I'm Voting Libertarian This Year

[PureX]

I've been weighing all the likely & unlikely outcomes
of the 2 evils, ie, Biden vs Trump. Short term vs long
term risks of various kinds are impossible to evaluate
with any confidence. So whoever the Libertarian
candidate is, they get my vote.

Yes, this could mean failure to prevent Trump's
return to power, with all the governmental, political,
& civil liberties carnage. But Biden is mishandling
the Palestinian genocide, & risking WW3 in his
slavish support of Israel's inhuman brutality & greed.
What will happen to Ukraine? Too hard to discern
how that will play out with either.

So now, at least I'm not voting for evil. And I'll help
send the message that deadly religious bigotry, hatred,
& vengeance will lose votes.
Better to vote for fecklessness...but ethical fecklessness.

I think we all need to stop voting for candidates that we don't want just because we don't want the other one more. We need to support alternative parties not just to help them become viable, but to let the mainstream candidates know that we will not just accept them as the less bad of two lousy options. They need to know that we want more then that. And we will vote accordingly.

 

[Altfish]

You said,
"Voting for a Socialist is to vote for the greater evil.
Socialism is anti liberty, both economic & social as history shows. So it's quite ironic that you criticize me for voting Libertarian instead of Biden."
I said, that the Dems are not banning books and female sexual health access. Isn't that anti-liberty?
You said "history shows" so I felt that the UK was relevant too.
Maybe I've misunderstood what you mean by liberty.

 

[Revoltingest]

The ideals of Libertarians do not work in reality.

Many do work well.
Perhaps you just don't think of them as libertarian.
You might find something you like....

Issues | Libertarian Party

www.lp.org

If societies were made up of Buddhist monks, well then you could have a Libertarian society because the monks would be trained at deliberate thought and right action, and what exists in societies is a huge diversity of individuals, many very immature and even criminal. The less mature the society the more need for laws to manage the behaviors. So voting is a fool's errand. Want change? It aint going to come by electing Libertarians (who would quickly realize the need for more laws). Just look at what happened to the social media platform parler. They wanted a Libertarian, free speech platform that got nasty very fast. They quickly started setting rulkes of conduct because they were losing the decent users. The same thing happened in wild west towns, the decent people wanted no part in it. So law and order was hired to quell the "anything goes" behavior.

Libertarian societies are built by training children to be mature and responsible. It isn't created by eliminating rules and let the last man stand.

I think you misunderstand my view.
There never will be a fully libertarian society.
People will always want more security, control,
meddling, etc than I'd want. But this country
would benefit from police honoring our civil
rights, a more peaceful foreign policy, etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think we all need to stop voting for candidates that we don't want just because we don't want the other one more. We need to support alternative parties not just to help them become viable, but to let the mainstream candidates know that we will not just accept them as the less bad of two lousy options. They need to know that we want more then that. And we will vote accordingly.

I sometimes agree.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think we all need to stop voting for candidates that we don't want just because we don't want the other one more. We need to support alternative parties not just to help them become viable, but to let the mainstream candidates know that we will not just accept them as the less bad of two lousy options. They need to know that we want more then that. And we will vote accordingly.

Of course, if an authoritarian-minded party gets itself elected because too many of the other mainstream party vote as you suggest, you run the risk of not having any more (real/fair) elections. Then what?

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course, if an authoritarian-minded party gets itself elected because too many of the other mainstream party vote as you suggest, you run the risk of not having any more (real/fair) elections. Then what?

There are risks in always voting for the lesser evil.
It keeps evil in power.

 

[Revoltingest]

You said,
"Voting for a Socialist is to vote for the greater evil.
Socialism is anti liberty, both economic & social as history shows. So it's quite ironic that you criticize me for voting Libertarian instead of Biden."
I said, that the Dems are not banning books and female sexual health access. Isn't that anti-liberty?
You said "history shows" so I felt that the UK was relevant too.
Maybe I've misunderstood what you mean by liberty.

First, you didn't quote or alert me.
I saw your post by accident.
Let a guy know you're posting to'm, eh.

Second, only now is your post becoming slightly clearer.
As bad as these Republican efforts are for civil liberties,
socialist is even worse. Having government run the entire
means of production is such a great power that it will
inevitably be used for not just economic control, but
also social control, eg.....
China, USSR, Khmer Rouge, Cuba, N Korea.
Capitalist countries offer the possibility of social liberty,
eg, Denmark, N Zealand, Canuckistan.
(I'd cite USA, but too many here would foam at the fresser.)

So.....if a poster advocates socialism, they advocate the
results that always accompany that system, with results
even worst than Donald Trump's wettest dream.

 

[Altfish]

First, you didn't quote or alert me.
I saw your post by accident.
Let a guy know you're posting to'm, eh.

Second, only now is your post becoming slightly clearer.
As bad as these Republican efforts are for civil liberties,
socialist is even worse. Having government run the entire
means of production is such a great power that it will
inevitably be used for not just economic control, but
also social control, eg.....
China, USSR, Khmer Rouge, Cuba, N Korea.
Capitalist countries offer the possibility of social liberty,
eg, Denmark, N Zealand, Canuckistan.
(I'd cite USA, but too many here would foam at the fresser.)

So.....if a poster advocates socialism, they advocate the
results that always accompany that system, with results
even worst than Donald Trump's wettest dream.

Your original post was in Quotations - I thought that automatically alerted you. Never had to do any additional alerts previously???
Sorry but the countries you list are communist, not socialist BUT I realise that the US uses a different definition.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your original post was in Quotations - I thought that automatically alerted you. Never had to do any additional alerts previously???

You'll notice in your post that my moniker doesn't appear.
That can happen if just copying text. But it's fixable
by using the "@" preceding the included moniker.

Sorry but the countries you list are communist, not socialist BUT I realise that the US uses a different definition.

You're in the N American Politics forum, so it's
reasonable to use N Ameristanian definitions.
(There's a frequent problem with one poster
using Italian definitions of English words.)
You'll get good definitions from many English
dictionaries that lack paywalls. I like...

Dictionary.com - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.

I find that "socialism" fits better when the system
doesn't allow private ownership of the means of
production, but does allow private property, eg,
land, a home.


Have you found English dictionaries from other
countries that use different definitions?

 

[Altfish]

You'll notice in your post that my moniker doesn't appear.
That can happen if just copying text. But it's fixable
by using the "@" preceding the included moniker.

You're in the N American Politics forum, so it's
reasonable to use N Ameristanian definitions.
(There's a frequent problem with one poster
using Italian definitions of English words.)
You'll get good definitions from many English
dictionaries that lack paywalls. I like...

Dictionary.com - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.

I find that "socialism" fits better when the system
doesn't allow private ownership of the means of
production, but does allow private property, eg,
land, a home.


Have you found English dictionaries from other
countries that use different definitions?

In UK, the likes of Blair's Labour government in common parlance is called "Socialist"

 

[Revoltingest]

In UK, the likes of Blair's Labour government in common parlance is called "Socialist"

The term is much abused here by both liberals
and conservatives. By the former to praise things
that aren't socialist (eg, public roads), & the latter
to demonize things that aren't socialist (eg, social
services).
But I use dictionaries. I even won one once in a
spelling bee. (I'd rather that had been a money
counting bee.)

 

[PureX]

Of course, if an authoritarian-minded party gets itself elected because too many of the other mainstream party vote as you suggest, you run the risk of not having any more (real/fair) elections. Then what?

The we revolt and remove them from power. I'm sick of being threatened into accepting these absurdly poor candidates decade after decade after decade. Aren't you?

 

[Copernicus]

To clarify, I don't view voting for a guaranteed loser
(the Libertarian) as abstention. It's both a message
to the Democrat & Republican parties, and a long
term investment in the party of my choice.
Maybe some day we'll matter. But it won't happen
without trying. And as you well know, I am trying.

In 2016, millions of people sent a message to the Democratic Party by voting for Jill Stein or some other third party candidate. The message received was Donald Trump. Now we find ourselves back again with Donald Trump running against another Democratic candidate with flaws. What was that definition of insanity again--doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result? Well, perhaps, you don't expect a different result, but you'll feel that you aren't responsible for the choice that other people make for you.

I'm going to vote for Biden, not because he is the lesser of two evils, but because he is the better of two flawed candidates. As George Bernard Shaw put it, democracy is not about ensuring that you get the best government. It is about ensuring that you get the government that is no better than you deserve. I'm voting for Biden, because I want to deserve a better government, even if I can't have it.

 

[Revoltingest]

In 2016, millions of people sent a message to the Democratic Party by voting for Jill Stein or some other third party candidate. The message received was Donald Trump.

Predicting the future after it happens is easy.
But before it happens....now that is tough.

2016 Trump entered the race with no record
in office. 2024 Trump has by now established
himself as a vengeful, addled, traitor.

Now we find ourselves back again with Donald Trump running against another Democratic candidate with flaws. What was that definition of insanity again--doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result? Well, perhaps, you don't expect a different result, but you'll feel that you aren't responsible for the choice that other people make for you.

Voting for only Dems & Pubs is an example
of the same thing over & over again.

I'm going to vote for Biden, not because he is the lesser of two evils, but because he is the better of two flawed candidates.

Different term for the same thing.

As George Bernard Shaw put it, democracy is not about ensuring that you get the best government. It is about ensuring that you get the government that is no better than you deserve. I'm voting for Biden, because I want to deserve a better government, even if I can't have it.

You can vote for Trump or Biden.
I'll vote Libertarian.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The we revolt and remove them from power. I'm sick of being threatened into accepting these absurdly poor candidates decade after decade after decade. Aren't you?

I'm Canadian. If push comes to shove, we can legitimately remove a government over afternoon tea, by simply voting down a money-bill in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister, in such a case, would have to go to the Governor General and request her to dissolve Parliament and call an election. This happened most recently in 1963, 1974, 1979 and 2005.

 

[Copernicus]

2016 Trump entered the race with no record
in office. 2024 Trump has by now established
himself as a vengeful, addled, traitor.

And Biden has established himself as a capable administrator who has some policies that you don't approve of. So I think we can easily establish which you would prefer to have in office, if you only had those two candidates to choose from. In reality, you have only three choices, other things being equal--Trump, Biden, Neither. The neither option, of course, yields one of the first two choices, albeit without your participation. So you really have only two options in terms of a practical outcome. Of course, you can always say that some fourth option may turn up, since we can't fully predict the future, but that has nothing to do with making choices.

Voting for only Dems & Pubs is an example
of the same thing over & over again.

Again, that is outside the scope of our individual choices. It is just a limitation on the individual choices we are presented with. The "definition of insanity" quip is about making choices to do the same thing over and over again. It is about refusing to learn from our past mistakes. We know from history that third party voting and abstentions from voting do nothing to change the two-party voting system. If they have any effect, it is to spoil the result that such voters would prefer if they had voted for the major party candidate they preferred. In your case, that would be Joe Biden. Or do you truly believe that Trump and Biden are equally bad?

I'm going to vote for Biden, not because he is the lesser of two evils, but because he is the better of two flawed candidates.

Different term for the same thing.

No, it isn't, because I don't consider both candidates "evil". To the extent that one of them is, that would be Trump. Biden has his flaws, but he has been a good president and run a competent administration. I didn't say he has been perfect, but he has been good. OTOH, Donald Trump has tended to bring out the worst side of human nature. From your perspective, Biden's flaws have been more serious than from mine, but you seem to share my judgment that Trump would be a far worse president. So you see Biden as the lesser of two evils.

You can vote for Trump or Biden.
I'll vote Libertarian.

Fair enough, but I assume you started this thread to get opinions of others on your reasons for making that choice.

 

[Revoltingest]

And Biden has established himself as a capable administrator who has some policies that you don't approve of. So I think we can easily establish which you would prefer to have in office, if you only had those two candidates to choose from. In reality, you have only three choices, other things being equal--Trump, Biden, Neither.

I see a bigger picture than you do.

Again, that is outside the scope of our individual choices. It is just a limitation on the individual choices we are presented with. The "definition of insanity" quip is about making choices to do the same thing over and over again. It is about refusing to learn from our past mistakes. We know from history that third party voting and abstentions from voting do nothing to change the two-party voting system. If they have any effect, it is to spoil the result that such voters would prefer if they had voted for the major party candidate they preferred. In your case, that would be Joe Biden.

I'd prefer Biden over Trump.
But not so much so that I'm willing to vote for him.
I'd rather see Libertarians gain more influence.

No, it isn't, because I don't consider both candidates "evil".

Our only difference is labeling & judging the degree of "flaws".

Fair enough, but I assume you started this thread to get opinions of others on your reasons for making that choice.

And I respond to all I see.

 

[fantome profane]

I'd rather see Libertarians gain more influence.

And is that going to happen?

 

[Astravalon]

And is that going to happen?

Not as long as people continue to be hypnotized by the Democrat-or-Republican pendulum perpetually swinging before their seemingly sleepy eyes.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not as long as people continue to be hypnotized by the Democrat-or-Republican pendulum perpetually swinging before their seemingly sleepy eyes.

Strange, isn't it? Democracies that have multiple parties quickly become used to the idea, and can sometimes quite handily jockey some minority parties into positions where they can actually exercise a bit of muscle, curbing the authoritarian tendencies of larger, more entrenched ones.