Am I voting for "lesser of evils" ?

[uncollapse]

I am a registered republican from IN. I believe in a centrists and pragmatist position on issues and adhor politicians who tow party lines without core principles. On some important issues, my stand are as follows,

1) A foreign policy of non-intervention and friendship. No pre-emptive war.
2) Believe in small government but strongly advocates programs on scientific research (i.e. NASA), global warming, programs for the poor in america (i.e. tax reliefs, subsidies etc)
3) Believes in personal liberty but will not compromise on security i.e. advocate stricter gun control

it seems like Ron Paul's position is closest to my beliefs now. Am I voting for a "lesser of evil" if I compromise on some of my beliefs and vote for him? Is there another candidate's platform that PERFECTLY matches mine?

[Truth Warrior]

Yes!

No!

"Any compromise between good and evil only works to the detriment of good and the benefit of evil."

"The main problem with pragmatism is that it doesn't work."

[uncollapse]

"The main problem with pragmatism is that it doesn't work."

"Pragmatism keeps you alive. Idealism makes you alive. Somewhere there has to be a balance, a compromise. "

"Pragmatism unstiffens all our theories, limbers them up and sets each one at work."

"Intellectual idealisms are nothing but assumptions that had never been tested. Any attempt to realise them starts with being pragmatic"

"While idealism would never fully take hold in the United States, it gave shape and direction to the emerging movement of pragmatism"

And I say, pursue a balanced diet.

[acptulsa]

No, uncollapse, I don't think there is a candidate whose position matches yours more perfectly. The only item I see on your list for which any candidate could claim to be superior is the social safety net, and on that issue I think I can make a very strong case for Ron Paul.

That strong case is Katrina. The federal government is inept and inefficient. It mainly takes our tax dollars and reapportions them to the states to spend on the ground. Ron Paul would eliminate the federal middleman, allowing your state to raise taxes without causing additional burden on the residents. They can then spend your tax dollars where it counts, without the federal bureaucracy taking a cut off the top.

As for voting for the lesser of evils, I'm glad you brought that up. A lot of people on this board of late have been arguing in favor of voting for the least of the pro-war candidates in the general election to stop the serious warhawk. Firstly, I see no need for that. McCain is running on a platform of continuing Dubya's policies, and Dubya is currently running eighteen percent approval. Throwing your votes at that would be like throwing pennies after thousand dollar bills.

Secondly, getting Ron Paul on the ballot of many states will not only be the proverbial big stick that will allow Dr. Paul to speak softly at the convention, but if that doesn't work it will allow us to split the conservative vote. This will do at least as much good for the "lesser of evils" as voting for him or her directly.

That's in the short term.

In the long term, the fact is that we must overcome the MSM's favorite tactic of pronouncing a candidate they don't like as unelectable. The best way to do that is to buck their system in as large numbers as possible. Assuming we can't achieve our goals at the convention (and I think that's still too large an assumption, but a possibility nonetheless) I feel the best thing we can do is vote in as large numbers as humanly possible. The average voter is very momentum-oriented, and if we can manage to put up a significant percentage in the general election for Ron Paul, then the anti-establishment candidate in 2012 is liable to attract all of those voters and more than a few converts. By the time we exceed twenty-five percent, non-viability will cease to be a valid argument.

Revolution or evolution--I'll take what I can get in defense of liberty.

So, I won't be voting for the lesser of evils. If you can't get your head past conventional thinking, you won't convert me. Thanks for your attention.

[Truth Warrior]

"In matters of fashion flow with the stream. In matters of principle, stand like a rock."

"Moderation in all things. ( including moderation )"

Then why are there any dead pragmatists? :D

[LEK]

3) Believes in personal liberty but will not compromise on security i.e. advocate stricter gun control

Help me understand this stance. Stricter gun control only means that the citizens will have their guns taken away and the criminals will go underground to get them.

Also - we are at more risk for terrorist attacks today than we were before 9/11. The blowback effect AND wide open borders is a recipe for disaster.

Please read Ron Paul's Issues page and his Speeches and Statements to fully appreciate his careful and thoughtful logic on these issues. I really think it will help.

Issues: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
Speeches and Statements before the House: http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml

[acptulsa]

Oh, and welcome to the forum! Very good to have you here.

[acptulsa]

Bump

[Richie]

Voting for Ron Paul is not voting for the lesser of two evils because he is not evil. :)

[Meekus]

Hi uncollapse,

I think you would do yourself some justice if you went a bit deeper on your stances. The reason I say this is that there seems to be some items that conflict. Your usage of Idealism and Pragmatism are portraying a sense of "leniency" to me in terms of the political spectrum and governmental role. For example, your words of "Believes in personal liberty, but will not compromise on security i.e. advocate stricter gun control". That statement says "I like personal liberty up to the point of the 2nd Amendment because people can harm themselves and others with guns, so no one should be free enough to own a gun." Expanded to: People should have liberty and be free but only to a point for we must preserve the greater good.

The problem with this ideology is that it does not take into account the notion of individual liberty. It is not the intended, nor the ideal role of government to limit individual liberty in any way, shape, or form. It's role is to protect liberty, never revoke it. The moment we start to think that because an unsavory individual may commit a crime with a gun, that ALL guns should be banned for ALL people, this is the moment we adopt this greater good mentality that destroys individual freedom.

If we believe government has the right to grant rights, then this would grant government the right to revoke rights. This is something government simply does not have the power to do, for our rights are intrinsic to individuals, not granted to us by the state.

It is faulty to lump people into groups. We must look at everything on a case by case bases. We can not deny an individual their personal liberty on the possibility or the potential that they MAY commit a crime. This is unjust, unmoral, and unconstitutional. This is the mentality that led to the Patriot Act, FISA, and a plethora of other things that would make our founding fathers roll in their graves.

To answer your original question on if you would be voting for the lesser of evils if you voted for Ron Paul, that depends on your definition of "evils". I can only say that for me, Ron Paul understands quite well these ideals and notions. These notions are just, moral, and in the spirit of our founding fathers. I see no fault, only integrity in the good doctor based upon his experience, and not lipservice or rhetoric.

I saw your other thread and I must say, I enjoy your postings very much. They prove to be very thought provoking for me!

[acptulsa]

"I like personal liberty up to the point of the 2nd Amendment because people can harm themselves and others with guns, so no one should be free enough to own a gun." Expanded to: People should have liberty and be free but only to a point for we must preserve the greater good.

The problem with this ideology is that it does not take into account the notion of individual liberty. It is not the intended, nor the ideal role of government to limit individual liberty in any way, shape, or form. It's role is to protect liberty, never revoke it. The moment we start to think that because an unsavory individual may commit a crime with a gun, that ALL guns should be banned for ALL people, this is the moment we adopt this greater good mentality that destroys individual freedom.

And, interestingly enough, gun control in practice tends to limit guns to criminals, while freedom to the point of allowing concealed carry tends to severely discourage criminals. Seems to me the ideological viewpoint tends to work the best in practice, too. Amazing how often this works out. Kinda gives you a little faith in humanity, doesn't it?

[familydog]

To think that pragmatism is bad, is wrong. Why isn't Ron doing a third party run? He thinks its better he doesn't because it will hurt his message. Sounds pragmatic to me.

I'm not saying compromise all the time, just pointing out there is room for both.

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

To think that pragmatism is bad, is wrong. Why isn't Ron doing a third party run? He thinks its better he doesn't because it will hurt his message. Sounds pragmatic to me.

I'm not saying compromise all the time, just pointing out there is room for both.

He hasn't ever been completely clear about a third party run. Or more clearly, an independent one. Steve recently posted this message, indicating Ron Paul has been holding talks with Bob Barr and is at least open to the independent idea if his supporters demand it:


I have been working on this for the past two weeks, calling major players in the grassroots, including wealthy donors, and even speaking to RP's brother, Wayne, and also his son Rand about it in recent days. Wayne volunteered to me that his brother never said he would not run "independent"--only that he would be guided by what his supporters insisted upon.

We are going to have to demand that he do it. And, he will--I believe. But we must demand it politely and persistently and we must reach a consensus that it is the right course among ourselves, AND QUICKLY.

I have also spoken to Congressman Bob Barr about this very topic a couple times, and he met with RP on Tuesday at 5:30 PM in D.C.

I agree that it must be an INDEPENDENT run and not a 3rd party run. Then, the ticket can go after the endorsements of all the third parties--even the Greens, though that might be the toughest one to get.

I believe if Barr is on the ticket, that his bulldog qualities would complement RP's qualities perfectly. Some have reservations about Bob Barr, and I must confess I don't know if his personal integrity is of RP's caliber, but he was better known nationally than RP at this time a year ago, led the impeachment of Clinton, and would leave the LP to run independent (I am convinced) with Ron Paul, if we could get this done. I am not, by any means, devoted to the Bob Barr option, and other excellent choices could be made with similar impact (Bob Smith, Walter Jones, Andrew Napolitano, Mark Sanford--the options are numerous...)

Anybody who wants to discuss in detail what I've been hearing/doing, etc. please call me:
207-532-3635.

For Ron Paul and the Republic,
Steve Martin
Meetup Coordinator #17
Aroostook County, ME

[jmdrake]

I am a registered republican from IN. I believe in a centrists and pragmatist position on issues and adhor politicians who tow party lines without core principles. On some important issues, my stand are as follows,

1) A foreign policy of non-intervention and friendship. No pre-emptive war.
2) Believe in small government but strongly advocates programs on scientific research (i.e. NASA), global warming, programs for the poor in america (i.e. tax reliefs, subsidies etc)
3) Believes in personal liberty but will not compromise on security i.e. advocate stricter gun control

it seems like Ron Paul's position is closest to my beliefs now. Am I voting for a "lesser of evil" if I compromise on some of my beliefs and vote for him? Is there another candidate's platform that PERFECTLY matches mine?

Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is when both candidates violate your core belief system and you try to pick one that does it a little less. Notice I said CORE belief system. What's most important to you? Before anyone announced they would run I wrote down my top 3 issues.

1) A candidate that's been CONSISTENTLY against the Iraq war. None of this "I voted for it, before voting against it" crap. (I've now generalize this to be being against elective wars.)

2) A candidate that was against the Department of Homeland Security. (I've now generalized that to being against the expanding police state bureaucracy.)

3) A candidate that has been CONSISTENTLY against the Patriot Act. (I've now generalized that to being against the continual undermining of our civil liberties in the name of "security").

When that in mind my only two possibilities boiled down to Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. I went with Ron Paul because he's against gun control. I know longer believe gun control makes anyone more secure. Just look at the school shootings. Many have been by people who obtained their guns illegally. (Proof gun control doesn't stop criminals from getting guns.) On the other hand look at the one school shooting that DIDN'T get much attention. It was at the Appalation School of Law. There students stopped the gunman while he was reloading using their own guns that they had retrieved from the trunks of their cars!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

Note that when CNN reported on this they left out that students used guns to save lives. Instead they simply said that students "tackled" the gunmen. :(

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/16/law.school.shooting/

Anyway, it seems that Dennis Kucinich most closely matches your views, but he's out of the race. (Odd considering you are a republican).

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Truth Warrior]

I find it very difficult to even THINK about voting against "Freedom, Peace and Prosperity". :)

[280Z28]

I am a registered republican from IN. I believe in a centrists and pragmatist position on issues and adhor politicians who tow party lines without core principles. On some important issues, my stand are as follows,

1) A foreign policy of non-intervention and friendship. No pre-emptive war.
2) Believe in small government but strongly advocates programs on scientific research (i.e. NASA), global warming, programs for the poor in america (i.e. tax reliefs, subsidies etc)
3) Believes in personal liberty but will not compromise on security i.e. advocate stricter gun control

it seems like Ron Paul's position is closest to my beliefs now. Am I voting for a "lesser of evil" if I compromise on some of my beliefs and vote for him? Is there another candidate's platform that PERFECTLY matches mine?

Those views sound like the average democrat. Government-funded programs that ignore the economy, and "liberty" that isn't really free.

I believe you have your views because you've thought long and hard about them and believe they are the best way to run our country. I definitely find that respectable. The pieces you are missing that would put you perfectly in line with a true freedom message like Dr. Paul believes in are:

1) View the federal government from an economic standpoint as a judge of the practicality of federal intervention in markets, including research
2) Realize that a small number of people will do bad things with or without anti-freedom laws. Those who follow the law are responsible enough to make a personal decision whether or not to carry, etc. It is not worth taking freedom from responsible Americans as a method of controlling people who won't listen to you either way. There are other approaches - and they don't involve taking rights from honest people.
3) Realize that state-level funded programs are fine, and don't force the entire country to bow to the high spending desires of those "in power" (quoted because they should use their power to limit their power, but they don't)

[ARealConservative]

I am a registered republican from IN. I believe in a centrists and pragmatist position on issues and adhor politicians who tow party lines without core principles. On some important issues, my stand are as follows,

1) A foreign policy of non-intervention and friendship. No pre-emptive war.
2) Believe in small government but strongly advocates programs on scientific research (i.e. NASA), global warming, programs for the poor in america (i.e. tax reliefs, subsidies etc)
3) Believes in personal liberty but will not compromise on security i.e. advocate stricter gun control

it seems like Ron Paul's position is closest to my beliefs now. Am I voting for a "lesser of evil" if I compromise on some of my beliefs and vote for him? Is there another candidate's platform that PERFECTLY matches mine?

I'm sorry to say that your positions lack any underlying rational thought process and it is doubtful you will find someone that agrees perfectly with you. You will always have to settle for "good enough" because there is no rules behind what you want - they are based on emotion and doing what "feels right"

You want a smaller government, except for those areas that matter most to you. In which case you will glady vote for an increase in govenrment powers to give you what you want.

Good Luck. We have the system we have now because of this line of thinking.

[Catatonic]

I don't understand what gun control has to do with security.

Gun control is murder. Ever notice the shooting rampages NEVER happen outside of no-gun zones? The media dropped the story of the mall shooting a few months ago as soon as it became known the guy didn't kill himself, but was put down by an armed citizen. No swat, no special forces, just a lady with a gun presented with a violent criminal. How many more people would have died if his rampage had been allowed to play out? How many people killed in the other shootings would have lived if even one of them had been armed?

The idea that citizens aren't responsible enough to handle guns is pure propoganda. In this nation's infancy kids grew up using rifles, and guess what, there weren't rampant murders. The idea that you're safer making sure ONLY criminals have weapons is laughable. I live in an area that had rampant violent crime, including home invasions, UNTIL gun laws were repealed. When your home gets broken into, what are you going to do? Ask the criminal to hang on while you call 911, then wait half an hour for the police to show up?

Consider this, if you're a criminal with a gun making your living victimizing citizens, do you want those citizens armed? HELL NO. I guarantee you criminals absolutely love gun laws. Why do you want to side with criminals?

The only argument to this is the fear that if people are allowed to own guns they are going to start shooting each other. For some reason people think we're all half retarded when it comes to guns and just can't wait to go shoot somebody. Even if that is your line of thinking, are you going to pull your piece for no reason knowing everyone else is likely armed also? No, you'll go somewhere that has gun restrictions.

If making things illegal caused all elements of the subject to go away, there wouldn't need to be a 'war on drugs'. Now there's a 'war on guns' which is really a war on individual rights and personal security.

[Fyretrohl]

I'm sorry to say that your positions lack any underlying rational thought process and it is doubtful you will find someone that agrees perfectly with you. You will always have to settle for "good enough" because there is no rules behind what you want - they are based on emotion and doing what "feels right"

You want a smaller government, except for those areas that matter most to you. In which case you will glady vote for an increase in govenrment powers to give you what you want.

Good Luck. We have the system we have now because of this line of thinking.

I agree with what ARC is saying here. If the Constitution is the only thing that Grants the Federal Government power and authority to act, then, it is the RULE of LAW. Just because it is a good thing, a righteous thing, whatever, if the Constitution does not authorize it, the FEDERAL Government can not do it. Otherwise, YOUR opinion of a good idea gives the Democrats all the authority they need to push THEIR opinion of a good idea. This is why Dr Paul has pushed forward Constitutional Amendments to define when life starts, taking care of the Supreme Courts issue in its ruling. If you don't amend the Constitution, then, legally, it IS a state issue. Same with Same Sex Marriage. A marriage contract is NOT a Federal Contract. The ONLY area the Federal Government has the authority to act is in insuring that a contract entered into in one state is recognized in another. But, they can NOT define the terms of those contracts for all the states. This is why REAL ID is unconstitutional. Drivers licenses are a STATE contract. However, it is also why the Government has the right and authority to prevent you using that State Contract from performing Federal issues, like boarding a plane or entering a Federal Courthouse.

[Meekus]

I agree with what ARC is saying here. If the Constitution is the only thing that Grants the Federal Government power and authority to act, then, it is the RULE of LAW. Just because it is a good thing, a righteous thing, whatever, if the Constitution does not authorize it, the FEDERAL Government can not do it. Otherwise, YOUR opinion of a good idea gives the Democrats all the authority they need to push THEIR opinion of a good idea. This is why Dr Paul has pushed forward Constitutional Amendments to define when life starts, taking care of the Supreme Courts issue in its ruling. If you don't amend the Constitution, then, legally, it IS a state issue. Same with Same Sex Marriage. A marriage contract is NOT a Federal Contract. The ONLY area the Federal Government has the authority to act is in insuring that a contract entered into in one state is recognized in another. But, they can NOT define the terms of those contracts for all the states. This is why REAL ID is unconstitutional. Drivers licenses are a STATE contract. However, it is also why the Government has the right and authority to prevent you using that State Contract from performing Federal issues, like boarding a plane or entering a Federal Courthouse.

This brings to mind something somebody once said to me - "Wow, you're a strict constitutionalist.". I told them that there is actually no such thing as a "strict constitutionalist". I simply believe in the Oath of Office that all elected officials recite, yet unconstitutionally do not follow.

[uncollapse]

For those who have different opinions on gun control/restrictions, I respect your position. I viewed the gun ownership balanced with control/restrictive regulations as totally legitimate and coincide with my personal beliefs in personal liberty, government responbility in protecting this liberty, and also preserving american historical believes in gun ownership as a deterent against tyranny.

As I stated in my opening post, I hold a centrist/pragmatist view on politcal isuses. It is a fact that US has the highest murder rate among industrialised nations with deaths attributed to guns dominating the statistical numbers. In addition, our world today has violence that pervades every aspect of living, from literatures, entertainment, video games and even children's toys. Gun control is a logical approach and one should not equate this with a ban on guns.

[uncollapse]

You want a smaller government, except for those areas that matter most to you. In which case you will glady vote for an increase in govenrment powers to give you what you want.


I said 'small government' not 'nanoscale government' or 'no goverment'.

[ARealConservative]

I said 'small government' not 'nanoscale government' or 'no goverment'.

right. small, but big enough to give you what you want out of government.

That's what we have now.

Just small enough to give the majority anything they want. ;)

[uncollapse]

right. small, but big enough to give you what you want out of government.

That's what we have now.

Just small enough to give the majority anything they want. ;)

The argument is starting to get vague when we steer this into a discussion of the 'measurement problem'. As of today, the NIST still has not establish a standard for the size scale for government ;)

But let me expand on my positions with the following quote by David Hume, "one poison may be an antidote to another."

Freedom/Liberty is a core constituent to the well-being of an individual. As understandably a human nature, some individuals in the society will abuse this 'right' to freedom in a way that threatens another being's freedom. Therefore, rules for socially condusive behaviour must be set in place and enforced. It should be done not so much to fatally poison the freedom element but instead as a touch to preserve it. Thus, government role is a stabilizer in the society that serve to enhance and permit the optimal possible level of individual freedom. On this premise, we can answer the following questions,

1) Global warming
Yes, Government should play an active role. It is not fun enjoying liberty in an overheated earth. Face the reality, the free market is not ready to take on this role. Monetary incentive is not transparent to the free market now.

2) Scientific research
There is no doubt that scientific advancement has advanced our living standard to the betterment of humanity. It is evident that government's funding in scientific research has created a well spring of inventions, creations, knowledge.

3) Programs for the poor
The poor also deserve a chance in society and in pursuit of a highest possible level of individual freedom. Poverty is also the root of crimes. Yes, community and churches could be more effective in this arena, but still poverty exists. Despite the ineffectiveness of government managenment of these programs, it is a society problem and government is obligated to attached itself to the responsibilities.

[ARealConservative]

The argument is starting to get vague when we steer this into a discussion of the 'measurement problem'. As of today, the NIST still has not establish a standard for the size scale for government ;)

But let me expand on my positions with the following quote by David Hume, "one poison may be an antidote to another."

Freedom/Liberty is a core constituent to the well-being of an individual. As understandably a human nature, some individuals in the society will abuse this 'right' to freedom in a way that threatens another being's freedom. Therefore, rules for socially condusive behaviour must be set in place and enforced. It should be done not so much to fatally poison the freedom element but instead as a touch to preserve it. Thus, government role is a stabilizer in the society that serve to enhance and permit the optimal possible level of individual freedom. On this premise, we can answer the following questions,

1) Global warming
Yes, Government should play an active role. It is not fun enjoying liberty in an overheated earth. Face the reality, the free market is not ready to take on this role. Monetary incentive is not transparent to the free market now.

2) Scientific research
There is no doubt that scientific advancement has advanced our living standard to the betterment of humanity. It is evident that government's funding in scientific research has created a well spring of inventions, creations, knowledge.

3) Programs for the poor
The poor also deserve a chance in society and in pursuit of a highest possible level of individual freedom. Poverty is also the root of crimes. Yes, community and churches could be more effective in this arena, but still poverty exists. Despite the ineffectiveness of government managenment of these programs, it is a society problem and government is obligated to attached itself to the responsibilities.

You claim a desire for limited government - but limitations require constraints.

We are an apathetic and ill informed populace.

You seek some sort of utopian society - I'm not going to begrudge you for it, I just don't think it's responsible to trust our population with the power you are willing to give them in pursuit of your utopia.

---
rules for socially condusive behaviour must be set in place and enforced. It should be done not so much to fatally poison the freedom element but instead as a touch to preserve it.
---

As I said in the very beginning - good luck to you.

[Nate SY]

1) Global warming
Yes, Government should play an active role. It is not fun enjoying liberty in an overheated earth. Face the reality, the free market is not ready to take on this role. Monetary incentive is not transparent to the free market now.

I agree that Global warming is a problem. But I also believe it is ignorant to allow yourself to believe that our government could to anything to stop it. We are only one country, in a world full of them. If you really want to stop it, you need to convince China first, and then continue to every other country. Now the one thing we could do is get government to stop protecting special interests that have a stake in industries that contribute to the problem, then the free market would be unbound and allowed to take care of the issue, or at least retard it as much as is possible.



2) Scientific research
There is no doubt that scientific advancement has advanced our living standard to the betterment of humanity. It is evident that government's funding in scientific research has created a well spring of inventions, creations, knowledge.

There may be benefits to government funded research, but how much waste is there in comparison? How responsible is a private organization with their own money, in comparison to an organization using the average citizens hard earned money? If the government backed out, private organizations would step in, and continue the research, as they would have a benefit to themselves. Also in addition to the continued research it would be with their money, instead of all of ours.

This also may be a low blow, but look at Nazi Germany. They had some extremely amazing things invented, tons of creations, and discovered plenty of new things... but in the end they were still fascist.



3) Programs for the poor
The poor also deserve a chance in society and in pursuit of a highest possible level of individual freedom. Poverty is also the root of crimes. Yes, community and churches could be more effective in this arena, but still poverty exists. Despite the ineffectiveness of government managenment of these programs, it is a society problem and government is obligated to attached itself to the responsibilities.

If poverty is the root of all crimes how do you explain men coming home and killing the person they catch their wife sleeping with? I know poverty contributes to crime, but it is not the soul factor.