Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Who Should I Vote For?

Expand Messages
  • N. Weiner
    No. How is voting rational when the media won t lay a glove on the Democratic candidate, and when anyone who questions his credentials is called racist? How is
    Message 1 of 20 , Nov 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      No. How is voting rational when the media won't lay a glove on the
      Democratic candidate, and when anyone who questions his credentials is
      called racist? How is voting rational when the Republican nominee
      kisses illegal immigrant ass and, regardless of the LP's stand on
      immigration, illegal immigration is still illegal?

      Nat

      --- In ManhattanLibertarians@yahoogroups.com, "Evan Isaac"
      <evanisaac2@...> wrote:
      >
      > how is voting rational at all when there are better odds of getting
      hit by
      > lightning on the way to the polls than for one vote to affect anything?
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Miss Reason <miss.reason@...> wrote:
      >
      > > Millions of Americans will vote in the 2008 Presidential Election.
      > > Sadly, only a small percentage will make a rational choice. I will not
      > > presume to recommend a candidate to you. Rational arguments can be
      made to
      > > vote for McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. Instead, I will list a few
      of the
      > > IRRATIONAL ideas that will motivate the votes of many.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > 1. Voting against McCain because he is too old. Senator McCain's
      age is
      > > certainly a rational concern. He will be older than all previous
      presidents
      > > on their Inauguration Day. The five and a half years he spent as a
      POW at
      > > the "Hanoi Hilton" have probably aged him even more than the
      average 72 year
      > > old man. So his chances of dying during his first term are greater
      than
      > > those of probably every other president in American history.
      However, if you
      > > believe that Governor Palin would be a better President than
      Senator Obama,
      > > voting against McCain because of his age would not be a rational
      choice. If
      > > you believe that Governor Palin would not be a good President,
      then McCain's
      > > age could be cause for you to vote for Obama/Biden.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > 2. Voting against Obama because he is black. Obviously an
      irrational idea.
      > > In fact, a rational argument can be made that it would be good to
      vote for
      > > Obama because of his race. I know, it seems like a contradiction to
      > > DISCOURAGE voting against Obama because of his race and yet
      ENCOURAGE voting
      > > for Obama because of his race. Seems like reverse racism. Well so
      be it. The
      > > historic election of America's first African-American President
      would be a
      > > good thing, provided he does a good job. I leave it to you to
      decide whether
      > > Obama would be a good president. If you think he would be a bad
      president,
      > > you should vote against him, even if you think that the concept of
      electing
      > > America's first black president is a good one.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > 3. Voting for Obama because he represents CHANGE. Yes, Senator
      Obama is
      > > likely to do things radically different from President Bush. But
      not all
      > > change is good. Unless you have strong reason to believe that Obama's
      > > changes would be good, you should not vote for him. Also bear in
      mind that
      > > Senator McCain is likely to do many things differently from
      President Bush.
      > > Any change in administrations is going to bring about change in
      policies.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > 4. Voting against McCain because he is identical to President Bush.
      > > Clearly, despite the constant attempts of the Obama Campaign to depict
      > > McCain as Bush's clone, John McCain is NOT George W. Bush. On the
      other
      > > hand, McCain has stated that he has voted with Bush 90% of the
      time, so if
      > > you believe Bush was a terrible president, it would be rational to
      weigh
      > > that in your vote. On the other hand, if you think Bush has done a
      good job,
      > > this would be a strong argument for voting for McCain.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > 5. Voting for a candidate because you like his/her personality. We
      do not
      > > have the luxury of voting for the candidate we would "like to have
      a beer
      > > with." The power of the presidency, for both good or evil, is so
      massive,
      > > only rational arguments should guide your decision. I cringe every
      time I
      > > hear someone say they are voting for a candidate because he/she is
      just like
      > > me. Unless you believe that you personally would be a good
      president, would
      > > it not be better to vote for someone far superior to yourself?
      Ignorant,
      > > irrational voters often vote against a candidate because "he is a
      > > pointy-headed intellectual" or other nonsensical things. Many
      appear to
      > > believe that Joe Six-Pack or Joe the Plumber are more qualified to be
      > > president than some of the candidates on the ballot. How about
      voting for
      > > Joe the Brilliant Thinker instead.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > 6. Voting against Obama because of his relationship with William
      Ayers. The
      > > McCain/Palin campaign has attacked Senator Obama on the basis of his
      > > association with William Ayers, the former terrorist. This is not
      a rational
      > > reason to vote against Obama. Yes, Obama has served on the Board of
      > > Directors of an organization (a good organization, by the way)
      with Ayers.
      > > And yes, Ayers did hold a fundraiser once for Obama in his home.
      And yes,
      > > Obama did give Ayers a nice quote for his book. But none of these, by
      > > themselves, justify voting against Obama, who has condemned Ayers'
      past
      > > terrorist acts. Frankly, I think Senator McCain was irrational to
      focus on
      > > Ayers, when a much more rational guilt by association tactic would
      have been
      > > to tie Obama to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Clearly, Obama has
      had a very
      > > close relationship, over 20 years, with Reverend Wright. The
      anti-American
      > > vitriol contained in so many of Wright's sermons should be some
      cause for
      > > alarm. Why would Senator Obama sit through 20 years of Wright's
      condemnation
      > > of the country Obama purports to love? That is a much more
      rational concern
      > > than Obama's weak association with Professor Ayers.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > 7. Voting on the basis of political party alone. Unfortunately,
      many voters
      > > choose their candidate automatically because of political affiliation.
      > > Strong arguments can be made that there have been good and bad
      presidents
      > > from both parties.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > 8. Voting on the basis of campaign promises. McCain/Palin and
      Obama/Biden
      > > are playing the same game: saying whatever you have to say to get
      elected,
      > > then facing the reality in January that you can't fulfill most of your
      > > campaign promises. Instead of being manipulated by campaign
      rhetoric, vote
      > > for the person you think is best qualified, in terms of experience,
      > > intellect, temperament, and political philosophy.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > If you vote, please vote RATIONALLY! And please visit my blog, *
      > > http://MissReason.blogspot.com* <http://MissReason.blogspot.com>
      > >
      > >
      >
    • Antonio SJ Musumeci
      A lot of what the LP stands for is illegal. The media doesn t care about immigration because they supported what he did. Why would they attack him on it? They
      Message 2 of 20 , Nov 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        A lot of what the LP stands for is illegal. The media doesn't care
        about immigration because they supported what he did. Why would they
        attack him on it? They like Obama so why would they bring up the parts
        that may cause trouble? If your waiting for the mythical objective
        journalism creature you'll be severely disappointed. It doesn't exists,
        it never existed. You want facts to get out you need to do it yourself.

        --
        Antonio SJ Musumeci
        bile@...
        http://blogofbile.com
        http://libertyactivism.info

        On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 14:38:38 -0000
        "N. Weiner" <sswusfc@...> wrote:

        > No. How is voting rational when the media won't lay a glove on the
        > Democratic candidate, and when anyone who questions his credentials is
        > called racist? How is voting rational when the Republican nominee
        > kisses illegal immigrant ass and, regardless of the LP's stand on
        > immigration, illegal immigration is still illegal?
        >
        > Nat
        >
      • Nicolas Leobold
        But what about the argument that if everyone thought that way, no one would vote for the best candidate? ... hit by ... anything? ... Election. ... will not
        Message 3 of 20 , Nov 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          But what about the argument that if everyone thought that way, no one
          would vote for the best candidate?


          --- In ManhattanLibertarians@yahoogroups.com, "Evan Isaac"
          <evanisaac2@...> wrote:
          >
          > how is voting rational at all when there are better odds of getting
          hit by
          > lightning on the way to the polls than for one vote to affect
          anything?
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Miss Reason <miss.reason@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > > Millions of Americans will vote in the 2008 Presidential
          Election.
          > > Sadly, only a small percentage will make a rational choice. I
          will not
          > > presume to recommend a candidate to you. Rational arguments can
          be made to
          > > vote for McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. Instead, I will list a few
          of the
          > > IRRATIONAL ideas that will motivate the votes of many.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > 1. Voting against McCain because he is too old. Senator McCain's
          age is
          > > certainly a rational concern. He will be older than all previous
          presidents
          > > on their Inauguration Day. The five and a half years he spent as
          a POW at
          > > the "Hanoi Hilton" have probably aged him even more than the
          average 72 year
          > > old man. So his chances of dying during his first term are
          greater than
          > > those of probably every other president in American history.
          However, if you
          > > believe that Governor Palin would be a better President than
          Senator Obama,
          > > voting against McCain because of his age would not be a rational
          choice. If
          > > you believe that Governor Palin would not be a good President,
          then McCain's
          > > age could be cause for you to vote for Obama/Biden.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > 2. Voting against Obama because he is black. Obviously an
          irrational idea.
          > > In fact, a rational argument can be made that it would be good to
          vote for
          > > Obama because of his race. I know, it seems like a contradiction
          to
          > > DISCOURAGE voting against Obama because of his race and yet
          ENCOURAGE voting
          > > for Obama because of his race. Seems like reverse racism. Well so
          be it. The
          > > historic election of America's first African-American President
          would be a
          > > good thing, provided he does a good job. I leave it to you to
          decide whether
          > > Obama would be a good president. If you think he would be a bad
          president,
          > > you should vote against him, even if you think that the concept
          of electing
          > > America's first black president is a good one.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > 3. Voting for Obama because he represents CHANGE. Yes, Senator
          Obama is
          > > likely to do things radically different from President Bush. But
          not all
          > > change is good. Unless you have strong reason to believe that
          Obama's
          > > changes would be good, you should not vote for him. Also bear in
          mind that
          > > Senator McCain is likely to do many things differently from
          President Bush.
          > > Any change in administrations is going to bring about change in
          policies.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > 4. Voting against McCain because he is identical to President
          Bush.
          > > Clearly, despite the constant attempts of the Obama Campaign to
          depict
          > > McCain as Bush's clone, John McCain is NOT George W. Bush. On the
          other
          > > hand, McCain has stated that he has voted with Bush 90% of the
          time, so if
          > > you believe Bush was a terrible president, it would be rational
          to weigh
          > > that in your vote. On the other hand, if you think Bush has done
          a good job,
          > > this would be a strong argument for voting for McCain.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > 5. Voting for a candidate because you like his/her personality.
          We do not
          > > have the luxury of voting for the candidate we would "like to
          have a beer
          > > with." The power of the presidency, for both good or evil, is so
          massive,
          > > only rational arguments should guide your decision. I cringe
          every time I
          > > hear someone say they are voting for a candidate because he/she
          is just like
          > > me. Unless you believe that you personally would be a good
          president, would
          > > it not be better to vote for someone far superior to yourself?
          Ignorant,
          > > irrational voters often vote against a candidate because "he is a
          > > pointy-headed intellectual" or other nonsensical things. Many
          appear to
          > > believe that Joe Six-Pack or Joe the Plumber are more qualified
          to be
          > > president than some of the candidates on the ballot. How about
          voting for
          > > Joe the Brilliant Thinker instead.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > 6. Voting against Obama because of his relationship with William
          Ayers. The
          > > McCain/Palin campaign has attacked Senator Obama on the basis of
          his
          > > association with William Ayers, the former terrorist. This is not
          a rational
          > > reason to vote against Obama. Yes, Obama has served on the Board
          of
          > > Directors of an organization (a good organization, by the way)
          with Ayers.
          > > And yes, Ayers did hold a fundraiser once for Obama in his home.
          And yes,
          > > Obama did give Ayers a nice quote for his book. But none of
          these, by
          > > themselves, justify voting against Obama, who has condemned
          Ayers' past
          > > terrorist acts. Frankly, I think Senator McCain was irrational to
          focus on
          > > Ayers, when a much more rational guilt by association tactic
          would have been
          > > to tie Obama to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Clearly, Obama has
          had a very
          > > close relationship, over 20 years, with Reverend Wright. The anti-
          American
          > > vitriol contained in so many of Wright's sermons should be some
          cause for
          > > alarm. Why would Senator Obama sit through 20 years of Wright's
          condemnation
          > > of the country Obama purports to love? That is a much more
          rational concern
          > > than Obama's weak association with Professor Ayers.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > 7. Voting on the basis of political party alone. Unfortunately,
          many voters
          > > choose their candidate automatically because of political
          affiliation.
          > > Strong arguments can be made that there have been good and bad
          presidents
          > > from both parties.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > 8. Voting on the basis of campaign promises. McCain/Palin and
          Obama/Biden
          > > are playing the same game: saying whatever you have to say to get
          elected,
          > > then facing the reality in January that you can't fulfill most of
          your
          > > campaign promises. Instead of being manipulated by campaign
          rhetoric, vote
          > > for the person you think is best qualified, in terms of
          experience,
          > > intellect, temperament, and political philosophy.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > If you vote, please vote RATIONALLY! And please visit my blog, *
          > > http://MissReason.blogspot.com* <http://MissReason.blogspot.com>
          > >
          > >
          >
        • Nicolas Leobold
          Illegal immigration is only illegal according to our present government s evil laws, not according to Natural Law. Nic ... is ... getting ... anything? ...
          Message 4 of 20 , Nov 1, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            "Illegal" immigration is only "illegal" according to our present
            government's evil laws, not according to Natural Law.

            Nic

            --- In ManhattanLibertarians@yahoogroups.com, "N. Weiner"
            <sswusfc@...> wrote:
            >
            > No. How is voting rational when the media won't lay a glove on the
            > Democratic candidate, and when anyone who questions his credentials
            is
            > called racist? How is voting rational when the Republican nominee
            > kisses illegal immigrant ass and, regardless of the LP's stand on
            > immigration, illegal immigration is still illegal?
            >
            > Nat
            >
            > --- In ManhattanLibertarians@yahoogroups.com, "Evan Isaac"
            > <evanisaac2@> wrote:
            > >
            > > how is voting rational at all when there are better odds of
            getting
            > hit by
            > > lightning on the way to the polls than for one vote to affect
            anything?
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Miss Reason <miss.reason@>
            wrote:
            > >
            > > > Millions of Americans will vote in the 2008 Presidential
            Election.
            > > > Sadly, only a small percentage will make a rational choice. I
            will not
            > > > presume to recommend a candidate to you. Rational arguments can
            be
            > made to
            > > > vote for McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. Instead, I will list a few
            > of the
            > > > IRRATIONAL ideas that will motivate the votes of many.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > 1. Voting against McCain because he is too old. Senator McCain's
            > age is
            > > > certainly a rational concern. He will be older than all previous
            > presidents
            > > > on their Inauguration Day. The five and a half years he spent
            as a
            > POW at
            > > > the "Hanoi Hilton" have probably aged him even more than the
            > average 72 year
            > > > old man. So his chances of dying during his first term are
            greater
            > than
            > > > those of probably every other president in American history.
            > However, if you
            > > > believe that Governor Palin would be a better President than
            > Senator Obama,
            > > > voting against McCain because of his age would not be a rational
            > choice. If
            > > > you believe that Governor Palin would not be a good President,
            > then McCain's
            > > > age could be cause for you to vote for Obama/Biden.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > 2. Voting against Obama because he is black. Obviously an
            > irrational idea.
            > > > In fact, a rational argument can be made that it would be good
            to
            > vote for
            > > > Obama because of his race. I know, it seems like a
            contradiction to
            > > > DISCOURAGE voting against Obama because of his race and yet
            > ENCOURAGE voting
            > > > for Obama because of his race. Seems like reverse racism. Well
            so
            > be it. The
            > > > historic election of America's first African-American President
            > would be a
            > > > good thing, provided he does a good job. I leave it to you to
            > decide whether
            > > > Obama would be a good president. If you think he would be a bad
            > president,
            > > > you should vote against him, even if you think that the concept
            of
            > electing
            > > > America's first black president is a good one.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > 3. Voting for Obama because he represents CHANGE. Yes, Senator
            > Obama is
            > > > likely to do things radically different from President Bush. But
            > not all
            > > > change is good. Unless you have strong reason to believe that
            Obama's
            > > > changes would be good, you should not vote for him. Also bear in
            > mind that
            > > > Senator McCain is likely to do many things differently from
            > President Bush.
            > > > Any change in administrations is going to bring about change in
            > policies.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > 4. Voting against McCain because he is identical to President
            Bush.
            > > > Clearly, despite the constant attempts of the Obama Campaign to
            depict
            > > > McCain as Bush's clone, John McCain is NOT George W. Bush. On
            the
            > other
            > > > hand, McCain has stated that he has voted with Bush 90% of the
            > time, so if
            > > > you believe Bush was a terrible president, it would be rational
            to
            > weigh
            > > > that in your vote. On the other hand, if you think Bush has
            done a
            > good job,
            > > > this would be a strong argument for voting for McCain.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > 5. Voting for a candidate because you like his/her personality.
            We
            > do not
            > > > have the luxury of voting for the candidate we would "like to
            have
            > a beer
            > > > with." The power of the presidency, for both good or evil, is so
            > massive,
            > > > only rational arguments should guide your decision. I cringe
            every
            > time I
            > > > hear someone say they are voting for a candidate because he/she
            is
            > just like
            > > > me. Unless you believe that you personally would be a good
            > president, would
            > > > it not be better to vote for someone far superior to yourself?
            > Ignorant,
            > > > irrational voters often vote against a candidate because "he is
            a
            > > > pointy-headed intellectual" or other nonsensical things. Many
            > appear to
            > > > believe that Joe Six-Pack or Joe the Plumber are more qualified
            to be
            > > > president than some of the candidates on the ballot. How about
            > voting for
            > > > Joe the Brilliant Thinker instead.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > 6. Voting against Obama because of his relationship with William
            > Ayers. The
            > > > McCain/Palin campaign has attacked Senator Obama on the basis
            of his
            > > > association with William Ayers, the former terrorist. This is
            not
            > a rational
            > > > reason to vote against Obama. Yes, Obama has served on the
            Board of
            > > > Directors of an organization (a good organization, by the way)
            > with Ayers.
            > > > And yes, Ayers did hold a fundraiser once for Obama in his home.
            > And yes,
            > > > Obama did give Ayers a nice quote for his book. But none of
            these, by
            > > > themselves, justify voting against Obama, who has condemned
            Ayers'
            > past
            > > > terrorist acts. Frankly, I think Senator McCain was irrational
            to
            > focus on
            > > > Ayers, when a much more rational guilt by association tactic
            would
            > have been
            > > > to tie Obama to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Clearly, Obama has
            > had a very
            > > > close relationship, over 20 years, with Reverend Wright. The
            > anti-American
            > > > vitriol contained in so many of Wright's sermons should be some
            > cause for
            > > > alarm. Why would Senator Obama sit through 20 years of Wright's
            > condemnation
            > > > of the country Obama purports to love? That is a much more
            > rational concern
            > > > than Obama's weak association with Professor Ayers.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > 7. Voting on the basis of political party alone. Unfortunately,
            > many voters
            > > > choose their candidate automatically because of political
            affiliation.
            > > > Strong arguments can be made that there have been good and bad
            > presidents
            > > > from both parties.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > 8. Voting on the basis of campaign promises. McCain/Palin and
            > Obama/Biden
            > > > are playing the same game: saying whatever you have to say to
            get
            > elected,
            > > > then facing the reality in January that you can't fulfill most
            of your
            > > > campaign promises. Instead of being manipulated by campaign
            > rhetoric, vote
            > > > for the person you think is best qualified, in terms of
            experience,
            > > > intellect, temperament, and political philosophy.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > If you vote, please vote RATIONALLY! And please visit my blog, *
            > > > http://MissReason.blogspot.com* <http://MissReason.blogspot.com>
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • Evan Isaac
            how is that an argument? that s exactly the same point Im making. the only chance of your vote mattering is if everyone thought that way too (or almost
            Message 5 of 20 , Nov 1, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              how is that an argument?  that's exactly the same point Im making.

              the only chance of your vote mattering is if "everyone thought that way too" (or almost everyone).

              you will get hit by lightning before this occurs.




              On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Nicolas Leobold <nleobold@...> wrote:

              But what about the argument that if everyone thought that way, no one
              would vote for the best candidate?



              --- In ManhattanLibertarians@yahoogroups.com, "Evan Isaac"
              <evanisaac2@...> wrote:
              >
              > how is voting rational at all when there are better odds of getting
              hit by
              > lightning on the way to the polls than for one vote to affect
              anything?
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Miss Reason <miss.reason@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > > Millions of Americans will vote in the 2008 Presidential
              Election.
              > > Sadly, only a small percentage will make a rational choice. I
              will not
              > > presume to recommend a candidate to you. Rational arguments can
              be made to
              > > vote for McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. Instead, I will list a few
              of the
              > > IRRATIONAL ideas that will motivate the votes of many.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > 1. Voting against McCain because he is too old. Senator McCain's
              age is
              > > certainly a rational concern. He will be older than all previous
              presidents
              > > on their Inauguration Day. The five and a half years he spent as
              a POW at
              > > the "Hanoi Hilton" have probably aged him even more than the
              average 72 year
              > > old man. So his chances of dying during his first term are
              greater than
              > > those of probably every other president in American history.
              However, if you
              > > believe that Governor Palin would be a better President than
              Senator Obama,
              > > voting against McCain because of his age would not be a rational
              choice. If
              > > you believe that Governor Palin would not be a good President,
              then McCain's
              > > age could be cause for you to vote for Obama/Biden.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > 2. Voting against Obama because he is black. Obviously an
              irrational idea.
              > > In fact, a rational argument can be made that it would be good to
              vote for
              > > Obama because of his race. I know, it seems like a contradiction
              to
              > > DISCOURAGE voting against Obama because of his race and yet
              ENCOURAGE voting
              > > for Obama because of his race. Seems like reverse racism. Well so
              be it. The
              > > historic election of America's first African-American President
              would be a
              > > good thing, provided he does a good job. I leave it to you to
              decide whether
              > > Obama would be a good president. If you think he would be a bad
              president,
              > > you should vote against him, even if you think that the concept
              of electing
              > > America's first black president is a good one.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > 3. Voting for Obama because he represents CHANGE. Yes, Senator
              Obama is
              > > likely to do things radically different from President Bush. But
              not all
              > > change is good. Unless you have strong reason to believe that
              Obama's
              > > changes would be good, you should not vote for him. Also bear in
              mind that
              > > Senator McCain is likely to do many things differently from
              President Bush.
              > > Any change in administrations is going to bring about change in
              policies.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > 4. Voting against McCain because he is identical to President
              Bush.
              > > Clearly, despite the constant attempts of the Obama Campaign to
              depict
              > > McCain as Bush's clone, John McCain is NOT George W. Bush. On the
              other
              > > hand, McCain has stated that he has voted with Bush 90% of the
              time, so if
              > > you believe Bush was a terrible president, it would be rational
              to weigh
              > > that in your vote. On the other hand, if you think Bush has done
              a good job,
              > > this would be a strong argument for voting for McCain.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > 5. Voting for a candidate because you like his/her personality.
              We do not
              > > have the luxury of voting for the candidate we would "like to
              have a beer
              > > with." The power of the presidency, for both good or evil, is so
              massive,
              > > only rational arguments should guide your decision. I cringe
              every time I
              > > hear someone say they are voting for a candidate because he/she
              is just like
              > > me. Unless you believe that you personally would be a good
              president, would
              > > it not be better to vote for someone far superior to yourself?
              Ignorant,
              > > irrational voters often vote against a candidate because "he is a
              > > pointy-headed intellectual" or other nonsensical things. Many
              appear to
              > > believe that Joe Six-Pack or Joe the Plumber are more qualified
              to be
              > > president than some of the candidates on the ballot. How about
              voting for
              > > Joe the Brilliant Thinker instead.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > 6. Voting against Obama because of his relationship with William
              Ayers. The
              > > McCain/Palin campaign has attacked Senator Obama on the basis of
              his
              > > association with William Ayers, the former terrorist. This is not
              a rational
              > > reason to vote against Obama. Yes, Obama has served on the Board
              of
              > > Directors of an organization (a good organization, by the way)
              with Ayers.
              > > And yes, Ayers did hold a fundraiser once for Obama in his home.
              And yes,
              > > Obama did give Ayers a nice quote for his book. But none of
              these, by
              > > themselves, justify voting against Obama, who has condemned
              Ayers' past
              > > terrorist acts. Frankly, I think Senator McCain was irrational to
              focus on
              > > Ayers, when a much more rational guilt by association tactic
              would have been
              > > to tie Obama to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Clearly, Obama has
              had a very
              > > close relationship, over 20 years, with Reverend Wright. The anti-
              American
              > > vitriol contained in so many of Wright's sermons should be some
              cause for
              > > alarm. Why would Senator Obama sit through 20 years of Wright's
              condemnation
              > > of the country Obama purports to love? That is a much more
              rational concern
              > > than Obama's weak association with Professor Ayers.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > 7. Voting on the basis of political party alone. Unfortunately,
              many voters
              > > choose their candidate automatically because of political
              affiliation.
              > > Strong arguments can be made that there have been good and bad
              presidents
              > > from both parties.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > 8. Voting on the basis of campaign promises. McCain/Palin and
              Obama/Biden
              > > are playing the same game: saying whatever you have to say to get
              elected,
              > > then facing the reality in January that you can't fulfill most of
              your
              > > campaign promises. Instead of being manipulated by campaign
              rhetoric, vote
              > > for the person you think is best qualified, in terms of
              experience,
              > > intellect, temperament, and political philosophy.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > If you vote, please vote RATIONALLY! And please visit my blog, *
              > > http://MissReason.blogspot.com* <http://MissReason.blogspot.com>
              > >
              > >
              >


            • Nicolas Leobold
              But if everyone thinks that way, we ll never make any progress at the ballot box. I ve been thinking of this conundrum for a while on and off. If you vote, and
              Message 6 of 20 , Nov 1, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                But if everyone thinks that way, we'll never make any progress at the
                ballot box.

                I've been thinking of this conundrum for a while on and off.

                If you vote, and others also vote for a Libertarian, then perhaps
                some can get elected. The more libertarians who decide to vote, the
                closer we get to electing them.

                But if everyone says there's no chance, then there's definitely no
                chance.

                We don't need 100% participation, just maybe 40-60% of libertarians
                to make a difference. Still, what are the chances we'll get 40-60% of
                libertarians to vote for the LP? I don't know.

                So, I'm not exactly sure what the answer to this question is.

                Even if mathematically one vote is very unlikely to make a
                difference, you can't think that way (if you think trying to make a
                difference is worth the effort), because if everyone thinks that way,
                we definitely lose.

                Nic

                --- In ManhattanLibertarians@yahoogroups.com, "Evan Isaac"
                <evanisaac2@...> wrote:
                >
                > how is that an argument? that's exactly the same point Im making.
                >
                > the only chance of your vote mattering is if "everyone thought that
                way too"
                > (or almost everyone).
                >
                > you will get hit by lightning before this occurs.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Nicolas Leobold <nleobold@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > > But what about the argument that if everyone thought that way,
                no one
                > > would vote for the best candidate?
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In
                ManhattanLibertarians@yahoogroups.com<ManhattanLibertarians%
                40yahoogroups.com>,
                > > "Evan Isaac"
                > > <evanisaac2@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > how is voting rational at all when there are better odds of
                getting
                > > hit by
                > > > lightning on the way to the polls than for one vote to affect
                > > anything?
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Miss Reason <miss.reason@>
                > > wrote:
                > > >
                > > > > Millions of Americans will vote in the 2008 Presidential
                > > Election.
                > > > > Sadly, only a small percentage will make a rational choice. I
                > > will not
                > > > > presume to recommend a candidate to you. Rational arguments
                can
                > > be made to
                > > > > vote for McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. Instead, I will list a
                few
                > > of the
                > > > > IRRATIONAL ideas that will motivate the votes of many.
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > 1. Voting against McCain because he is too old. Senator
                McCain's
                > > age is
                > > > > certainly a rational concern. He will be older than all
                previous
                > > presidents
                > > > > on their Inauguration Day. The five and a half years he spent
                as
                > > a POW at
                > > > > the "Hanoi Hilton" have probably aged him even more than the
                > > average 72 year
                > > > > old man. So his chances of dying during his first term are
                > > greater than
                > > > > those of probably every other president in American history.
                > > However, if you
                > > > > believe that Governor Palin would be a better President than
                > > Senator Obama,
                > > > > voting against McCain because of his age would not be a
                rational
                > > choice. If
                > > > > you believe that Governor Palin would not be a good President,
                > > then McCain's
                > > > > age could be cause for you to vote for Obama/Biden.
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > 2. Voting against Obama because he is black. Obviously an
                > > irrational idea.
                > > > > In fact, a rational argument can be made that it would be
                good to
                > > vote for
                > > > > Obama because of his race. I know, it seems like a
                contradiction
                > > to
                > > > > DISCOURAGE voting against Obama because of his race and yet
                > > ENCOURAGE voting
                > > > > for Obama because of his race. Seems like reverse racism.
                Well so
                > > be it. The
                > > > > historic election of America's first African-American
                President
                > > would be a
                > > > > good thing, provided he does a good job. I leave it to you to
                > > decide whether
                > > > > Obama would be a good president. If you think he would be a
                bad
                > > president,
                > > > > you should vote against him, even if you think that the
                concept
                > > of electing
                > > > > America's first black president is a good one.
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > 3. Voting for Obama because he represents CHANGE. Yes, Senator
                > > Obama is
                > > > > likely to do things radically different from President Bush.
                But
                > > not all
                > > > > change is good. Unless you have strong reason to believe that
                > > Obama's
                > > > > changes would be good, you should not vote for him. Also bear
                in
                > > mind that
                > > > > Senator McCain is likely to do many things differently from
                > > President Bush.
                > > > > Any change in administrations is going to bring about change
                in
                > > policies.
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > 4. Voting against McCain because he is identical to President
                > > Bush.
                > > > > Clearly, despite the constant attempts of the Obama Campaign
                to
                > > depict
                > > > > McCain as Bush's clone, John McCain is NOT George W. Bush. On
                the
                > > other
                > > > > hand, McCain has stated that he has voted with Bush 90% of the
                > > time, so if
                > > > > you believe Bush was a terrible president, it would be
                rational
                > > to weigh
                > > > > that in your vote. On the other hand, if you think Bush has
                done
                > > a good job,
                > > > > this would be a strong argument for voting for McCain.
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > 5. Voting for a candidate because you like his/her
                personality.
                > > We do not
                > > > > have the luxury of voting for the candidate we would "like to
                > > have a beer
                > > > > with." The power of the presidency, for both good or evil, is
                so
                > > massive,
                > > > > only rational arguments should guide your decision. I cringe
                > > every time I
                > > > > hear someone say they are voting for a candidate because
                he/she
                > > is just like
                > > > > me. Unless you believe that you personally would be a good
                > > president, would
                > > > > it not be better to vote for someone far superior to yourself?
                > > Ignorant,
                > > > > irrational voters often vote against a candidate because "he
                is a
                > > > > pointy-headed intellectual" or other nonsensical things. Many
                > > appear to
                > > > > believe that Joe Six-Pack or Joe the Plumber are more
                qualified
                > > to be
                > > > > president than some of the candidates on the ballot. How about
                > > voting for
                > > > > Joe the Brilliant Thinker instead.
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > 6. Voting against Obama because of his relationship with
                William
                > > Ayers. The
                > > > > McCain/Palin campaign has attacked Senator Obama on the basis
                of
                > > his
                > > > > association with William Ayers, the former terrorist. This is
                not
                > > a rational
                > > > > reason to vote against Obama. Yes, Obama has served on the
                Board
                > > of
                > > > > Directors of an organization (a good organization, by the way)
                > > with Ayers.
                > > > > And yes, Ayers did hold a fundraiser once for Obama in his
                home.
                > > And yes,
                > > > > Obama did give Ayers a nice quote for his book. But none of
                > > these, by
                > > > > themselves, justify voting against Obama, who has condemned
                > > Ayers' past
                > > > > terrorist acts. Frankly, I think Senator McCain was
                irrational to
                > > focus on
                > > > > Ayers, when a much more rational guilt by association tactic
                > > would have been
                > > > > to tie Obama to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Clearly, Obama
                has
                > > had a very
                > > > > close relationship, over 20 years, with Reverend Wright. The
                anti-
                > > American
                > > > > vitriol contained in so many of Wright's sermons should be
                some
                > > cause for
                > > > > alarm. Why would Senator Obama sit through 20 years of
                Wright's
                > > condemnation
                > > > > of the country Obama purports to love? That is a much more
                > > rational concern
                > > > > than Obama's weak association with Professor Ayers.
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > 7. Voting on the basis of political party alone.
                Unfortunately,
                > > many voters
                > > > > choose their candidate automatically because of political
                > > affiliation.
                > > > > Strong arguments can be made that there have been good and bad
                > > presidents
                > > > > from both parties.
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > 8. Voting on the basis of campaign promises. McCain/Palin and
                > > Obama/Biden
                > > > > are playing the same game: saying whatever you have to say to
                get
                > > elected,
                > > > > then facing the reality in January that you can't fulfill
                most of
                > > your
                > > > > campaign promises. Instead of being manipulated by campaign
                > > rhetoric, vote
                > > > > for the person you think is best qualified, in terms of
                > > experience,
                > > > > intellect, temperament, and political philosophy.
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > If you vote, please vote RATIONALLY! And please visit my
                blog, *
                > > > > http://MissReason.blogspot.com*
                <http://MissReason.blogspot.com>
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
              • Nicolas Leobold
                No, I meant if all libertarians thought that voting doesn t matter, then we would have no chance of winning. ... way too ... no one ...
                Message 7 of 20 , Nov 1, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  No, I meant if all libertarians thought that voting doesn't matter,
                  then we would have no chance of winning.


                  --- In ManhattanLibertarians@yahoogroups.com, "Evan Isaac"
                  <evanisaac2@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > how is that an argument? that's exactly the same point Im making.
                  >
                  > the only chance of your vote mattering is if "everyone thought that
                  way too"
                  > (or almost everyone).
                  >
                  > you will get hit by lightning before this occurs.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Nicolas Leobold <nleobold@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > > But what about the argument that if everyone thought that way,
                  no one
                  > > would vote for the best candidate?
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In
                  ManhattanLibertarians@yahoogroups.com<ManhattanLibertarians%
                  40yahoogroups.com>,
                  > > "Evan Isaac"
                  > > <evanisaac2@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > how is voting rational at all when there are better odds of
                  getting
                  > > hit by
                  > > > lightning on the way to the polls than for one vote to affect
                  > > anything?
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Miss Reason <miss.reason@>
                  > > wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > > Millions of Americans will vote in the 2008 Presidential
                  > > Election.
                  > > > > Sadly, only a small percentage will make a rational choice. I
                  > > will not
                  > > > > presume to recommend a candidate to you. Rational arguments
                  can
                  > > be made to
                  > > > > vote for McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. Instead, I will list a
                  few
                  > > of the
                  > > > > IRRATIONAL ideas that will motivate the votes of many.
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > 1. Voting against McCain because he is too old. Senator
                  McCain's
                  > > age is
                  > > > > certainly a rational concern. He will be older than all
                  previous
                  > > presidents
                  > > > > on their Inauguration Day. The five and a half years he spent
                  as
                  > > a POW at
                  > > > > the "Hanoi Hilton" have probably aged him even more than the
                  > > average 72 year
                  > > > > old man. So his chances of dying during his first term are
                  > > greater than
                  > > > > those of probably every other president in American history.
                  > > However, if you
                  > > > > believe that Governor Palin would be a better President than
                  > > Senator Obama,
                  > > > > voting against McCain because of his age would not be a
                  rational
                  > > choice. If
                  > > > > you believe that Governor Palin would not be a good President,
                  > > then McCain's
                  > > > > age could be cause for you to vote for Obama/Biden.
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > 2. Voting against Obama because he is black. Obviously an
                  > > irrational idea.
                  > > > > In fact, a rational argument can be made that it would be
                  good to
                  > > vote for
                  > > > > Obama because of his race. I know, it seems like a
                  contradiction
                  > > to
                  > > > > DISCOURAGE voting against Obama because of his race and yet
                  > > ENCOURAGE voting
                  > > > > for Obama because of his race. Seems like reverse racism.
                  Well so
                  > > be it. The
                  > > > > historic election of America's first African-American
                  President
                  > > would be a
                  > > > > good thing, provided he does a good job. I leave it to you to
                  > > decide whether
                  > > > > Obama would be a good president. If you think he would be a
                  bad
                  > > president,
                  > > > > you should vote against him, even if you think that the
                  concept
                  > > of electing
                  > > > > America's first black president is a good one.
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > 3. Voting for Obama because he represents CHANGE. Yes, Senator
                  > > Obama is
                  > > > > likely to do things radically different from President Bush.
                  But
                  > > not all
                  > > > > change is good. Unless you have strong reason to believe that
                  > > Obama's
                  > > > > changes would be good, you should not vote for him. Also bear
                  in
                  > > mind that
                  > > > > Senator McCain is likely to do many things differently from
                  > > President Bush.
                  > > > > Any change in administrations is going to bring about change
                  in
                  > > policies.
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > 4. Voting against McCain because he is identical to President
                  > > Bush.
                  > > > > Clearly, despite the constant attempts of the Obama Campaign
                  to
                  > > depict
                  > > > > McCain as Bush's clone, John McCain is NOT George W. Bush. On
                  the
                  > > other
                  > > > > hand, McCain has stated that he has voted with Bush 90% of the
                  > > time, so if
                  > > > > you believe Bush was a terrible president, it would be
                  rational
                  > > to weigh
                  > > > > that in your vote. On the other hand, if you think Bush has
                  done
                  > > a good job,
                  > > > > this would be a strong argument for voting for McCain.
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > 5. Voting for a candidate because you like his/her
                  personality.
                  > > We do not
                  > > > > have the luxury of voting for the candidate we would "like to
                  > > have a beer
                  > > > > with." The power of the presidency, for both good or evil, is
                  so
                  > > massive,
                  > > > > only rational arguments should guide your decision. I cringe
                  > > every time I
                  > > > > hear someone say they are voting for a candidate because
                  he/she
                  > > is just like
                  > > > > me. Unless you believe that you personally would be a good
                  > > president, would
                  > > > > it not be better to vote for someone far superior to yourself?
                  > > Ignorant,
                  > > > > irrational voters often vote against a candidate because "he
                  is a
                  > > > > pointy-headed intellectual" or other nonsensical things. Many
                  > > appear to
                  > > > > believe that Joe Six-Pack or Joe the Plumber are more
                  qualified
                  > > to be
                  > > > > president than some of the candidates on the ballot. How about
                  > > voting for
                  > > > > Joe the Brilliant Thinker instead.
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > 6. Voting against Obama because of his relationship with
                  William
                  > > Ayers. The
                  > > > > McCain/Palin campaign has attacked Senator Obama on the basis
                  of
                  > > his
                  > > > > association with William Ayers, the former terrorist. This is
                  not
                  > > a rational
                  > > > > reason to vote against Obama. Yes, Obama has served on the
                  Board
                  > > of
                  > > > > Directors of an organization (a good organization, by the way)
                  > > with Ayers.
                  > > > > And yes, Ayers did hold a fundraiser once for Obama in his
                  home.
                  > > And yes,
                  > > > > Obama did give Ayers a nice quote for his book. But none of
                  > > these, by
                  > > > > themselves, justify voting against Obama, who has condemned
                  > > Ayers' past
                  > > > > terrorist acts. Frankly, I think Senator McCain was
                  irrational to
                  > > focus on
                  > > > > Ayers, when a much more rational guilt by association tactic
                  > > would have been
                  > > > > to tie Obama to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Clearly, Obama
                  has
                  > > had a very
                  > > > > close relationship, over 20 years, with Reverend Wright. The
                  anti-
                  > > American
                  > > > > vitriol contained in so many of Wright's sermons should be
                  some
                  > > cause for
                  > > > > alarm. Why would Senator Obama sit through 20 years of
                  Wright's
                  > > condemnation
                  > > > > of the country Obama purports to love? That is a much more
                  > > rational concern
                  > > > > than Obama's weak association with Professor Ayers.
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > 7. Voting on the basis of political party alone.
                  Unfortunately,
                  > > many voters
                  > > > > choose their candidate automatically because of political
                  > > affiliation.
                  > > > > Strong arguments can be made that there have been good and bad
                  > > presidents
                  > > > > from both parties.
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > 8. Voting on the basis of campaign promises. McCain/Palin and
                  > > Obama/Biden
                  > > > > are playing the same game: saying whatever you have to say to
                  get
                  > > elected,
                  > > > > then facing the reality in January that you can't fulfill
                  most of
                  > > your
                  > > > > campaign promises. Instead of being manipulated by campaign
                  > > rhetoric, vote
                  > > > > for the person you think is best qualified, in terms of
                  > > experience,
                  > > > > intellect, temperament, and political philosophy.
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > If you vote, please vote RATIONALLY! And please visit my
                  blog, *
                  > > > > http://MissReason.blogspot.com*
                  <http://MissReason.blogspot.com>
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                • Evan Isaac
                  but my individual decision to vote or not vote does not affect 100% of other libertarians. It only effects one vote. .00000001% or whatever. There isn t some
                  Message 8 of 20 , Nov 1, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    but my individual decision to vote or not vote does not affect 100% of other libertarians.  It only effects one vote.  .00000001% or whatever.

                    There isn't some libertarian telepathy where my deciding not to votet will make the 40% you need also not vote despite their previously thinking they would vote.

                    Look at it this way... let's say i purposely wait to be the absolute last person to vote the second before the polls close.  The other 100% or 40% or whatever.. they already made their decision and have passed the point of no return.  WHether I proceed into the voting booth or simply turn around and go home only affects .00001%,




                    On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Nicolas Leobold <nleobold@...> wrote:

                    No, I meant if all libertarians thought that voting doesn't matter,
                    then we would have no chance of winning.



                    --- In ManhattanLibertarians@yahoogroups.com, "Evan Isaac"
                    <evanisaac2@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > how is that an argument? that's exactly the same point Im making.
                    >
                    > the only chance of your vote mattering is if "everyone thought that
                    way too"
                    > (or almost everyone).
                    >
                    > you will get hit by lightning before this occurs.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Nicolas Leobold <nleobold@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > > But what about the argument that if everyone thought that way,
                    no one
                    > > would vote for the best candidate?
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --- In
                    ManhattanLibertarians@yahoogroups.com<ManhattanLibertarians%
                    40yahoogroups.com>,

                    > > "Evan Isaac"
                    > > <evanisaac2@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > how is voting rational at all when there are better odds of
                    getting
                    > > hit by
                    > > > lightning on the way to the polls than for one vote to affect
                    > > anything?
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Miss Reason <miss.reason@>
                    > > wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > > Millions of Americans will vote in the 2008 Presidential
                    > > Election.
                    > > > > Sadly, only a small percentage will make a rational choice. I
                    > > will not
                    > > > > presume to recommend a candidate to you. Rational arguments
                    can
                    > > be made to
                    > > > > vote for McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. Instead, I will list a
                    few
                    > > of the
                    > > > > IRRATIONAL ideas that will motivate the votes of many.
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > 1. Voting against McCain because he is too old. Senator
                    McCain's
                    > > age is
                    > > > > certainly a rational concern. He will be older than all
                    previous
                    > > presidents
                    > > > > on their Inauguration Day. The five and a half years he spent
                    as
                    > > a POW at
                    > > > > the "Hanoi Hilton" have probably aged him even more than the
                    > > average 72 year
                    > > > > old man. So his chances of dying during his first term are
                    > > greater than
                    > > > > those of probably every other president in American history.
                    > > However, if you
                    > > > > believe that Governor Palin would be a better President than
                    > > Senator Obama,
                    > > > > voting against McCain because of his age would not be a
                    rational
                    > > choice. If
                    > > > > you believe that Governor Palin would not be a good President,
                    > > then McCain's
                    > > > > age could be cause for you to vote for Obama/Biden.
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > 2. Voting against Obama because he is black. Obviously an
                    > > irrational idea.
                    > > > > In fact, a rational argument can be made that it would be
                    good to
                    > > vote for
                    > > > > Obama because of his race. I know, it seems like a
                    contradiction
                    > > to
                    > > > > DISCOURAGE voting against Obama because of his race and yet
                    > > ENCOURAGE voting
                    > > > > for Obama because of his race. Seems like reverse racism.
                    Well so
                    > > be it. The
                    > > > > historic election of America's first African-American
                    President
                    > > would be a
                    > > > > good thing, provided he does a good job. I leave it to you to
                    > > decide whether
                    > > > > Obama would be a good president. If you think he would be a
                    bad
                    > > president,
                    > > > > you should vote against him, even if you think that the
                    concept
                    > > of electing
                    > > > > America's first black president is a good one.
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > 3. Voting for Obama because he represents CHANGE. Yes, Senator
                    > > Obama is
                    > > > > likely to do things radically different from President Bush.
                    But
                    > > not all
                    > > > > change is good. Unless you have strong reason to believe that
                    > > Obama's
                    > > > > changes would be good, you should not vote for him. Also bear
                    in
                    > > mind that
                    > > > > Senator McCain is likely to do many things differently from
                    > > President Bush.
                    > > > > Any change in administrations is going to bring about change
                    in
                    > > policies.
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > 4. Voting against McCain because he is identical to President
                    > > Bush.
                    > > > > Clearly, despite the constant attempts of the Obama Campaign
                    to
                    > > depict
                    > > > > McCain as Bush's clone, John McCain is NOT George W. Bush. On
                    the
                    > > other
                    > > > > hand, McCain has stated that he has voted with Bush 90% of the
                    > > time, so if
                    > > > > you believe Bush was a terrible president, it would be
                    rational
                    > > to weigh
                    > > > > that in your vote. On the other hand, if you think Bush has
                    done
                    > > a good job,
                    > > > > this would be a strong argument for voting for McCain.
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > 5. Voting for a candidate because you like his/her
                    personality.
                    > > We do not
                    > > > > have the luxury of voting for the candidate we would "like to
                    > > have a beer
                    > > > > with." The power of the presidency, for both good or evil, is
                    so
                    > > massive,
                    > > > > only rational arguments should guide your decision. I cringe
                    > > every time I
                    > > > > hear someone say they are voting for a candidate because
                    he/she
                    > > is just like
                    > > > > me. Unless you believe that you personally would be a good
                    > > president, would
                    > > > > it not be better to vote for someone far superior to yourself?
                    > > Ignorant,
                    > > > > irrational voters often vote against a candidate because "he
                    is a
                    > > > > pointy-headed intellectual" or other nonsensical things. Many
                    > > appear to
                    > > > > believe that Joe Six-Pack or Joe the Plumber are more
                    qualified
                    > > to be
                    > > > > president than some of the candidates on the ballot. How about
                    > > voting for
                    > > > > Joe the Brilliant Thinker instead.
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > 6. Voting against Obama because of his relationship with
                    William
                    > > Ayers. The
                    > > > > McCain/Palin campaign has attacked Senator Obama on the basis
                    of
                    > > his
                    > > > > association with William Ayers, the former terrorist. This is
                    not
                    > > a rational
                    > > > > reason to vote against Obama. Yes, Obama has served on the
                    Board
                    > > of
                    > > > > Directors of an organization (a good organization, by the way)
                    > > with Ayers.
                    > > > > And yes, Ayers did hold a fundraiser once for Obama in his
                    home.
                    > > And yes,
                    > > > > Obama did give Ayers a nice quote for his book. But none of
                    > > these, by
                    > > > > themselves, justify voting against Obama, who has condemned
                    > > Ayers' past
                    > > > > terrorist acts. Frankly, I think Senator McCain was
                    irrational to
                    > > focus on
                    > > > > Ayers, when a much more rational guilt by association tactic
                    > > would have been
                    > > > > to tie Obama to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Clearly, Obama
                    has
                    > > had a very
                    > > > > close relationship, over 20 years, with Reverend Wright. The
                    anti-
                    > > American
                    > > > > vitriol contained in so many of Wright's sermons should be
                    some
                    > > cause for
                    > > > > alarm. Why would Senator Obama sit through 20 years of
                    Wright's
                    > > condemnation
                    > > > > of the country Obama purports to love? That is a much more
                    > > rational concern
                    > > > > than Obama's weak association with Professor Ayers.
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > 7. Voting on the basis of political party alone.
                    Unfortunately,
                    > > many voters
                    > > > > choose their candidate automatically because of political
                    > > affiliation.
                    > > > > Strong arguments can be made that there have been good and bad
                    > > presidents
                    > > > > from both parties.
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > 8. Voting on the basis of campaign promises. McCain/Palin and
                    > > Obama/Biden
                    > > > > are playing the same game: saying whatever you have to say to
                    get
                    > > elected,
                    > > > > then facing the reality in January that you can't fulfill
                    most of
                    > > your
                    > > > > campaign promises. Instead of being manipulated by campaign
                    > > rhetoric, vote
                    > > > > for the person you think is best qualified, in terms of
                    > > experience,
                    > > > > intellect, temperament, and political philosophy.
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > If you vote, please vote RATIONALLY! And please visit my
                    blog, *
                    > > > > http://MissReason.blogspot.com*
                    <http://MissReason.blogspot.com>
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >


                  • gary popkin
                    Special interests with a political or financial interest in the outcome of an election would still vote--unions, trial lawyers, companies dependent on
                    Message 9 of 20 , Nov 1, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Special interests with a political or financial interest in the outcome of an election would still vote--unions, trial lawyers, companies dependent on government contracts, farmers, etc.--and control the outcome of elections, just as they do now. Our votes don't count.





                      --- On Sat, 11/1/08, Nicolas Leobold <nleobold@...> wrote:

                      But what about the argument that if everyone thought that way, no one
                      would vote for the best candidate?


                    • gary popkin
                      Nat would tell you that he supported the internment of ethnic Japanese in World War II, because it was the legal law at the time. He also supported Jim Crow
                      Message 10 of 20 , Nov 1, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Nat would tell you that he supported the internment of ethnic Japanese in World War II, because it was the legal law at the time. He also supported Jim Crow segregation, because it was the legal law. He supported the Fugitive Slave Act, because it was legally passed by the legislature. He supported alcohol prohibition when it was the legal law. He supported the death march of the Cherokee because it was the law. Thanks, Nat.



                        --- On Sat, 11/1/08, Nicolas Leobold <nleobold@...> wrote:

                        "Illegal" immigration is only "illegal" according to our present
                        government's evil laws, not according to Natural Law.


                      • Jim Lesczynski
                        Exactly. But it s the law is a concept you should grow out of around the same time you stop leaving teeth for the tooth fairy.
                        Message 11 of 20 , Nov 1, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Exactly. "But it's the law" is a concept you should
                          grow out of around the same time you stop leaving
                          teeth for the tooth fairy.


                          --- gary popkin <garypopkin@...> wrote:

                          > Nat would tell you that he supported the internment
                          > of ethnic Japanese in World War II, because it was
                          > the legal law at the time. He also supported Jim
                          > Crow segregation, because it was the legal law. He
                          > supported the Fugitive Slave Act, because it was
                          > legally passed by the legislature. He supported
                          > alcohol prohibition when it was the legal law. He
                          > supported the death march of the Cherokee because it
                          > was the law. Thanks, Nat.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- On Sat, 11/1/08, Nicolas Leobold
                          > <nleobold@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > "Illegal" immigration is only "illegal"
                          > according to our present
                          >
                          > government's evil laws, not according to Natural
                          > Law.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • N. Weiner
                          Before you put 1 and 1 together and make it 111: As opposed to mindlessly following the Libertarian creed of open borders (gosh, golly, gee whiz, that s the
                          Message 12 of 20 , Nov 2, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Before you put 1 and 1 together and make it 111:

                            As opposed to mindlessly following the Libertarian creed of open
                            borders (gosh, golly, gee whiz, that's the law of the Libertarians,
                            let's mindlessly follow it and not question it):

                            1) Jim Crow, Prohibition, etc., were the laws of the land. We'll argue
                            about the how wrong they were later. But they were the law of the
                            land. Just as immigration is. No one gives a public official who has
                            the right to place his hand on the Constitution, swear to preserve
                            protect and defend it, then ignore that same law simply because (s)he
                            chooses which laws to enforce and which to ignore.

                            2) If you recall, in 2006 and 2007, bills to give millions of people a
                            path to guest worker and amnesty failed. They failed because hundreds
                            of thousands of citizens told their senators they would not allow this
                            to happen. The will of the majority of the people. What Libertarianism
                            is all about, no?

                            3) Before espousing the romantic notion of all the illegals in this
                            country being innocent martyrs seeking a new life, try looking at all
                            the consequences of allowing a tidal wave of Third World refugees into
                            the country.

                            Nat

                            --- In ManhattanLibertarians@yahoogroups.com, gary popkin
                            <garypopkin@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Nat would tell you that he supported the internment of ethnic
                            Japanese in World War II, because it was the legal law at the time. He
                            also supported Jim Crow segregation, because it was the legal law. He
                            supported the Fugitive Slave Act, because it was legally passed by the
                            legislature. He supported alcohol prohibition when it was the legal
                            law. He supported the death march of the Cherokee because it was the
                            law. Thanks, Nat.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > --- On Sat, 11/1/08, Nicolas Leobold <nleobold@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > "Illegal" immigration is only "illegal" according to our
                            present
                            >
                            > government's evil laws, not according to Natural Law.
                            >
                          • N. Weiner
                            Jim, A civilized society ceases to exist without laws. Not that I d probably do this because at 6 2 I feel like a midget next to you, Jim, but if I went to
                            Message 13 of 20 , Nov 2, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Jim,

                              A "civilized" society ceases to exist without laws. Not that I'd
                              probably do this because at 6' 2" I feel like a midget next to you,
                              Jim, but if I went to you and punched you in the face because you
                              irked me because you disagreed with me, should I say, "it's the law,
                              but I feel I have the right to do it because you disagree with me?"

                              There are procedures to be followed when entering this country.
                              It's the law. If Noboma or McLame disagree with the law, it is their
                              right to attempt to change. Nothing gives an elected official the
                              right to place his hand on the Constitution, swear to preserve,
                              protect, and defend the Constitution, then ignore it and allow
                              millions of illegal immigrants to run amok in this country.

                              As just one shining example of the hypocrisy of our elected
                              officials. In July, 2006, Bloomberg testified before Congress that
                              illegals should be legalized. He gave arguments such as the economy
                              collapsing without illegals, the impossibility of deporting 12,000,000
                              illegals, etc. I disagree, but if you want to debate them, fair
                              enough. But about six months ago, an illegal who was working for ACS
                              was busted using a fake social security number. How do you on the one
                              hand testify in favor of guest worker and amnesty, but on the other
                              hand get bent out of shape about one of those illegals working for you?

                              Nat

                              --- In ManhattanLibertarians@yahoogroups.com, Jim Lesczynski
                              <lesczynski@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Exactly. "But it's the law" is a concept you should
                              > grow out of around the same time you stop leaving
                              > teeth for the tooth fairy.
                              >
                              >
                              > --- gary popkin <garypopkin@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > > Nat would tell you that he supported the internment
                              > > of ethnic Japanese in World War II, because it was
                              > > the legal law at the time. He also supported Jim
                              > > Crow segregation, because it was the legal law. He
                              > > supported the Fugitive Slave Act, because it was
                              > > legally passed by the legislature. He supported
                              > > alcohol prohibition when it was the legal law. He
                              > > supported the death march of the Cherokee because it
                              > > was the law. Thanks, Nat.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > --- On Sat, 11/1/08, Nicolas Leobold
                              > > <nleobold@...> wrote:
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > "Illegal" immigration is only "illegal"
                              > > according to our present
                              > >
                              > > government's evil laws, not according to Natural
                              > > Law.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              >
                            • gary popkin
                              Absolutely not. Our natural rights, our inalienable rights, exactly cannot be abrogated by a vote. There are some matters, such as the right to self-defense
                              Message 14 of 20 , Nov 2, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Absolutely not. Our natural rights, our inalienable rights, exactly cannot be abrogated by a vote. There are some matters, such as the right to self-defense and the right to private property, that are not subject to a vote in a free society. That is what makes democracy the exact opposite of freedom. I suppose your failure to understand that is what informs all your nonsensical remarks.



                                --- On Sun, 11/2/08, N. Weiner <sswusfc@...> wrote:
                                 



                                The will of the majority of the people. What Libertarianism
                                is all about, no?


                              • cameron weber
                                well because of the way the politicians have set up the voting districts the votes of a few in FLA and NM and maybe one or two other places do actually
                                Message 15 of 20 , Nov 2, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                   
                                  well  because of the way the politicians have set up the voting districts
                                  the votes of a few in FLA and NM and maybe one or two other places
                                  do actually determine the outcome (?).
                                  most other places yes our votes dont really matter.
                                   
                                  that is why we libertarians keep stressing 'negative rights' eg
                                  that we have the right to be free from harm. 
                                  cause the system is such that it can be manipulated to help
                                  insiders at the expense of everyone else.  thus the smaller government
                                  is the less harm it can do. 
                                   
                                  the ultimate welfare state we have now has set it up that we need the government
                                  to help control the economy to prevent the worst downside from happening.  when in fact
                                  it has been the government manipulation that has caused the econ problems in the first place !
                                  and the more it mucks around in controlling (and thinking that economy is) aggregates, the more
                                  aggregate problems there will be.  at least today, unlike the 1930s, unionization is way down, so
                                  wages can go down when prices go down so maybe there wont be the huge unemployment, and,
                                  the internet means that information costs are way down so the economy is much more flexible than in
                                  the 1930s. 
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   
                                   





                                  To: ManhattanLibertarians@yahoogroups.com
                                  From: evanisaac2@...
                                  Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 13:09:21 -0400
                                  Subject: Re: [ManhattanLibertarians] Re: Who Should I Vote For?

                                  how is that an argument?  that's exactly the same point Im making.

                                  the only chance of your vote mattering is if "everyone thought that way too" (or almost everyone).

                                  you will get hit by lightning before this occurs.




                                  On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Nicolas Leobold <nleobold@msn. com> wrote:

                                  But what about the argument that if everyone thought that way, no one
                                  would vote for the best candidate?



                                  --- In ManhattanLibertaria ns@yahoogroups. com, "Evan Isaac"
                                  <evanisaac2@. ..> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > how is voting rational at all when there are better odds of getting
                                  hit by
                                  > lightning on the way to the polls than for one vote to affect
                                  anything?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Miss Reason <miss.reason@ ...>
                                  wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > Millions of Americans will vote in the 2008 Presidential
                                  Election.
                                  > > Sadly, only a small percentage will make a rational choice. I
                                  will not
                                  > > presume to recommend a candidate to you. Rational arguments can
                                  be made to
                                  > > vote for McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. Instead, I will list a few
                                  of the
                                  > > IRRATIONAL ideas that will motivate the votes of many.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > 1. Voting against McCain because he is too old. Senator McCain's
                                  age is
                                  > > certainly a rational concern. He will be older than all previous
                                  presidents
                                  > > on their Inauguration Day. The five and a half years he spent as
                                  a POW at
                                  > > the "Hanoi Hilton" have probably aged him even more than the
                                  average 72 year
                                  > > old man. So his chances of dying during his first term are
                                  greater than
                                  > > those of probably every other president in American history.
                                  However, if you
                                  > > believe that Governor Palin would be a better President than
                                  Senator Obama,
                                  > > voting against McCain because of his age would not be a rational
                                  choice. If
                                  > > you believe that Governor Palin would not be a good President,
                                  then McCain's
                                  > > age could be cause for you to vote for Obama/Biden.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > 2. Voting against Obama because he is black. Obviously an
                                  irrational idea.
                                  > > In fact, a rational argument can be made that it would be good to
                                  vote for
                                  > > Obama because of his race. I know, it seems like a contradiction
                                  to
                                  > > DISCOURAGE voting against Obama because of his race and yet
                                  ENCOURAGE voting
                                  > > for Obama because of his race. Seems like reverse racism. Well so
                                  be it. The
                                  > > historic election of America's first African-American President
                                  would be a
                                  > > good thing, provided he does a good job. I leave it to you to
                                  decide whether
                                  > > Obama would be a good president. If you think he would be a bad
                                  president,
                                  > > you should vote against him, even if you think that the concept
                                  of electing
                                  > > America's first black president is a good one.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > 3. Voting for Obama because he represents CHANGE. Yes, Senator
                                  Obama is
                                  > > likely to do things radically different from President Bush. But
                                  not all
                                  > > change is good. Unless you have strong reason to believe that
                                  Obama's
                                  > > changes would be good, you should not vote for him. Also bear in
                                  mind that
                                  > > Senator McCain is likely to do many things differently from
                                  President Bush.
                                  > > Any change in administrations is going to bring about change in
                                  policies.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > 4. Voting against McCain because he is identical to President
                                  Bush.
                                  > > Clearly, despite the constant attempts of the Obama Campaign to
                                  depict
                                  > > McCain as Bush's clone, John McCain is NOT George W. Bush. On the
                                  other
                                  > > hand, McCain has stated that he has voted with Bush 90% of the
                                  time, so if
                                  > > you believe Bush was a terrible president, it would be rational
                                  to weigh
                                  > > that in your vote. On the other hand, if you think Bush has done
                                  a good job,
                                  > > this would be a strong argument for voting for McCain.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > 5. Voting for a candidate because you like his/her personality.
                                  We do not
                                  > > have the luxury of voting for the candidate we would "like to
                                  have a beer
                                  > > with." The power of the presidency, for both good or evil, is so
                                  massive,
                                  > > only rational arguments should guide your decision. I cringe
                                  every time I
                                  > > hear someone say they are voting for a candidate because he/she
                                  is just like
                                  > > me. Unless you believe that you personally would be a good
                                  president, would
                                  > > it not be better to vote for someone far superior to yourself?
                                  Ignorant,
                                  > > irrational voters often vote against a candidate because "he is a
                                  > > pointy-headed intellectual" or other nonsensical things. Many
                                  appear to
                                  > > believe that Joe Six-Pack or Joe the Plumber are more qualified
                                  to be
                                  > > president than some of the candidates on the ballot. How about
                                  voting for
                                  > > Joe the Brilliant Thinker instead.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > 6. Voting against Obama because of his relationship with William
                                  Ayers. The
                                  > > McCain/Palin campaign has attacked Senator Obama on the basis of
                                  his
                                  > > association with William Ayers, the former terrorist. This is not
                                  a rational
                                  > > reason to vote against Obama. Yes, Obama has served on the Board
                                  of
                                  > > Directors of an organization (a good organization, by the way)
                                  with Ayers.
                                  > > And yes, Ayers did hold a fundraiser once for Obama in his home.
                                  And yes,
                                  > > Obama did give Ayers a nice quote for his book. But none of
                                  these, by
                                  > > themselves, justify voting against Obama, who has condemned
                                  Ayers' past
                                  > > terrorist acts. Frankly, I think Senator McCain was irrational to
                                  focus on
                                  > > Ayers, when a much more rational guilt by association tactic
                                  would have been
                                  > > to tie Obama to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Clearly, Obama has
                                  had a very
                                  > > close relationship, over 20 years, with Reverend Wright. The anti-
                                  American
                                  > > vitriol contained in so many of Wright's sermons should be some
                                  cause for
                                  > > alarm. Why would Senator Obama sit through 20 years of Wright's
                                  condemnation
                                  > > of the country Obama purports to love? That is a much more
                                  rational concern
                                  > > than Obama's weak association with Professor Ayers.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > 7. Voting on the basis of political party alone. Unfortunately,
                                  many voters
                                  > > choose their candidate automatically because of political
                                  affiliation.
                                  > > Strong arguments can be made that there have been good and bad
                                  presidents
                                  > > from both parties.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > 8. Voting on the basis of campaign promises. McCain/Palin and
                                  Obama/Biden
                                  > > are playing the same game: saying whatever you have to say to get
                                  elected,
                                  > > then facing the reality in January that you can't fulfill most of
                                  your
                                  > > campaign promises. Instead of being manipulated by campaign
                                  rhetoric, vote
                                  > > for the person you think is best qualified, in terms of
                                  experience,
                                  > > intellect, temperament, and political philosophy.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > If you vote, please vote RATIONALLY! And please visit my blog, *
                                  > > http://MissReason. blogspot. com* <http://MissReason. blogspot. com>
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  >





                                  See how Windows Mobile brings your life together—at home, work, or on the go. See Now
                                • Jim Lesczynski
                                  ... Of course not. More importantly, even if it weren t the law (and even if I didn t have a height advantage), I am confident you would not think you had a
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Nov 3, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- "N. Weiner" <sswusfc@...> wrote:

                                    > Jim,
                                    >
                                    > A "civilized" society ceases to exist without
                                    > laws. Not that I'd
                                    > probably do this because at 6' 2" I feel like a
                                    > midget next to you,
                                    > Jim, but if I went to you and punched you in the
                                    > face because you
                                    > irked me because you disagreed with me, should I
                                    > say, "it's the law,
                                    > but I feel I have the right to do it because you
                                    > disagree with me?"

                                    Of course not. More importantly, even if it weren't
                                    the law (and even if I didn't have a height
                                    advantage), I am confident you would not think you had
                                    a right to punch me for disagreeing with you. You
                                    wouldn't punch me because you realize that it would be
                                    wrong, regardless of what the law says.

                                    Jim
                                  • Antonio SJ Musumeci
                                    A civilized society needs rules. Not statutes passed by an authority with a monopoly on force. Modern usage of law often is limited to statutes. Just because a
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Nov 3, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      A civilized society needs rules. Not statutes passed by an authority
                                      with a monopoly on force. Modern usage of law often is limited to
                                      statutes. Just because a law exists doesn't mean it's good or bad.
                                      Morally or utilitarian. Bad laws/statutes, should be, need to be
                                      resisted and fought. Politically and apolitically.


                                      --
                                      Antonio SJ Musumeci
                                      bile@...
                                      http://blogofbile.com
                                      http://libertyactivism.info

                                      On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 07:27:31 -0800 (PST)
                                      Jim Lesczynski <lesczynski@...> wrote:

                                      >
                                      > --- "N. Weiner" <sswusfc@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > Jim,
                                      > >
                                      > > A "civilized" society ceases to exist without
                                      > > laws. Not that I'd
                                      > > probably do this because at 6' 2" I feel like a
                                      > > midget next to you,
                                      > > Jim, but if I went to you and punched you in the
                                      > > face because you
                                      > > irked me because you disagreed with me, should I
                                      > > say, "it's the law,
                                      > > but I feel I have the right to do it because you
                                      > > disagree with me?"
                                      >
                                      > Of course not. More importantly, even if it weren't
                                      > the law (and even if I didn't have a height
                                      > advantage), I am confident you would not think you had
                                      > a right to punch me for disagreeing with you. You
                                      > wouldn't punch me because you realize that it would be
                                      > wrong, regardless of what the law says.
                                      >
                                      > Jim
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                    • Nicolas Leobold
                                      It amazes me when I tell people, I don t pay taxes , or, I throw away parking tickets , and they tell me, But, that s against the law! , as if the U.S. and
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Nov 3, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        It amazes me when I tell people, "I don't pay taxes", or, "I throw
                                        away parking tickets", and they tell me, "But, that's against the
                                        law!", as if the U.S. and N.Y. codes have some mystical holy mandate
                                        to tell us what is good vs evil.

                                        In reality, all our present laws are are mostly political favors
                                        advantaging one class of people over another, or government over the
                                        people.

                                        When gov't officers refer to "ignorance of the law being no excuse",
                                        they are usually ignorant of the fact that when that principle was
                                        first espoused, there were only seven basic laws, like the laws
                                        against murder, theft, and assault. So it was fairly simple and even
                                        naturally intuitive not to be ignorant of "The Law" [real law].I
                                        imagine that when judges repeat that phrase, usually they do so
                                        deceptively intending deceit with full knowledge of the real origins
                                        of it.

                                        Nic

                                        --- In ManhattanLibertarians@yahoogroups.com, Antonio SJ Musumeci
                                        <bile@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > A civilized society needs rules. Not statutes passed by an authority
                                        > with a monopoly on force. Modern usage of law often is limited to
                                        > statutes. Just because a law exists doesn't mean it's good or bad.
                                        > Morally or utilitarian. Bad laws/statutes, should be, need to be
                                        > resisted and fought. Politically and apolitically.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > --
                                        > Antonio SJ Musumeci
                                        > bile@...
                                        > http://blogofbile.com
                                        > http://libertyactivism.info
                                        >
                                        > On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 07:27:31 -0800 (PST)
                                        > Jim Lesczynski <lesczynski@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > >
                                        > > --- "N. Weiner" <sswusfc@...> wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > > Jim,
                                        > > >
                                        > > > A "civilized" society ceases to exist without
                                        > > > laws. Not that I'd
                                        > > > probably do this because at 6' 2" I feel like a
                                        > > > midget next to you,
                                        > > > Jim, but if I went to you and punched you in the
                                        > > > face because you
                                        > > > irked me because you disagreed with me, should I
                                        > > > say, "it's the law,
                                        > > > but I feel I have the right to do it because you
                                        > > > disagree with me?"
                                        > >
                                        > > Of course not. More importantly, even if it weren't
                                        > > the law (and even if I didn't have a height
                                        > > advantage), I am confident you would not think you had
                                        > > a right to punch me for disagreeing with you. You
                                        > > wouldn't punch me because you realize that it would be
                                        > > wrong, regardless of what the law says.
                                        > >
                                        > > Jim
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        >
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.