least you are not forcing your views, however possibly controversial, onto others. You sir..... should throw your anti-social judgmental mind set and thinking out the window! Judgments are false opinions and assumptions that are not true due to the lack of not understanding someone or something! The old saying: use your best judgment means to do the best you can. You know what they say about opinions don't you? Opinions are like A-holes, everyones got one! If someone does not understand me and thus judges me, I have the right to the argument and to set them straight! Not to Judge should be added to th 10 commandments, Right there with lying, stealing, murder and etc, ect! If anyone is judging it is you! Thank you! You're just now responding? You're taking this way too personally. I responded a couple days ago! I'm not online 24/7. No i am not taking anything personally. You're not listening! Don't judge people. is that so hard to understand?
Wow... totally irrelevant to the thread...^^ I dont understand why people argue about name-calling and "judging" on here.. seriously it is pretty annoying... everybody should just grow up....
mr_anonymous: Wow... totally irrelevant to the thread...^^ I dont understand why people argue about name-calling and "judging" on here.. seriously it is pretty annoying... everybody should just grow up....
Ditto, I hold no ill will against Michael S.
Agreed. Other people should stop using so many ellipses. :p
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Michael S:You sir..... should throw your anti-social judgmental mind set and thinking out the window! Judgments are false opinions and assumptions that are not true due to the lack of not understanding someone or something!
... he said in a judgemental way.
banned: Michael S:You sir..... should throw your anti-social judgmental mind set and thinking out the window! Judgments are false opinions and assumptions that are not true due to the lack of not understanding someone or something! ... he said in a judgemental way.
no I didn't, because I was right not wrong. Being judgmental is when you are wrong whereas if you are right you are just right!
Michael S:no I didn't, because I was right not wrong.
Yeah, 'cause race-baiting is totally non-judgemental and right.
banned: Michael S:no I didn't, because I was right not wrong. Yeah, 'cause race-baiting is totally non-judgemental and right.
your kidding right? what does that have to do with anything? The judgment comment that addict made to me was way before Liberty students and my conversation took place. my conversation with Nitro had nothing to do my conversation with Liberty student. Like I said before I wasn't race baiting.
liberty student: Obama is 100% establishment, and putting these heartstring pulling articles, that read like fan letters, aside, I'd like for you to explain, specifically what it is about Obama, that you Ruben, believe sets him apart. Politically.
Because he represents hope
YES HE CAN
Not many people in thios troubled, divided world have the leadership to unite the voice of humanity. Obama can.
Give him a break. Give him a chance.
Be hopeful for a better future.
VICTORY!!!
God bless America.
liberty student: Oh, but I thought he was going to implement the will of the minority made majority. I thought he was going to work for the people, not special interests! Ruben, please explain this too!
IS THE WHOLE PLANET a special interest? This whole Planet Earth wants Obama in charge of the USA.
I wouldn't give him a second of my time, let alone a chance. I hope the US comes crashing down under him.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...