Current Events

Re: Obama v Romney

Wheylous — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 00:17:15 GMT

Assume, for the sake of argument, that Obama wants to end the drug war, end all foreign wars, end all regulation, end the income tax, and finally, disband the state. who would I vote for?

I would vote for Obama.

This is a completely meaningless hypothetical.

I agree that it's not how things are. I just wanted to say "if you have the choose between ending war and ending abuse at home, which would you choose?"

Through this mental exercise I myself came to the conclusion that while I say "those Harvard economists can't tell us what is best for us" I share the same fatal flaw and find it much easier to find within myself.

Re: Obama v Romney

Aristippus — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 23:50:56 GMT

Eugene - firstly, that's all talk. How many failed promises did Bush and Obama make? If you look at Romney's record, it's doubtful he really is pro-market anyway.

The plans are meagre in themselves, and might not actually make that much of a difference - with the result that any continuing economic troubles would be blamed on capitalism once again. They also reveal that Romney has a faulty understanding of the market and wealth creation, with the continuing references to 'stimulating the economy' through increased spending.

Re: Obama v Romney

No2statism — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 23:33:16 GMT

Re: Obama v Romney

Autolykos — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:07:55 GMT

Hey, I just wanted to make sure. I wasn't quite sure what you were getting at.

Re: Obama v Romney

mikachusetts — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:04:51 GMT

Yes. In every instance I think you ought to follow the crowd. Come on. Saying that something is anti-social is not the same thing as saying that its wrong.

Re: Obama v Romney

Autolykos — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 21:47:39 GMT

What I meant was, do you consider that behavior to be wrong in every single instance?

Re: Obama v Romney

mikachusetts — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 21:45:15 GMT

All the time? Maybe.

Re: Obama v Romney

Autolykos — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 21:36:31 GMT

mikachusetts:
Threatening to stay home when your friends want to eat at Friendly's instead of Applebee's is the definition of anti-social.

Really? And why's that? Is it really so wrong to be "anti-social" like that ~~all the time~~ each and every time?

Re: Obama v Romney

Eugene — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 21:23:38 GMT

This article sums it up: http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/Mitt_Romney.htm

Re: Obama v Romney

mikachusetts — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 21:04:09 GMT

You can see this even when people discuss where to go for dinner. No one's obligated to go along with what "the majority" says. But withdraw from the group, or even threaten to, and you're suddenly seen as "anti-social".

Threatening to stay home when your friends want to eat at Friendly's instead of Applebee's is the definition of anti-social.

Re: Obama v Romney

Autolykos — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:58:53 GMT

How about you go ahead and give us those 10 things, instead of simply saying you can do so.

Re: Obama v Romney

Eugene — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:56:50 GMT

I am pretty sure Romney is much more pro-market. I can give you 10 things in which he is more pro-market. Give me one in which Obama is more pro-market.

Re: Obama v Romney

J.R.M. — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:52:08 GMT

Wheylous:

For the sake of argument, assume Obama actually wants to pull the troops and end interventionism (we know this is wrong, but assume he wants to do this and has the capacity to do it).

Whom would you choose?

Assume, for the sake of argument, that Obama wants to end the drug war, end all foreign wars, end all regulation, end the income tax, and finally, disband the state. who would I vote for?

I would vote for Obama.

This is a completely meaningless hypothetical. Obama will never do those things, and he won't do the things in your first hypothetical. I just don't see what the point of this exercise is...

Re: Obama v Romney

Autolykos — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:28:37 GMT

Wheylous:
Gun pointed at your head.

Heh. Even then, I still don't have to choose.

Wheylous:
But I mean in general academic terms, which candidate one is closer to what you'd like.

Let me tell you a story. When I was in kindergarten, my teacher held a mock-election. The candidates were Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street. If Bert was elected, we'd get chocolate ice cream, but we'd also have to eat brussels sprouts. If Ernie was elected, we'd get vanilla ice cream, but we'd also have to eat lima beans.

To this day, I remember that I preferred vanilla ice cream and brussels sprouts. But that combination of "policies" wasn't on the ballot. I couldn't understand why not. It was incredibly hard for me to decide which candidate was closer to what I'd like, so I didn't want to vote for either of them.

What I didn't realize at the time was that, in voting at all, I was also saying to my classmates "I want to force you to take this combination over the/any other". I think this is an even stronger argument against voting in general. Why must there be a single policy that everyone must follow?

People act like there's no way to back out of group efforts. You can see this even when people discuss where to go for dinner. No one's obligated to go along with what "the majority" says. But withdraw from the group, or even threaten to, and you're suddenly seen as "anti-social".

Re: Obama v Romney

Wheylous — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:12:46 GMT

Why should I go along with this crazy hypothetical?

Gun pointed at your head.

But I mean in general academic terms, which candidate one is closer to what you'd like.