I simply do not understand the "lesser of evil" philosophy

[uncollapse]

People keep saying that voting for 'lesser of evil' is principally wrong. Does it means that I have to agree with Ron Paul on everything before I cast my vote for him, else i would be commiting the 'political sin' of voting for the 'lesser of evils'?

Some argue that we should only compare our core political philosophies, if they coincide, it is not a lesser of evil vote. From what i experienced here, such a debate usually will be reduce to a purely academic/philosophical argument where the one can only hope to wins the debate through tacky and rigor persuasion techniques. For example, gun controls, one side would say it is against personal liberty, the other would argue it help protects the basic pre-requisites (i.e. safety and order) for a person to enjoy liberty. This kind of debate will go on and on with no end in sight.

What do you think?

[uncollapse]

....

[pinkmandy]

I don't understand people who feel the need to vote for someone they consider "evil" at all instead of voting their conscience. I can't relate to your question. Evil isn't someone you don't agree with on everything, it's more sinister than that and without a doubt the 3 "frontrunners" can't really be judged as being less evil than each other. They are all evil. You can only decide on a personal level who is "less" evil based on which rights you're willing to give up. If you aren't willing to give up your rights then there is no choice, you don't vote for any of them.

[uncollapse]

I don't understand people who feel the need to vote for someone they consider "evil" at all instead of voting their conscience. I can't relate to your question. Evil isn't someone you don't agree with on everything, it's more sinister than that and without a doubt the 3 "frontrunners" can't really be judged as being less evil than each other. They are all evil. You can only decide on a personal level who is "less" evil based on which rights you're willing to give up. If you aren't willing to give up your rights then there is no choice, you don't vote for any of them.

Are they evil because they embrace socially liberal ideas? then i am also evil since i believe in government spending on global warming, scientific researchs and programs for poor? Or are they evil because they commited a crime?

Pls be more explicit.

[acptulsa]

I believe perusing this thread will help you:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=127010

[pinkmandy]

Are they evil because they embrace socially liberal ideas? then i am also evil since i believe in government spending on global warming, scientific researchs and programs for poor? Or are they evil because they commited a crime?

Pls be more explicit.

If you don't "get it" you are on the wrong forum. A lot of people expose themselves by not understanding our core values. Voting the lesser of 2 evils goes against everything I believe in and I assume the same for most other supporters. We're awake and those who spend energy trying to figure out who the "lesser evil" is don't get the message. We are so misunderstoond. :p

[uncollapse]

If you don't "get it" you are on the wrong forum. A lot of people expose themselves by not understanding our core values. Voting the lesser of 2 evils goes against everything I believe in and I assume the same for most other supporters. We're awake and those who spend energy trying to figure out who the "lesser evil" is don't get the message. We are so misunderstoond. :p

It is dawning on me that I am indeed in the wrong forum... The vibe you are sending me is this "You are not fit to cast your vote for Ron Paul if you do not embrace everything he believes in." Your classification of 'good' and 'evil' is simply based on this political ideals. And you are forcing a 'religious' mandate that only people who traverse through this 'narrow' gate is 'good'. This is very disturbing to me.

[acptulsa]

It is dawning on me that I am indeed in the wrong forum... The vibe you are sending me is this "You are not fit to cast your vote for Ron Paul if you do not embrace everything he believes in." Your classification of 'good' and 'evil' is simply based on this political ideals. And you are forcing a 'religious' mandate that only people who traverse through this 'narrow' gate is 'good'. This is very disturbing to me.

I think you misunderstand the lady. When she says core values, she's not referring to everything. She's referring to very important things like preservation of our Constitutional liberties and a non-interventionist, non-imperialist foreign policy. If you do not believe in these things, you may well be on the wrong forum and no offense intended. If you do believe in these things, then we do not see how anyone else can do the job for you.

[MikeSmith]

It is dawning on me that I am indeed in the wrong forum... The vibe you are sending me is this "You are not fit to cast your vote for Ron Paul if you do not embrace everything he believes in." Your classification of 'good' and 'evil' is simply based on this political ideals. And you are forcing a 'religious' mandate that only people who traverse through this 'narrow' gate is 'good'. This is very disturbing to me.

Lol... vote for whoever you want, for whatever reason you want. If someone else will only vote for someone who exactly lines up to their views, that dopesn't mean you have to do the same... the majority of the population sure as hell doesn't.

The wars, habeas corpus, and torture are the only issues that I'm truly concerned about for this election. I will not vote for Hillary, Obama, or McCain for this reason. Paul is my best fit, but I'd be willing to vote for Nader or someone else who differs considerably from Paul's ideology.

A lot of people on this forum are very angry about various things (hint: election) and like to throw around their own rhetoric (hint: socialist). If you want to leave, that's fine. If not, that's fine too. Don't take anything on here too personally... it's just an internet forum after all.

[hotbrownsauce]

the debate on philosophy of freedom and liberty includes monumental amounts of differing opinions.

The golden rule of freedom, libertarianism and republicanism, was based on that each person is a sovereign entity with no claim on any other person's life or product of that life. For instance, I can not take your 100 dollar bill. And that is because you spent some of your life earning that 100 dollar bill. That 100 dollar bill is a manifestation of your life. Along with this goes your thoughts, speech, privacy etc etc.

Tyranny is the idea that you are prevented and forced not to do something you want to do.

A republic is a society set up in which certain laws are set in which can not be broken.

Our society was a republic based on the ideas of libertarianism and republicanism and that forcing someone to do something is wrong.

A democracy is based that majority rules. The majority of any mass of people that changes on each subject take away the rights of the minority until tyranny is rampant and everyone loses most of their rights.

Our mind set in the USA has become intolerant to one another and that we must mark the good and the bad. Our laws have been perverted and with the establishment of precedent in the supreme court rulings more and more perversion is committed.
Government can not run your life for you - Golden Rule. Many can argue the contrary, but history only proves that statement true.
When government becomes too involved in social affairs we lose liberty. Many who benefit from this will argue that it is beneficial. It is because they aren't affected and they don't care.
You have a right to your life and privacy and no one else can threaten that or take that away nor endanger it.
We are taxed to the brink, inflation is rampant and people are very unhappy. 1 in 100 adults in the good old USA is incarcerated.


The Original post; I guess it is correct to say it is always a vote of the lessor of evils. Since for most of us no one can match our feelings exactly. I always vote for who I think is going to do the most good. But I don't have to decide between two people who are complete opposites of me like Obama and McCain.

[Verad]

Voting for the lesser of two evils is, simply put, when you absolutely hate both (supposedly viable, see two party system) candidates that you don't want either of them to win, but you absolutely don't ever want X to be in office so you vote for Y, so that "At least X will not be put in office."

[Broadlighter]

I've talked with Republicans about this 'lesser of two evils' concept. Back then, Giuliani was in the race and this woman believed that the race was going to come down to Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. To her, Rudy G. was the lesser of two evils. She didn't like the idea of having Rudy G. as the GOP frontrunner, but she saw him as the opponent of Hillary - a greater evil in her mind.

This lesser of two evils idea is based on the notion that elections are like horse races. You bet on who you think is going to be the winner. Any consideration for the philosophy and platform of the candidate doesn't mean anything. That's just silly impractical idealism. The election is not about your rights or foreign policy or things that people really care about. It's about your team versus the other team.

It is complete, moral, bankruptcy to think along those lines, but sadly too many Americans think that way.

[Truth Warrior]

I've always thought of it as less that I'm voting FOR my guy than I am voting AGAINST the other more evil guy. Now if MY guy is perceived to be evil also, though less evil, then I'm voting for the "lesser of two evils".

I wonder what percentage of the voters are driven by this phenomenon?

[HollyforRP]

We can see the future by looking at what goes on now in other countries with less freedoms.

[Truth Warrior]

"Those that do not learn from history, are condemned to repeat it."

[virgil47]

Unfortunately in the U.S. these days the lesser of two evils concept means that you either vote for the lesser or you allow someone else to decide your fate. So if you choose to not vote do to your feeling both candidates are evil then you are willing to allow someone else to choose for you. It really is that simple. No matter who is running one of the candidates will always be less "evil" than his/her opponents. Yes the U.S. was originally set up as a representitve republic and not a democracy. I suspect that the vast majority of people on this board would fight tooth and nail to keep the U.S. from returning to that form of republic. Many of you will call bs on my last statement however if you actually look into how our republic and its laws were set up I think you will eventually concur. As for myself I am very, very conservative and would truly welcome testing to vote, a small poll tax, the requirement of owning property in order to vote, being 21 years of age to vote(having adequate life experience) and so forth. Some of you will rightfully point out that many of these requirements did not exist in the beginning and you would be correct but I feel they would be a fair trade off for allowing women and people of color to vote. So as you can see the people of the U.S. have been voting for the lesser of two evils for a very, very long time.

[Truth Warrior]

Though actually the only significant votes are half the difference between the two major candidates + 1. ALL of the rest of them just cancel each other out. So really the odds of YOUR vote ever meaning anything is pretty miniscule.

[purplechoe]

Are they evil because they embrace socially liberal ideas? then i am also evil since i believe in government spending on global warming, scientific researchs and programs for poor? Or are they evil because they commited a crime?

Pls be more explicit.

As someone one who lived under socialism and who's father fought against it as part of Solidarity, I have to say yes, you're evil though your ignorance. (road to hell is paved with good intentions) I would go even further in saying that you're a traitor to the ideals on which this country was founded on: INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY! The more power you give to the federal government, you might as well be voting for Saddam Husssein or someone of his ilk.

Educate yourself!

[uncollapse]

As someone one who lived under socialism and who's father fought against it as part of Solidarity, I have to say yes, you're evil though your ignorance. (road to hell is paved with good intentions) I would go even further in saying that you're a traitor to the ideals on which this country was founded on: INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY! The more power you give to the federal government, you might as well be voting for Saddam Husssein or someone of his ilk.

Educate yourself!

my response to you (i figured you deserve a thread to dwell alone to enjoy your individual liberty)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=127127