Why did people vote for Obama the 2nd time?

[dldelancey]

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.

I'm confused how you reconcile this with the fact that you are a federal employee. Isn't earning your living for big-government an implicit endorsement of the outcome of every election that led to it?

Edited to add: This is not a condemnation of your employment status. My impression from comments you've made in the past is that you have some mixed feelings about it. Also, I do not begrudge anyone their need to earn a living. My question is more in support of you having a change of heart regarding voting. If you can rationalize your working for the government that you don't like, then surely you can rationalize your voting for the people who make up that government? Both have tremendous impact on your life, after all. Perhaps you feel that your one vote will not make a difference. Yet, I'm recalling a post in which you described how your exemplary work ethic gives you a feeling of satisfaction that you are contributing to an improved goverment, at least within your agency. Surely you are one of many within your agency? If one person can't make a difference by voting, then how can one person possibly make a difference in their workplace?

[Robert Baratheon]

I'm confused how you reconcile this with the fact that you are a federal employee. Isn't earning your living for big-government an implicit endorsement of the outcome of every election that led to it?

Edited to add: This is not a condemnation of your employment status. My impression from comments you've made in the past is that you have some mixed feelings about it. Also, I do not begrudge anyone their need to earn a living. My question is more in support of you having a change of heart regarding voting. If you can rationalize your working for the government that you don't like, then surely you can rationalize your voting for the people who make up that government? Both have tremendous impact on your life, after all. Perhaps you feel that your one vote will not make a difference. Yet, I'm recalling a post in which you described how your exemplary work ethic gives you a feeling of satisfaction that you are contributing to an improved goverment, at least within your agency. Surely you are one of many within your agency? If one person can't make a difference by voting, then how can one person possibly make a difference in their workplace?

Mixed feelings is a good description. There is much I despise about the nature of the animal, but being part of it gives me the unique opportunity to make it less of a beast. If I honestly answer the question of whether the taxpayers are getting a good return on investment by retaining me, then the answer is no. But I also recognize that if I quit tomorrow, the position would not be eliminated - it would be filled, and most likely with a progressive ideologue who views American business as a scourge to be whipped and shamed into compliance. A generous take is that I'm making government more libertarian by occupying a fixed regulator position and serving as a voice of reason. But it's equally likely that I'm fooling myself. I've stated here many times that working in DC has brought me squarely to the conclusion that limited government is a lost cause. The game isn't only over, it's been over for years, and it wasn't even a close contest.

I think this is all a bit different from voting. If a group of three friends is deciding on what type of pizza to get, and everyone agrees to put it to a vote, then it would be improper for one friend to cast a vote and then later object in the event of an unfavorable outcome. They agreed to the terms of the decision-making process and therefore agreed to any outcome which could naturally arise from it, so they forfeit their moral standing to dispute the outcome later. By not voting, I'm making it clear that there are certain types of pizza I would not under any circumstances accept, and I don't want a vote held unless they are removed from the options list. That is what our Constitution is *supposed* to accomplish, but it hasn't functioned that way for quite some time.

[PDS]

I'm confused how you reconcile this with the fact that you are a federal employee. Isn't earning your living for big-government an implicit endorsement of the outcome of every election that led to it?

Edited to add: This is not a condemnation of your employment status. My impression from comments you've made in the past is that you have some mixed feelings about it. Also, I do not begrudge anyone their need to earn a living. My question is more in support of you having a change of heart regarding voting. If you can rationalize your working for the government that you don't like, then surely you can rationalize your voting for the people who make up that government? Both have tremendous impact on your life, after all. Perhaps you feel that your one vote will not make a difference. Yet, I'm recalling a post in which you described how your exemplary work ethic gives you a feeling of satisfaction that you are contributing to an improved goverment, at least within your agency. Surely you are one of many within your agency? If one person can't make a difference by voting, then how can one person possibly make a difference in their workplace?

Mixed feelings is a good description. There is much I despise about the nature of the animal, but being part of it gives me the unique opportunity to make it less of a beast. If I honestly answer the question of whether the taxpayers are getting a good return on investment by retaining me, then the answer is no. But I also recognize that if I quit tomorrow, the position would not be eliminated - it would be filled, and most likely with a progressive ideologue who views American business as a scourge to be whipped and shamed into compliance. A generous take is that I'm making government more libertarian by occupying a fixed regulator position and serving as a voice of reason. But it's equally likely that I'm fooling myself. I've stated here many times that working in DC has brought me squarely to the conclusion that limited government is a lost cause. The game isn't only over, it's been over for years, and it wasn't even a close contest.

I think this is all a bit different from voting. If a group of three friends is deciding on what type of pizza to get, and everyone agrees to put it to a vote, then it would be improper for one friend to cast a vote and then later object in the event of an unfavorable outcome. They agreed to the terms of the decision-making process and therefore agreed to any outcome which could naturally arise from it, so they forfeit their moral standing to dispute the outcome later. By not voting, I'm making it clear that there are certain types of pizza I would not under any circumstances accept, and I don't want a vote held unless they are removed from the options list. That is what our Constitution is *supposed* to accomplish, but it hasn't functioned that way for quite some time.

But, given all of this, how can you stand to work in a Pizza parlor?*

*Just kidding. I think your description and analysis are both very sound.

[dldelancey]

Thanks, RB. You've given me some pizza, er... food for thought.

[jts]

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 am puzzled that you don't understand Kant, Satan, Galt. I thought everyone would instantly understand.

Ayn Rand said Kant was the most evil man who ever lived. Satan is the ultimate evil being in Christianity. Kant and Satan are the 2 most evil characters I know about, fiction or not. Galt represent good, the opposite of evil. Galt was Ayn Rand's ideal man, Ayn Rand's idea of perfection.

I simply took 2 evil characters in real life, the 2 main candidates for prez and exaggerated them to the most extreme evil. And I took the good guy, Ron Paul or whoever Objectivists and Libertarians or capitalists might prefer, and exaggerated him to the most extreme good, John Galt, Ayn Rand's perfect man. Now maybe what is happening every USA election is clear. Voters are choosing between 2 evils instead of choosing what is good. I thought all this would be understood by everyone without explanation.

If I could and did vote in a USA election, my first choice would be Ron Paul or someone like him. My second choice would be 'none of the above', and I believe NOTA should be on every ballot. My third choice would be don't vote.

[Selene]

I think this is all a bit different from voting. If a group of three friends is deciding on what type of pizza to get, and everyone agrees to put it to a vote, then it would be improper for one friend to cast a vote and then later object in the event of an unfavorable outcome. They agreed to the terms of the decision-making process and therefore agreed to any outcome which could naturally arise from it, so they forfeit their moral standing to dispute the outcome later. By not voting, I'm making it clear that there are certain types of pizza I would not under any circumstances accept, and I don't want a vote held unless they are removed from the options list. That is what our Constitution is *supposed* to accomplish, but it hasn't functioned that way for quite some time.

Genius!

[moralist]

Genius!

I'd also add to his excellent macro comment with a micro one:

"It's nice to elect the right people, but that isn't the way to solve things.

The way to solve things is for you to do the right thing because it's always profitable."

--Greg

[moralist]

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.

Ok. Fair enough. I edited my comment from dishonest to deceptive. My response is still the same regardless of which word is used.

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.

Yes... VERY good.

I owe the life I enjoy today to taking to heart her words many years ago.

Do you interpret Ayn's commandments as rendered in Atlas Shrugged?

She commanded nothing, but rather described in infinite detail the mechanism by which things work. I merely acted on the principles she described so well.

Or, do you hold to a literal reading of the New Good Book?

Two people can read the same book and come away with different meanings. What makes this difference is the eye which is reading her words.

As to the second question, I refer you to a source 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...

No, because I'm not arguing. Words do not have the power to change a chosen view... only real life experience possess that power. I'm describing the view I chose as clearly as I am able so as to make clear the difference between it and the view chosen by others.

And I agree with what Ayn Rand said about "the corruption of a cognitive process to serve an ulterior motive". This is what makes thought or emotion such poor sources for moral guidance of a person's actions. But then, that's the purpose of the objective reality of the consequences of our own actions... to reveal our misplaced faith in our intellect and emotions... as well as our lack of faith in what we actually see in the present moment.

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.

Is this your view?

Greg

[moralist]

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?

Just for the personal enjoyment of expression.

They cannot be accepted or rejected sans valid argumentation, only compared, even though even that requires some thinking.

A view can only be accepted or rejected through experiencing the real world consequences of acting upon it. Never through verbal argumentation.

And how did you get your views?

Just from living... through experiencing the reality of the just and deserved consequences of my own actions.

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

Yes.

To be calm, centered... an empirically objective observer of my own thoughts and emotions, as well as those of others... as if I came from a different planet.

Greg

[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?

Just for the personal enjoyment of expression.

They cannot be accepted or rejected sans valid argumentation, only compared, even though even that requires some thinking.

A view can only be accepted or rejected through experiencing the real world consequences of acting upon it. Never through verbal argumentation.

And how did you get your views?

Just from living... through experiencing the reality of the just and deserved consequences of my own actions.

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

Yes.

To be calm, centered... an empirically objective observer of my own thoughts and emotions, as well as those of others... as if I came from a different planet.

Greg

You are aware are you not that all you say here is both sides of the coin argumentum ad hominem: to the man--in this case me--and from the man--you? Of course I do it too except it's not fallacious (as from me): I layer on facts, logic, argument, rationality--or at least I think I do. You don't say I do or don't. You just imply if not say that from A to Z it's irrelevant, even thinking, even though you've obviously done a lot of thinking to construct your unfalsifiable fortress.

--Brant

at least you aren't doing any argumentum ad women (I can't stand tears and screaming)

[caroljane]

Be very afraid Moralist. Brant and his platoon have been known to take down galaxies, one planet at a time.

[Brant Gaede]

Be very afraid Moralist. Brant and his platoon have been known to take down galaxies, one planet at a time.

No matter how much you tug and pull, you can't get milk from a bull.

--Brant

no matter how much you rant and rave, Greg always gets away

[moralist]

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?

Just for the personal enjoyment of expression.

They cannot be accepted or rejected sans valid argumentation, only compared, even though even that requires some thinking.

A view can only be accepted or rejected through experiencing the real world consequences of acting upon it. Never through verbal argumentation.

And how did you get your views?

Just from living... through experiencing the reality of the just and deserved consequences of my own actions.

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

Yes.

To be calm, centered... an empirically objective observer of my own thoughts and emotions, as well as those of others... as if I came from a different planet.

Greg

You are aware are you not that all you say here is both sides of the coin argumentum ad hominem: to the man--in this case me--and from the man--you? Of course I do it too except it's not fallacious (as from me): I layer on facts, logic, argument, rationality--or at least I think I do. You don't say I do or don't. You just imply if not say that from A to Z it's irrelevant, even thinking, even though you've obviously done a lot of thinking to construct your unfalsifiable fortress.

God forbid. I'm neither clever nor original, and don't even have a higher education in the government subsidized medrasas. My approach is more to observe and listen to thought rather than to be immersed in thought as if I was the thinker, and regard my mind as more of a radio than a computer. So I simply relax and listen to broadcasts that I didn't originate and choose what is meaningful enough to be worthy of action... and leave the rest of the nonsense unresponded.

--Brant

at least you aren't doing any argumentum ad women (I can't stand tears and screaming)

Females (and liberal males) do tend to take things personally and get puffed up with offense... whereas we men don't.

Greg

[moralist]

Be very afraid Moralist. Brant and his platoon have been known to take down galaxies, one planet at a time.

I'm fresh out of photon torpedoes and dilithium crystals are destroyed so there's no power for the shields. However, I do still have enough impulse power in one engine for sub warp speed maneuvers. So that will have to suffice.

Greg

[Robert Baratheon]

Be very afraid Moralist. Brant and his platoon have been known to take down galaxies, one planet at a time.

No matter how much you tug and pull, you can't get milk from a bull.

--Brant

no matter how much you rant and rave, Greg always gets away

Moralist's arguments are circular and not falsifiable. He's pushing the objectivist equivalent of religious fundamentalism. It took me one or two threads before I realized the futility and gave up.

[Guyau]

.

Thanks for the explicitness of #55 , Jerry.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Virginia 2013 Results for Libertarians:

Governor – 6.5% (Running against a Republican and a Democrat)

House of Delegates (my district)* – 22% (Running against an incumbent Republican unopposed by a Democrat)

[moralist]

Be very afraid Moralist. Brant and his platoon have been known to take down galaxies, one planet at a time.

No matter how much you tug and pull, you can't get milk from a bull.

--Brant

no matter how much you rant and rave, Greg always gets away

Moralist's arguments are circular and not falsifiable. He's pushing the objectivist equivalent of religious fundamentalism. It took me one or two threads before I realized the futility and gave up.

Hey, that's a pretty good description, Robert.

Since I'm a Christian, that fundamentalist approach naturally applies to other areas of life. I fully understand your use of that term as a pejorative, and don't consider it the least bit offensive. Quite to the contrary, in my own experience I've found that what you disdain offers a distinct personal advantage in dealing with the challenges of life by ordering my responses to this world guided by fundamental moral principles which have withstood the test of time for millennia.

Greg

Virginia 2013 Results for Libertarians:

Governor – 6.5% (Running against a Republican and a Democrat)

You have the personal heartfelt gratitude of millions of Democrats for securing their victory.

For they could not have prevailed without your help.

[Selene]

Since I'm a Christian, that fundamentalist approach naturally applies to other areas of life. I fully understand your use of that term as a pejorative, and don't consider it the least bit offensive. Quite to the contrary, in my own experience I've found that what you disdain offers a distinct personal advantage in dealing with the challenges of life by ordering my responses to this world guided by fundamental moral principles which have withstood the test of time for millennia.

Interesting , ..."...by ordering my responses to this world guided by fundamental moral principles which have withstood the test of time for millenia," agrees with your "test of time?"

[moralist]

Since I'm a Christian, that fundamentalist approach naturally applies to other areas of life. I fully understand your use of that term as a pejorative, and don't consider it the least bit offensive. Quite to the contrary, in my own experience I've found that what you disdain offers a distinct personal advantage in dealing with the challenges of life by ordering my responses to this world guided by fundamental moral principles which have withstood the test of time for millennia.

Interesting , ..."...by ordering my responses to this world guided by fundamental moral principles which have withstood the test of time for millenia," agrees with your "test of time?"

Oh, not at all. It does not agree with me. I agree with it.

The proof of any test is always in what actually works in the real world as determined by the only final judge... the objective reality of the just and deserved consequences that we set into motion by our own actions.

Greg

[PDS]

Since I'm a Christian, that fundamentalist approach naturally applies to other areas of life. I fully understand your use of that term as a pejorative, and don't consider it the least bit offensive. Quite to the contrary, in my own experience I've found that what you disdain offers a distinct personal advantage in dealing with the challenges of life by ordering my responses to this world guided by fundamental moral principles which have withstood the test of time for millennia.

Interesting , ..."...by ordering my responses to this world guided by fundamental moral principles which have withstood the test of time for millenia," agrees with your "test of time?"

Oh, not at all. It does not agree with me. I agree with it.

The proof of any test is always in what actually works in the real world as determined by the only final judge... the objective reality of the just and deserved consequences that we set into motion by our own actions.

Greg

No offense, Greg, but your comments sometimes have the whiff of bullshit surrounding them.

There are at least at least half a dozen words or phrases in your last sentence that are incomprehensible, or meaningless.

If you care to indulge me: by what standard is something "just and deserved" in your formulation? Does the bloat bellied kid in Haiti sitting on top of a garbage dump "deserve" to be starving?

[Brant Gaede]

Essentially Greg has never established that the "consequences" really are "just and deserved" and that they apply to most everybody much less everybody. You can have a brick fall on your head, wake up in the hospital and marry the pretty nurse taking care of you and live happily ever after because her father got run over by a truck and she inherited his estate which he first established by stealing (taking over) the property of interred Japanese-Americans in WWII, who of course, deserved what happened to them too. If you can't look backwards for "just and deserved" you can look forward and predict it.

--Brant

the manta goes on and on riding a closed-loop of epistemological infinity (call it a merry go-round: when facts appear alongside grab some and "prove" your case by "comparing" them with your suppositions)

[moralist]

Since I'm a Christian, that fundamentalist approach naturally applies to other areas of life. I fully understand your use of that term as a pejorative, and don't consider it the least bit offensive. Quite to the contrary, in my own experience I've found that what you disdain offers a distinct personal advantage in dealing with the challenges of life by ordering my responses to this world guided by fundamental moral principles which have withstood the test of time for millennia.

Interesting , ..."...by ordering my responses to this world guided by fundamental moral principles which have withstood the test of time for millenia," agrees with your "test of time?"

Oh, not at all. It does not agree with me. I agree with it.

The proof of any test is always in what actually works in the real world as determined by the only final judge... the objective reality of the just and deserved consequences that we set into motion by our own actions.

Greg

No offense, Greg, but your comments sometimes have the whiff of bullshit surrounding them.

There are at least at least half a dozen words or phrases in your last sentence that are incomprehensible, or meaningless.

What has meaningful relevance for each of us depends on the moral values by which we each live our lives.

If you care to indulge me: by what standard is something "just and deserved" in your formulation? Does the bloat bellied kid in Haiti sitting on top of a garbage dump "deserve" to be starving?

I don't know. You'd need to go ask the starving Haitian kid to find that out. Only he could relate to you the chain of events set into motion which put him on that garbage dump.

I only know by personal experience what is moral justice for me by the objective reality of getting the consequences I deserve from my own actions.

Greg

[PDS]

"I don't know. You'd need to go ask the starving Haitian kid to find that out. Only he could relate to you the chain of events set into motion which put him on that garbage dump.

I only know by personal experience what is moral justice for me by the objective reality of getting the consequences I deserve from my own actions."

Now you're just clowning.

I refuse to believe you actually hold this view. Or that you have ever been to Haiti, for that matter.

I can tell you are a fan of the glib response, but aren't you the least bit curious how how your term "just and deserved" applies to this situation, apart from whatever our young Haitian might have to say about his condition? And, if the standard doesn't happen to apply to our young Haitian, isn't that something of a problem for your oft-stated worldview?

[Brant Gaede]

Moral justice for me but not for thee?

--Brant

same thing as some people taking Rand's purported idea of selfishness to mean me! me! me! and only Me! (or having Rand and eating her too)

he seems to do the same with Christian values--cherry pick--which makes him neither fish nor fowl but I'm sure he'll claim "realist!"

smack! smack! (if you're in the lion's den you might as well pray--it could be that very last day [judgment day]--you won't be the prey of the day) smack! smack! a very nice snack!

[moralist]

"I don't know. You'd need to go ask the starving Haitian kid to find that out. Only he could relate to you the chain of events set into motion which put him on that garbage dump.

I only know by personal experience what is moral justice for me by the objective reality of getting the consequences I deserve from my own actions."

Now you're just clowning.

(one of my favorite movies, by the way... "Death to Smoochie" )

I refuse to believe you actually hold this view.

I'm ok with that. Different views are what make for interesting conversations. Although, if what you just said is true... then why are you arguing against a value you don't even believe I live by?

I can tell you are a fan of the glib response, but aren't you the least bit curious how how your term "just and deserved" applies to this situation, apart from whatever our young Haitian might have to say about his condition?

No. I'm not into fantasy. The Haitian kid is the only one with the last word on his situation, because he alone knows best the causal chain of events that put him where he is.

And, if the standard doesn't happen to apply to our young Haitian, isn't that something of a problem for your oft-stated worldview?

I didn't say he didn't. I only said that I have no idea as to the specific causal chain of events that put him wherever he is... and neither do you.

Ok. To sum up out two different views:

1. I know that we are personally responsible for the just and deserved consequences we set into motion by our own actions.

2. You disagree with that, and refuse to believe I know that is true.

So that defines the difference between our two views.

Greg