[extropy-chat] electing ideas [was Re:Fahrenheit 911 - objectivereview?]

Brett Paatsch bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au
Sat Aug 14 16:42:28 UTC 2004

Pat Fallon wrote:

> > > I plan to vote for the Libertarian candidate, Badnarik. Not
> > > because of any overly complicated political calculation
> > > though.  Badnarik is simply the only one I have heard
> > > speak sensibly (and in large agreement with my own views).
> > > Of course I don't expect him to win.
> >
> > If you expect that either Kerry or Bush will win and consequently
> > hold the power of the office for four years why wouldn't you
> > vote for whichever of those you dislike the least?
> >
> Sometimes ideas can get elected even though the candidate
> expressing  them doesn't.

I don't agree Pat.  An idea won't be elected President. The presidency
is a role. It needs to be filled by a person and people come with warts
and all.

> If a libertarian candidate did well in an election, the major parties
> might consider that there is a politically significant minority with
> those views..

Lets say both the democrats and the republicans did consider that there
was a significant minority of voters who were libertarians. So what?

Libertarians (as I understand it - mostly want to be left alone - they
want as few as possible constrains on their freedom). So do I.
But in democracies majorities often LIKE to constrain the freedoms
of minorities.

On Friday, in the Australian parliament both the Liberal Party and the
Labor Party combined to pass a law against same sex marriages.  Both
the major parties have large numbers of religious constituents and those
constituents *wanted* to curtail the freedoms of  homosexuals to marry.

They religious constituents in both parties came out enmass to ensure the
legislation was actively anti-libertarian. I'm not gay, but some of the best
speaches I've heard were given by a handful of hopelessly outnumbered
minory party constituents.

> For example, if Republican candidates keep selling out on "gun rights",
> some voters might consider voting for a Libertarian candidate who is
> a strong advocate of the right to keep and bear arms.
> This might send a message to the Republicans that they shouldn't take
> those voters for granted based on the belief that they have no where
> to go.

Unless you've a plan not just to protest vote then the hard reality is that
there often is no where to go to get minority representation.

Just because it is not possible to elect a libertarian president on the
numbers doesn't mean that one can't still argue for libertarian causes

On the matter of the US Presidency if only Bush or Kerry can win
and libertarian issues are your driver then you could make a list of
pros and cons on libertarian issues for those candidates and vote so as
to achieve some damage control.  Then go back to supporting
libertarian issues in all available ways.  It doesn't make sense though
not to do the damage control as well.

Or does it?


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list