I am voting for myself for president out of self-interest
Inspired by the discussion linked above regarding reasons why an Objectivist should vote for Trump for president, I have decided to completely reject those premises.
I was told I wasted my vote when I voted libertarian for president in 2000 in the State of Florida where Bush beat Gore by 555 votes. Several friends said I should have voted for Tweedledee so that we wouldn't get Tweedledum for president. What we got was a month-long lawsuit brought by Tweedledum to try to "discern" my vote that cost the stock market 15%.
While I agree with Gary Johnson on the big picture, he has done just enough to make me not want to vote for him.
I have decided to write in myself in my vote for president. I am the only person who can govern me. As for the rest of you, given the opinions expressed in this forum, I should hope that each of you would vote for yourself, too. I have no interest in governing any of you either.
I was told I wasted my vote when I voted libertarian for president in 2000 in the State of Florida where Bush beat Gore by 555 votes. Several friends said I should have voted for Tweedledee so that we wouldn't get Tweedledum for president. What we got was a month-long lawsuit brought by Tweedledum to try to "discern" my vote that cost the stock market 15%.
While I agree with Gary Johnson on the big picture, he has done just enough to make me not want to vote for him.
I have decided to write in myself in my vote for president. I am the only person who can govern me. As for the rest of you, given the opinions expressed in this forum, I should hope that each of you would vote for yourself, too. I have no interest in governing any of you either.
I wonder if enough people write in their own names, we can create a movement? Or at least, perhaps, get a paragraph on page 10 of the New York Times?
To me this normal and expected. I wish there were some way to decrease what the gov't and the president could do. Now the kind-of-sort-of okay person has to promise to fund cancer research, help pay for decent nursing homes and medical care for the old, help pay for college, make arrangements for childcare, help people take time off when they have a baby, help people buy a house, fight a war on drugs, and do something about all the troubled regions of the world, negotiate complicated trade deals, and stand up for various minority groups. If the gov't weren't doing any of that, the presidency would be less important.
I don't know how to get there, so I have to vote and donate accepting the gov't and presidency as they exist today. Making the best out of an imperfect situation is shooting par in this world.
And I think most of Trump's hatred is derived from comments that, yes, he did say, but that the media has chosen to do their free advertising for Hillary and promote edited versions of his statements over and over.
Check out immigration or even visitation rules for Canada and Australia. They dont seem to have terrorism rampant up there, and for good reason. Its very hard to even come in as a visitor. A simple DUI or pretty much any other conviction will bar you from getting a visa. You cant come in without a return airline ticket, and if they do a background search when you arrive, you are instantly deported.
And Obama/Hillary wants to bring in thousands of Syrian refugees without even checking them out? I dont want one living next to me. If Hillary wants one, let her give a spare bedroom in HER house to one or more.
Quite frankly, my speech was not meant to influence you into taking the course of action jbrenner suggested. It was humor mixed into lamentation about the sorry state of affairs. I'm going to contact Bill Gates about making a sarcasm button for my use.
Sorry, in case you didn't catch it, that was sarcasm too.
Edit: Corrected "Gated" to "Gates." Dumb phone.
Changing the kind of candidates over time requires changing the dominant philosophy, and that cannot be done on the ballot or in the time-frame of the ballot or of an election cycle. The place to advocate for better philosophy, other than what is available either in the Pragmatist deal-maker who is half open to listening when he's not tweeting or in the dedicated nihilistic socialist power seeker is not available on the ballot. But the choice between the results of their difference to our lives now and for the next 40 years is.
Making a choice from what is available is not a sanction of either. Moral choices can only be made within alternatives available in reality, and must be made there, not in imagination of what should have been. The necessity to make choices in reality that make a difference to your life is what gives rise to the need for morality at its foundations. If there were no choices that made a difference there could be no morality, and practicing morality does not consist in ignoring the reality of limits on choices available in favor of fantasizing.
Choosing between two candidates, one of whom will be in power no matter what you do, is not condoning or sanctioning anything either of them does. It is a recognition that in the context of the election it is the only choice you have and that what they do affects your life and makes a difference to it. Recognizing those facts is not Pragmatism. Ignoring the need to defend yourself as best you can and to advocate for a better philosophy and to fight for better policies between elections, and then pretending at the last minute that the election is the place to 'make a statement', is fantasy in the name of morality worse than Pragmatism.
I know that the only person you would be satisfied with governing you is you, and that was my point.
The election is about choosing between two given candidates, one of whom will be in power, and that is all. In particular it isn't about who will "govern" you personally, or to what extent, or if that is a proper function of government at all. The only choice available in the election, the one between the two candidates that the election will decide, is limited to what the political system is imposing.
I don't find anything humorous about it at all, gallows humor or otherwise, but disliking it doesn't imply any fantasies about what the election is not about or that there is no difference in outcomes of what happens to the country between the two candidates. This is serious.
In addition to your own vote you can advocate for others to make the best choice available (including in primaries, but we are past that now). Better election choices over time come from better understanding from the spread of better ideas, not fantasizing at the last minute on election day. Meanwhile we are faced with a very specific limited choice between two candidates, one of which will definitely take power no matter what you do. Which one is the subject of the election.
It does influence the recorded demographics that may aid future candidates of better morals/skills to get on the ballot. With an otherwise worthless vote, if it’s infinitesimally better for future candidacies, I’ll vote for the somewhat flawed Gary (having an Aleppo moment) Johnson rather than the orange buffoon, Donald (the psycho) Trump or the first woman antichrist, Hillary (the gangster) Clinton [or the ludicrous vegetable Jill (the potted palm) Stein].
Still, I might consider writing myself in for the President slot for the fun of actually voting for a moral, rational, freedom-loving candidate. In a variation of such a gesture, in 2008 I voted for myself for the US House of Representatives. However, that was not a write-in vote—I was on the official ballot. To the nearest integer percentage, I pulled 5% of the vote away from the unbeatable Demoncratic candidate. I later received an encouraging email from a fellow who said he always voted Democratic, but I was his first Libertarian vote.
Voting for a candidate based on the difference between the two of them is not support for what he does and is not a sanction as "most closely aligning" with one's own views. It is simple recognition of the facts that the difference makes and one of them will be in power.
If someone lives in a state that is so far gone that it is known in advance to vote for Clinton, then he knows in advance that his vote won't make any difference, just as surely as he knows that one of the two candidates will win. But he cans till try to persuade others.
The candidates and their parties are entrenched because of the dominant philosophy that has spread for over a century. Throwing away votes on fringe candidates who won't win regardless of the difference between the two, one of which who will win, does not change that and will not provide better candidates in the future. The goofy "libertarians", this time two 'liberal' Republicans, are an embarrassment, not something to publicly endorse.
Please read Ayn Rand and why she advocated spreading the right philosophical ideas to effect cultural and therefore political reform. A-philosophical libertarianism and conservativism are hopeless, as illustrated by the anti-conceptual here-now-election nonsense spouted every four years with their anti-intellectual cries to avoid meaningful votes without regard for what an election is and why the candidates are what they are.
Voting one's conscience does not mean fantasizing and ignoring what an election means and what it's impact on life is here in reality. Don't separate philosophy from dealing with reality. Applying philosophical principles of rationality and self-interest does not mean fantasizing during an election.
Fantasy is supporting and voting for Trump or Hillary and thinking that doing so will advance the cause of liberty in any way.
A third or fourth party that might eventually win in the future is likely to be as bad or worse than the current ones because they are all based on variations of the same false premises. This is a matter of the proper philosophy dominating a culture, not counting parties.
Everyone knows that neither candidate is popular beyond his own minority of devoted followers. Neither that nor fringe candidates will change the fact that one of them will win and that they will have different impacts on us in how they use government.
No one has said that either Trump or Clinton would "advance the cause of liberty". Stop equating voting with endorsing policies. Voting for one of two candidates because they make a difference to your life in how they exploit government power is not endorsing any of it
Thinking that voting doesn't matter in the election because your sole vote doesn't by itself determine the election and that voting for a fringe loser does matter are both fantasy, not "cold hard realism".
“Americans are unhappy with both parties, exit polls show”
http://www.pressherald.com/2014/11/05...
“Neither Major Party Cracks 40% Favorability in Latest Poll”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/181985/nei...
“Poll: Most young Americans dissatisfied with political parties”
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/06/...
Gary Johnson received 1% of the vote in 2012 and will be receiving multiples of that percentage in 2016. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of the two-party system. I think its days are numbered, and good riddance..
You left out addressing "nor does it matter because most people are 'dissatisfied' with politics without knowing what is right and what is required ... This is a matter of the proper philosophy dominating a culture, not counting parties." A-philosophical libertarians and conservatives making a publicity stunt out of a fringe candidate is not an answer. Meanwhile we have a real election in which one of two candidates will win and it makes a difference to us here in our real lives.
There are many philosophical libertarian activists within the LP, and achieving “the proper philosophy dominating a culture” depends in part on the difficult task of political education and outreach.
Were I convinced that the actual election would come down to me based on a pragmatic choice, I'd vote for the awful Trump, who would not have the personal motivation to do the damage that the despicable Clinton would certainly cause.
Vote your conscience and devil take the hindmost.
I believe that inspite of its gradual erosion our
Constitutuion is still robust enough to carry us through four years of whoever becomes president .
If she loses, we're going to have to suffer another 4 years worth of her campaigning.
Ding dong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5ayK...
I agree on Johnson.
For entertainment purposes only..local Minuteman Group took me seriously and started circulating it. I never had any intention of running. Serious, I would probably be killed after being discredited.
lol, I'd be killed. I've been scouring my hard drives and the web but have yet to find that article.
If you haven't already, I urge you one and all to read Robert Bidinotto's April 28 blog post "A Vote for # Neither," here:
http://bidinotto.blogspot.com/2016/04...
I'd thought of quoting its closing paragraphs here, but the whole post is quotable.
In a Hobson's Choice situation, any protest vote is going to be a protest vote only, not a viable stab at picking a winner - so it's a grasp at the best possible value to be had in such a situation: retaining a clear conscience. I can't speak for anyone else, but a vote for either of the two Democrats or for the Libertarian would not allow that. So I will be bringing a pen.
.
Do you mind if I write in your name too? :)
Always good to hear from you.
O.A.
“It’s not just my name on the ballot. Every issue you care about – think about it, because in effect it’s on the ballot, too. The next 40 days will determine the next 40 years.”
We all know that she refers to the Supreme Court.
If a vote for Trump does nothing but prevent Hillary from determining "the next 40 years," that's good enough for me, for now.
I would have gleefully impoverished myself to attend had I been asked. It is better to correct the problems than to place yourself in harms way.
I have been warned (see the works of William L. Livingston) that should an engineer or hard scientist be elected to any office, that person would be stoned by the political animals (Do you hear me Allosaur?).
Chad should have been aborted in the first trimester.
If you do not pay attention to it - it will destroy you. Voting for yourself is cute. It's clever. But so long as you live in the USA, it is also self destructive.
I do not believe for a minute that if Hillary gets to be president, it won't affect you. The taxation proposals alone are enough to keep her out, not to mention the assaults on freedom with the full force of the state behind her.
JB, I have admired your posts fr years. But -- I guess I've already said it.
I resent paying any taxes at all at this point. I buy as much as possible online from out of state retailers to avoid the sales taxes. I have old cars so I dont have to pay sales tax on new cars. I do have to register the damn things and pay registration fees though.
Even internet service is taxed locally here in Las Vegas, as are utilities, phone service, and nearly everything except perhaps food that you cook yourself.
Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet
Taxman!
Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
Don't ask me what I want it for (Aahh Mr. Wilson)
If you don't want to pay some more (Aahh Mr. Heath)
Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me
Taxman!
I realize they have ultimate power over us, just as the nazis had power over the jews, and we cant do much more than passively resist and shrug to a degree at least.
I really get a kick out of the government wanting to 'broaden the tax base". There isnt much they dont tax one way or another these days.
When you have a party at your house, they want to tax the food that you serve, because its not just for your consumption. Amazing.
Load more comments...