Why did people vote for Obama the 2nd time?

[Selene]

I don't vote that often. Writing in John Galt on a ballot is not exactly voting either, at least not in any meaningful sense.

I figure paying a 50+% tax on every dollar I make and an honorable discharge has earned me the right to not have to vote for the lesser of two shitheads.

Works for me. The difference between your satire and input here is that it is pleasant.

Kacy does not come across that way.

A...

[Guyau]

.

Jerry, this analysis takes a minute to download, but I think it answers your question to a significant degree.

[jts]

.

Jerry, this analysis takes a minute to download, but I think it answers your question to a significant degree.

I reject the premise that the analysis is based on, that it was a choice between Obama and Romney and nobody else. Given a choice between coke and pepsi, I drink distilled water. Given a choice between Windows and Mac, I run Xubuntu. Given a choice between a rock and a hard place, I reject both. I figure voting for either is a wasted vote or worse.

I am not a crowd follower.

Imagine these individuals are running for USA prez, polling like so.

Immanuel Kant -- 49%

Satan the Devil -- 49%

John Galt -- 2%

(John Galt instead of Ayn Rand because Ayn Rand was thumbs down on a woman prez.)

Who would you vote for?

If Kant gets elected, the USA, and probably the world with it, is plunged into the darkest black hole of contemporary philosophy. Which is: metaphysics -- no reality; epistemology -- no knowledge; ethics -- no values.

If Satan gets elected, the USA, and probably the world, goes to Hell.

If John Galt gets elected, the USA, and perhaps all humanity, is saved. The problem is John Galt has no chance of getting elected, But this is only because it is a self fulfilling prophecy.

Voting for good with little chance of winning is better strategy than voting for evil with no chance of winning (anything good). And is it little chance if people would vote for what they want instead of for what they don't want?

Imagine the ridiculous spectacle of a bunch of Objectivists being 50-50 between Kant and Satan. Then along comes someone like me, who asks: why did they vote for Satan? And the answer is Kant was worse.

[Selene]

jts:

That was a very interesting and cogent argument.

Good job.

A...

[Robert Baratheon]

I don't vote for one reason: voting is an implicit endorsement of the outcome of an election. Casting a vote for one candidate means you are accepting the process that allows for a big-government candidate to win and take away your rights. Those are the "terms" of the election to which you agree by participating. By not voting, I am making it clear that I find even that possibility unacceptable. If the Constitution were actually being followed in this country, I might change my viewpoint and vote.

[caroljane]

So you refuse the sanction of the victim. A true Objectivist.

[moralist]

I am suspicious of a person who appears to be so "opinionated" about politics, supported particular causes and candidates and yet did not vote..

Especially when voting is the single public act that has the most effect on the government.

It's always good to keep in mind that it is impossible for the government to be any better than the moral values by which the majority of people are living their lives. For it is how people actually live that creates the government in their own image.

So if you don't like what the politicians in public office are doing, it's not their fault. They're exactly like the tens of millions of people who voted them into office, and are only doing what the electorate has demanded they do.

Greg

[Guyau]

Jerry, I don't understand your use of John Galt in thinking about an alternative to Romney or Obama in the 2012 election. John Galt did not exist, as you know; neither did Satan or Kant. Were you perhaps thinking, in terms of who did exist, of the Libertarian candidate for President? Do you vote Libertarian? Do you write in John Galt, as a sort of protest perhaps? I'm not arguing. I don't have a preference for who you vote for or whether you don't vote. In big elections, they are only symbolic acts, with rather wooshy symbolism at that, self-satisfying symbolic acts. I'm just trying to understand what you actually did, or anyway, what you now think you should have done.

I voted and campaigned Libertarian from 1972 to 1984, then voted for other parties, and sometimes did not vote. Not going to think you're haywire if you vote Libertarian, or Republican, or Democrat, or don't vote. Or if you write in John Galt.

Dreams of "What if nobody showed up for the war?" or "What if everyone refused to pay their taxes?" or "What if nobody voted or everyone always voted for None of the Above"? are social delusions. They are unrealistic about human nature, particularly about individual differences and collective coordination. They will not happen, not in our lives nor three generations beyond us, and it is nothing odd that most people do not agree with all one's political views and with all one's views of what is right or wrong.

Good information there, incomplete as it is, on why voters voted the way they did, which was your question. Perhaps you have lost interest in that and were fast ready to get on to what you would prefer people do at the poll. But what it is you would prefer of them is unclear by gestures about Galt, Satan, and Kant. Libertarian or no? Easy to just come out and say.

[Selene]

I am suspicious of a person who appears to be so "opinionated" about politics, supported particular causes and candidates and yet did not vote..

Especially when voting is the single public act that has the most effect on the government.

It's always good to keep in mind that it is impossible for the government to be any better than the moral values by which the majority of people are living their lives. For it is how people actually live that creates the government in their own image.

So if you don't like what the politicians in public office are doing, it's not their fault. They're exactly like the tens of millions of people who voted them into office, and are only doing what the electorate has demanded they do.

Greg

A tad overstated Greg.

You could have a person attain office based of specific promises, and then, once in power, steal the taxpayer blind using fraud and corruption until caught, tried and convicted of what they did.

Therefore, in this specific scenario, it is their fault.

[caroljane]

I agree with the overstatement statement. It is a bit much to expect every voter to read the mind of every political candidate and predict all his moves accurately.

[moralist]

I am suspicious of a person who appears to be so "opinionated" about politics, supported particular causes and candidates and yet did not vote..

Especially when voting is the single public act that has the most effect on the government.

It's always good to keep in mind that it is impossible for the government to be any better than the moral values by which the majority of people are living their lives. For it is how people actually live that creates the government in their own image.

So if you don't like what the politicians in public office are doing, it's not their fault. They're exactly like the tens of millions of people who voted them into office, and are only doing what the electorate has demanded they do.

Greg

A tad overstated Greg.

That's my forte.

You could have a person attain office based of specific promises, and then, once in power, steal the taxpayer blind using fraud and corruption until caught, tried and convicted of what they did.

Therefore, in this specific scenario, it is their fault.

If an elected politician lies... then only lie lovers could have elected him for a perfect match of moral values. Honest people can smell the stench of a liar from miles away.

If an elected politician can steal taxpayers blind... that can only mean that the taxpayers who voted for him are blind.

Greg

[caroljane]

Sanctimony also has a distinct aroma.

[Selene]

If an elected politician lies... then only lie lovers could have elected him for a perfect match of moral values. Honest people can smell the stench of a liar from miles away.

If an elected politician can steal taxpayers blind... that can only mean that the taxpayers who voted for him are blind.

Greg

Greg:

That is frankly disingenuous and ignorant.

A...

[Robert Baratheon]

So if you don't like what the politicians in public office are doing, it's not their fault. They're exactly like the tens of millions of people who voted them into office, and are only doing what the electorate has demanded they do.

As I have pointed out before, this painfully one-dimensional analysis ignores the widely recognized public-choice problem that voters often don't or can't know what they are truly getting. It assumes the fantasy of perfect information.

[PDS]

Sanctimony also has a distinct aroma.

Sanctimony also has a distinct aroma.

Amen on a Sunday morning.

[Backlighting]

PDS:

He apparently did not vote in either election for anyone, which I find extremely peculiar.

I am suspicious of a person who appears to be so "opinionated" about politics, supported particular causes and candidates and yet did not vote.

A...

So what? Seriously, what is there to be suspicious about?

Maybe this is a Semper Fi thing, but I really think there are more relevant and interesting things to be "suspicious" about than an active duty Marine officer's change of heart about politics, or whether he is drawing a pension some day. Why make it personal?

I probably agree with you more on the political side than I do Kacy, but I don't see how an adherence to the basics of Objectivist principles dictates that one be a liberal or a conservative, or anything in between, given the jacked up nature of today's political climate.

If I recally correctly, Pope Peikoff has been ridiculously wrong about poltics in the not so distant past. These things do happen.

I understand your point.

However, I do not get the impression that he is an "Objectivist." However, I will inquire.

Since I have always been a political being, animal [leave that one open for your cutting wit] and citizen, the idea of not voting is dissonant to my mind.

I have written in Atlas characters, particularly in judicial races, where a slate of judicial candidates appears on all the ballot lines.

A...

I don't vote that often. Writing in John Galt on a ballot is not exactly voting either, at least not in any meaningful sense.

I figure paying a 50+% tax on every dollar I make and an honorable discharge has earned me the right to not have to vote for the lesser of two shitheads.

Hello PDS.

You had the right to vote for the lesser of the two shitheads without the honorable discharge. The discharge is not the cover charge to vote. Just sayin.

Why pay 50+% on your earnings? There are plenty of ways to earn $ and pay little or no taxes.

-Joe

[PDS]

PDS:

He apparently did not vote in either election for anyone, which I find extremely peculiar.

I am suspicious of a person who appears to be so "opinionated" about politics, supported particular causes and candidates and yet did not vote.

A...

So what? Seriously, what is there to be suspicious about?

Maybe this is a Semper Fi thing, but I really think there are more relevant and interesting things to be "suspicious" about than an active duty Marine officer's change of heart about politics, or whether he is drawing a pension some day. Why make it personal?

I probably agree with you more on the political side than I do Kacy, but I don't see how an adherence to the basics of Objectivist principles dictates that one be a liberal or a conservative, or anything in between, given the jacked up nature of today's political climate.

If I recally correctly, Pope Peikoff has been ridiculously wrong about poltics in the not so distant past. These things do happen.

I understand your point.

However, I do not get the impression that he is an "Objectivist." However, I will inquire.

Since I have always been a political being, animal [leave that one open for your cutting wit] and citizen, the idea of not voting is dissonant to my mind.

I have written in Atlas characters, particularly in judicial races, where a slate of judicial candidates appears on all the ballot lines.

A...

I don't vote that often. Writing in John Galt on a ballot is not exactly voting either, at least not in any meaningful sense.

I figure paying a 50+% tax on every dollar I make and an honorable discharge has earned me the right to not have to vote for the lesser of two shitheads.

Hello PDS.

You had the right to vote for the lesser of the two shitheads without the honorable discharge. The discharge is not the cover charge to vote. Just sayin.

Why pay 50+% on your earnings? There are plenty of ways to earn $ and pay little or no taxes.

-Joe

I think you missed my point. The honorable discharge is my cover charge for not being accused of shirking my alleged duty to vote.

On your second point, my accountant would politely disagree. But I would be happy to be wrong on this.

[Backlighting]

PDS:

He apparently did not vote in either election for anyone, which I find extremely peculiar.

I am suspicious of a person who appears to be so "opinionated" about politics, supported particular causes and candidates and yet did not vote.

A...

So what? Seriously, what is there to be suspicious about?

Maybe this is a Semper Fi thing, but I really think there are more relevant and interesting things to be "suspicious" about than an active duty Marine officer's change of heart about politics, or whether he is drawing a pension some day. Why make it personal?

I probably agree with you more on the political side than I do Kacy, but I don't see how an adherence to the basics of Objectivist principles dictates that one be a liberal or a conservative, or anything in between, given the jacked up nature of today's political climate.

If I recally correctly, Pope Peikoff has been ridiculously wrong about poltics in the not so distant past. These things do happen.

I understand your point.

However, I do not get the impression that he is an "Objectivist." However, I will inquire.

Since I have always been a political being, animal [leave that one open for your cutting wit] and citizen, the idea of not voting is dissonant to my mind.

I have written in Atlas characters, particularly in judicial races, where a slate of judicial candidates appears on all the ballot lines.

A...

I don't vote that often. Writing in John Galt on a ballot is not exactly voting either, at least not in any meaningful sense.

I figure paying a 50+% tax on every dollar I make and an honorable discharge has earned me the right to not have to vote for the lesser of two shitheads.

Hello PDS.

You had the right to vote for the lesser of the two shitheads without the honorable discharge. The discharge is not the cover charge to vote. Just sayin.

Why pay 50+% on your earnings? There are plenty of ways to earn $ and pay little or no taxes.

-Joe

I think you missed my point. The honorable discharge is my cover charge for not being accused of shirking my alleged duty to vote.

On your second point, my accountant would politely disagree. But I would be happy to be wrong on this.

Understood.

Just sayin you never needed the cover charge.

On the second point your accountant is wrong. There are plenty of ways to do it. My experience is a testament to that.

[Ellen Stuttle]

If Kant gets elected, the USA, and probably the world with it, is plunged into the darkest black hole of contemporary philosophy. Which is: metaphysics -- no reality; epistemology -- no knowledge; ethics -- no values.

Not relevant to your analogy, but just pointing out: none of that is Kant.

Ellen

[jts]

If Kant gets elected, the USA, and probably the world with it, is plunged into the darkest black hole of contemporary philosophy. Which is: metaphysics -- no reality; epistemology -- no knowledge; ethics -- no values.

Not relevant to your analogy, but just pointing out: none of that is Kant.

Ellen

Some years ago I listened to a lecture by Objectivist Gary Hull about "The Black Hole of Contemporary Philosophy". He says Kant's philosophy evolved to the black hole. He says given Kant's premises, the black hole follows.

[moralist]

If an elected politician lies... then only lie lovers could have elected him for a perfect match of moral values. Honest people can smell the stench of a liar from miles away.

If an elected politician can steal taxpayers blind... that can only mean that the taxpayers who voted for him are blind.

Greg

Greg:

That is frankly disingenuous and ignorant.

A...

That would be the case only if it did not know that statement to be true... but I do.

No matter who you vote for... whoever gets elected will never be any better than the moral values of the political majority who voted to elect him or her. Government just doesn't automatically get rotten spontaneously all by itself. It takes tens of millions of rotten people all voting together to create it in their own rotten image.

Your reaction is born of the assumption that everyone's personal experience of government is uniformly equal. When the truth is that (just like natural disasters) the government's effect on each individual's life is totally determined by how they are living their life. So if you feel that you are not getting the government you deserve, that feeling cannot be trusted, for in truth you actually are. This is because the government is accountable to no different higher moral standard than you are. So if anyone wants to change their personal experience of government, the only way to do that is to first change how they are living.

So this is what I have learned from my own personal life experience:

To the extent that I give up my need for false feelings of comfort and security in the expectation that someone else will pay my bills, by accepting personal responsibility for the inherent risks of life... to that exact same extent the government leaves me free to enjoy my life.

Greg

[Selene]

If an elected politician lies... then only lie lovers could have elected him for a perfect match of moral values. Honest people can smell the stench of a liar from miles away.

If an elected politician can steal taxpayers blind... that can only mean that the taxpayers who voted for him are blind.

Greg

Greg:

That is frankly disingenuous and ignorant.

A...

That would be the case only if it did not know that statement to be true... but I do.

No matter who you vote for... whoever gets elected will never be any better than the moral values of the political majority who voted to elect him or her. Government just doesn't automatically get rotten spontaneously all by itself. It takes tens of millions of rotten people all voting together to create it in their own rotten image.

Your reaction is born of the assumption that everyone's personal experience of government is uniformly equal. When the truth is that (just like natural disasters) the government's effect on each individual's life is totally determined by how they are living their life. So if you feel that you are not getting the government you deserve, that feeling cannot be trusted, for in truth you actually are. This is because the government is accountable to no different higher moral standard than you are. So if anyone wants to change their personal experience of government, the only way to do that is to first change how they are living.

So this is what I have learned from my own personal life experience:

To the extent that I give up my need for false feelings of comfort and security in the expectation that someone else will pay my bills, by accepting personal responsibility for the inherent risks of life... to that exact same extent the government leaves me free to enjoy my life.

Greg

Greg:

Let me be clear, my reaction is that the post highlighted in red is disingenuous and ignorant.

Now that I have restated my position, allow me to ask you two (2) questions:

1) do you consider yourself to be ___% big "O" objectivist?

2) are you familiar with the term "psychologizing?"

Thanks

A...

[moralist]

If an elected politician lies... then only lie lovers could have elected him for a perfect match of moral values. Honest people can smell the stench of a liar from miles away.

If an elected politician can steal taxpayers blind... that can only mean that the taxpayers who voted for him are blind.

Greg

Greg:

That is frankly disingenuous and ignorant.

A...

That would be the case only if it did not know that statement to be true... but I do.

No matter who you vote for... whoever gets elected will never be any better than the moral values of the political majority who voted to elect him or her. Government just doesn't automatically get rotten spontaneously all by itself. It takes tens of millions of rotten people all voting together to create it in their own rotten image.

Your reaction is born of the assumption that everyone's personal experience of government is uniformly equal. When the truth is that (just like natural disasters) the government's effect on each individual's life is totally determined by how they are living their life. So if you feel that you are not getting the government you deserve, that feeling cannot be trusted, for in truth you actually are. This is because the government is accountable to no different higher moral standard than you are. So if anyone wants to change their personal experience of government, the only way to do that is to first change how they are living.

So this is what I have learned from my own personal life experience:

To the extent that I give up my need for false feelings of comfort and security in the expectation that someone else will pay my bills, by accepting personal responsibility for the inherent risks of life... to that exact same extent the government leaves me free to enjoy my life.

Greg

Greg:

Let me be clear, my reaction is that the post highlighted in red is disingenuous and ignorant.

Yes, I understand that is your subjective view.

And just to clarify my subjective view:

It is the moral values by which the majority live that determine the nature of government, and the electorate are completely responsible for their own creation of the government they deserve. In my view, lie lovers elect liars to tell them the lies they love to hear. In my view, the government does not represent honest American Capitalists because they are a rapidly dwindling minority.

In your view, you obviously disagree with everything I have just restated, and that you regard me as both (edit) deceptive and ignorant. Just to be clear, I'm never personally offended by negative reactions to what I say because the point is never agreement, but that each of us freely and completely describes their chosen view and relates exactly how it differs from the view not chosen.

If our differences could be boiled down to a point, it would be:

In my view, I regard voters as being responsible for creating the government they deserve in their own image.

In your view, you regard the government as being responsible for what it is.

If I've misstated your view, please feel free to describe it more fully.

Now that I have restated my position, allow me to ask you two (2) questions:

1) do you consider yourself to be ___% big "O" objectivist?

No.

However, I do live by the moral and economic principles Ayn Rand described in Atlas Shrugged because they actually work in the real world..

2) are you familiar with the term "psychologizing?"

Thanks

A...

Yes. To describe how and why people do what they do as it relates to psychology.

Greg

[Selene]

Quote

Now that I have restated my position, allow me to ask you two (2) questions:

1) do you consider yourself to be ___% big "O" objectivist?

No.

However, I do live by the moral and economic principles Ayn Rand described in Atlas Shrugged because they actually work in the real world..

Quote

2) are you familiar with the term "psychologizing?"

Thanks

A...

Yes. To describe how and why people do what they do as it relates to psychology.

Greg

I split off the last questions until I have some time to be 100% clear. The word disengenuously meant deceptive, certainly not dishonest. I have no knowledge and I would frankly be completely surprised if you were.

As to your first answer:

1) do you consider yourself to be ___% big "O" objectivist?

No.

However, I do live by the moral and economic principles Ayn Rand described in Atlas Shrugged because they actually work in the real world..

Ah the Good Book. Do you inerpret Ayn's commandments as rendered in Atlas Shrugged? Or, do you hold to a literal reading of the New Good Book?

As to the second question, I refer you to a souce that we at least trust, Ayn's own words:

“Psychologizing”

¶

Just as reasoning, to an irrational person, becomes rationalizing, and moral judgment becomes moralizing, so psychological theories become psychologizing. The common denominator is the corruption of a cognitive process to serve an ulterior motive.

Psychologizing consists in condemning or excusing specific individuals on the grounds of their psychological problems, real or invented, in the absence of or contrary to factual evidence.

Do you perceive, or, believe that you employ this in argument?

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Yes, I understand that is your subjective view.

And just to clarify my subjective view:

It is the moral values by which the majority live that determine the nature of government, and the electorate are completely responsible for their own creation of the government they deserve. In my view, lie lovers elect liars to tell them the lies they love to hear. In my view, the government does not represent honest American Capitalists because they are a rapidly dwindling minority.

In your view, you obviously disagree with everything I have just restated, and that you regard me as both dishonest and ignorant. Just to be clear, I'm never personally offended by negative reactions to what I say because the point is never agreement, but that each of us freely and completely describes their chosen view and relates exactly how it differs from the view not chosen.

But why state your view? Any View? They cannot be accepted or rejected sans valid argumentation, only compared, even though even that requires some thinking. And how did you get your views? I assume you thought about them. It wasn't completely bump and groan and don't bump again--no? In respect to yourself you are an Earthling. In respect to the rest of us you might as well be a Martian anthropologist collecting and comparing our "views."

--Brant