Political Theory

Re: Are you voting?

Niccolò — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:51:18 GMT

ryanpatgray:

The mind is part of the human body.

Re: Are you voting?

ama gi — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 06:08:10 GMT

MatthewWilliam:

I voted in the Australian Federal Election last year. I had just turned 18 and thought I would do it. Despite my efforts the party I voted for didn't win.

Voting is an irrational act. If you look at the voter turnouts of Western countries you'll see that 30-60% of people have correctly figured out that voting is a waste of time.

Here is a fancy formula for figuring out if you will vote: $P(V) .B + D > C$

Where P(V) is the probabilty of your vote swinging the election, B is the benefit you will gain if your party is elected, D is your percieved duty to vote, and C is the cost of voting (ie rolling out of bed on a Saturday). Since P(V)= 0, then it boils down to whether "Duty" exceeds Costs.

That's why there are loads of "Rock the Vote" and "Vote or Die" campaigns aimed at people trying to get people excited about voting. Countries like Australia even go so far as instituting compulsary voting.

That was a bit of a rant. So the lesson is: don't vote, play the lottery instead.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=970033077325994183&vt=lf&hl=en

Re: Are you voting?

Wren — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 02:38:02 GMT

No, I think voting is a waste of time. For one, I don't believe in our type of government (mainly, I'm morally opposed to the notion that people can rule other people). For two, even if I did, I realize that my vote doesn't matter. I think the idea of voting out of self-defense is stupid too (I don't buy that it's actually self-defense).

Re: Are you voting?

liberty student — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:28:43 GMT

You can be sure that if a major party candidate plans to expose any part of the lobbyist game, then it means they have moved or changed the game, and will find a new way to operate under the radar.

Besides, as long as the media refuses to report anything meaningful, what difference does it make?

Re: Are you voting?

Parsidius — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:22:38 GMT

Speckles:

If I were voting in the states, and primarily concerned with Libertarian issues, and felt that both candidates were approximately equally evil, I'd vote for Obama.

One, the fact that he is black would help overcome the long standing discrimination against black people in parts of the states. Reducing racism leads to greater freedom, one of the philsophical goals of Libertarianism as I understand it. It also might reduce some of the racist fears that lead people to believe that the government has to protect them from the black criminal boogie-man.

Though I find it personally distasteful, reducing racism does not mean more freedom. In a free society, people's opinions on race, religion, etc. will vary across a broad spectrum, and they will associate and exclude based upon these feelings as they feel makes themselves best off. It is a matter of personal taste, however bad it may be, and I do not think it would be wise to choose a master based upon whether or not he will make people like or dislike things as you do.

Two, the following campaign promises (link) :

--------

Centralize Ethics and Lobbying Information for Voters: Obama will create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format.

Create a Public “Contracts and Influence” Database: As president, Obama will create a "contracts and influence" database that will disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them.

Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny: Barack Obama will ensure that any tax breaks for corporate recipients — or tax earmarks — are also publicly available on the Internet in an easily searchable format.

Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama's Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.

--------

This could be powerful tools for advancing libertarianism, as it could be used to show people directly just how wasteful the government is. Even if it's routinely falsified, that just gives people motivated enough to find proof of the truth to show how often the government lies. Due to how specifically these promises are phrased, it will be harder for Obama to back out, and once the online databases are created it will be difficult for the government to justify taking them down. In contrast, the McCain Website is much more vague on its promises to expose corruption.

It does sound enticing, but if they can turn the supposed protections of the Constitution against us they can easily do the same with these promises. What this sounds like it will do is change the scheme of wealth-redistribution from the current system of lobbying to massive welfare programs, public works and regulation so as to create other groups of people who can attain large benefits at the expense of dispersed costs. Worse yet, this could have a greater facade of legitimacy that could result in an even more powerful state. Additionally, this could smother attempts by people who are engaging in politics for defense in order to, say, reduce their taxes or limit regulation. Blocking these efforts, Sisyphean though they may be, would most certainly be un-libertarian. As for the last item, it would do nothing. No constituency will really object to getting free goods and services, and no politician will really step in to block the passing of earmarks because he will want to get money for his own constituency as well. Such a restriction would be no more than a formality.

Three, even if you are not voting, I think most libertarians would be interested in the way Obama's been able to raise so much money while keeping his hands so clean link. If libertarians aren't quick to copy this strategy to help fund future campaigns, and not just presidential ones, they'll be missing out.

Obama's fund-raising cleanness is a facade. He still receives massive amounts of money from state lobbyists, corporations and lobbyist-supporting law firms, and in fact Jim Hodges, one of his national co-chairs, is a registered federal lobbyist. All he has done is redirect his cash flow. It is rather like if I were to launder the proceeds of selling crack instead of spending it directly, and then because I got the money in a different way I declared that I had no part in the narcotics trade.

Re: Are you voting?

Speckles — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 06:34:04 GMT

If I were voting in the states, and primarily concerned with Libertarian issues, and felt that both candidates were approximately equally evil, I'd vote for Obama.

One, the fact that he is black would help overcome the long standing discrimination against black people in parts of the states. Reducing racism leads to greater freedom, one of the philsophical goals of Libertarianism as I understand it. It also might reduce some of the racist fears that lead people to believe that the government has to protect them from the black criminal boogie-man.

Two, the following campaign promises (link) :

--------

Centralize Ethics and Lobbying Information for Voters: Obama will create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format.

Create a Public “Contracts and Influence” Database: As president, Obama will create a "contracts and influence" database that will disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them.

Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny: Barack Obama will ensure that any tax breaks for corporate recipients — or tax earmarks — are also publicly available on the Internet in an easily searchable format.

Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama's Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.

--------

This could be powerful tools for advancing libertarianism, as it could be used to show people directly just how wasteful the government is. Even if it's routinely falsified, that just gives people motivated enough to find proof of the truth to show how often the government lies. Due to how specifically these promises are phrased, it will be harder for Obama to back out, and once the online databases are created it will be difficult for the government to justify taking them down. In contrast, the McCain Website is much more vague on its promises to expose corruption.

Three, even if you are not voting, I think most libertarians would be interested in the way Obama's been able to raise so much money while keeping his hands so clean link. If libertarians aren't quick to copy this strategy to help fund future campaigns, and not just presidential ones, they'll be missing out.

Personally I'm Canadian, and I've already decided to vote for the Liberals next election (Canadian Centrists, so Americans would probably consider them leftist) because of their proposed carbon tax. This is not totally a tax grab, as they are promising to cut other taxes to offset the new source of income; apparently for most people it's actually going to end up being a bit more, but if you're green enough you actually end up paying less tax :). Also, in all honesty I'm tired of waiting for the market to fix the problem, the government supported oil lobby is just too entrenched. There are so many greener technologies that are just waiting for opening in the market, and if Canada beats the US to the punch we're going to get more the benefits of the growing renewable energy industry. Plus as people start to buy greener products, they'll use even less carbon, depriving the govenment of even more revenue. At which point it'll probably raise taxes again, but oh well that'll be a problem for another day.

Re: Are you voting?

Damian — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:56:45 GMT

After voting for a long time I have decided that it is useless. The issues and candidates I vote for never win and it all seems like a waste of time. I heard somewhere that a person has a better chance of dying on the way to the polling place then actually changing the outcome of an election.

Re: Are you voting?

Remnant — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:25:05 GMT

MatthewWilliam:
The lesser of two evils is still evil

Rothbard brought home the myth that we rule ourselves in a democracy when he said that as Hitler had been voted in democratically the Jews could be said to have agreed to their own mass murder.

I will not be voting.

Re: Are you voting?

krazy kaju — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:30:46 GMT

Vote third party so you can *** at others for voting for the next president for messing things up.

Re: Are you voting?

MatthewWilliam — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:00:19 GMT

I've never thought of the US political system as anything other than a duopoly with an extremely majoritarian system. Only 3 of those candidates were EVER in the running.

Re: Are you voting?

macsnafu — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:49:34 GMT

ryanpatgray:
Where do you live? In the United States we have more than two candidates

Not in Oklahoma! At this point it is all but impossible for a third party candidate to get on the ballot, short of a judicial miracle. And Oklahoma doesn't allow write-ins, either.

Re: Are you voting?

JackSkylark — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:27:50 GMT

MatthewWilliam:

As Rothbard put it, when you vote you're either being robbed or you are the robber.

I think we know which position most people prefer to be in.

Re: Are you voting?

Parsidius — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:00:18 GMT

ryanpatgray:

Where do you live? In the United States we have more than two candidates.

US, too, but you have to agree that de facto we really only have two candidates. Besides, I wouldn't bother with third party candidates even if they had a chance of winning; the state is inherently parasitic, and given the disutility of labor, effective common pool of property due to the monopoly on jurisdiction that hinders capital investment, rational ignorance, rent-seeking on the parts of politicians and their supporters, etc. the only way you can win in a democratic election would be to indulge people's parasitic tendencies. The only significant difference would be who gets to steal what.

Re: Are you voting?

ryanpatgray — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:51:22 GMT

Niccolò:

ryanpatgray:

I am literally a library libertarian - seriously I AM a libertarian librarian - I work in a library. I see nothing "vulgar" about the human body. A healthy human body is beautiful, not vulgar. Only violence, oppression and dishonesty are "vulgar" in my view.

Eh... Honestly, I think the human body is kind of disgusting no matter how well in-shape it is. Don't get me wrong, it's good to be healthy and I'm actually kind of a health nut/exercise nut myself, but no matter what, the human body is just kind of... ew.

It's not just for the male species either. Women are foul creatures as well. I just don't like the material body. I find much more satisfaction with exercising the mind.

The mind is part of the human body. But, each to his own. I am not one to argue over aesthetics. I find the healthy human body beautiful. If you do not we have no reason to argue over the matter.