Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Don't Vote As I Vote
Everybody's got a reason for voting, and they all stink
Something of Barack Hussein Obama's gassy, orotund manner seems to have rubbed off on his fans this endorsement season. The news media endorsement has never been a genre known for its pith or saltiness, but this year's offerings have been particularly solemn and heavy. The New York Times reported from a "battered and drifting" United States that its endorsement choice had "met challenge after challenge" in a "grueling and ugly campaign." Breaking with a three-decade non-endorsement tradition, the Los Angeles Times pronounced that it is "inherent in the American character to aspire to greatness." The Washington Post burst in, sober as a judge, to praise this year's winner's "supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building." Even The New Yorker, a magazine with no past endorsements under its belt, announced that "America needs both uplift and realism, both change and steadiness...a leader temperamentally, intellectually, and emotionally attuned to the complexities of our troubled world."
Having worked on endorsements at both large and small media, I don't make light of the work that goes into them. In my experience, journalists go to great lengths to compensate for their own biases, look at the facts with fresh eyes, and interview as many relevant parties as possible prior to making an endorsement. At the presidential level, this is all wasted effort, the end result of which is always an endorsement any attentive reader could have predicted. (In all the cases quoted above, Obama got the nod.) But I respect the effort. The reason endorsements don't matter (and this election, like all others, has generated its own raft of "Do endorsements still matter?" thumbsuckers) is that everybody, even endorsement writers, votes according to a set of beliefs and prejudices that is not transferable to any other person. The only reason this isn't obvious is that they only give you two choices in an election.
I'm probably going to vote for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) this year, and my reason is particularly indefensible. It's a straightforward case of reverse racism. For most of my life (beginning, I think, with a broadcast of that paean to racial harmony Brian's Song), I have figured that America should have a black president, and that if such a candidate ever came along who wasn't a complete disaster, I'd vote for him. That moment has arrived, yet it's full of irony: Usually I throw away my vote by betting on some third-party forlorn hope, but this year Obama's lock on California makes my vote especially superfluous and irrelevant.
And the candidate himself comes quite close to being a complete disaster. Obama has taken positions and even—with the slight peevishness of a man who knows he's been singled out by destiny and doesn't see much point in going through the usual channels—documented and supported them. To the extent we can piece together a portrait of the candidate, it's awful. He's a strident anti-trader and industrial-era dead-ender, persuaded that protecting decades-gone jobs in the Midwest is a national responsibility. He will try to enact some version of universal health care. On most issues where he's not worse than Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)—foreign policy, wiretapping, finance—he's just as bad. He may or may not be friendly with too many anti-American jackholes, but he's definitely too friendly with jackholes in general. His budget projections are fanciful. Worst of all, for at least the next two years he will almost certainly have the support of the majority party in Congress.
And yet in a dream, in a Nixon-era fog of progressive uplift, I'm ready to vote for him. And I'm pretty sure my reasons for voting for Obama are no dumber than your reasons for voting for whomever you're voting for.
For example, Obama soars through the Better Guy to Have a Beer With test. I don't trust the Better Guy to Have a Beer With test because in polling George W. Bush, a teetotaler, always won it. But in Obama's 1995 memoir Dreams from My Father, the first-person narrator repeatedly sits down with another character and orders a beer. Sometimes the reader is even told what the other character ordered. He keeps up the beers even after giving up some other intoxicants. (As both a drunk and a partial believer in the secret-Muslim theory, I was on the lookout for any evidence of halal behavior from the austere politician.) I believe Dreams from My Father has at best a novelistic relationship with fact, but it is an indication of how the candidate wanted to present himself 13 years ago. The book's revelation—that all the male figures in the narrator's life turn out to be, to one degree or another, self-indulgent fuck-ups—even gave me a sense of generational kinship with the sixties-born author. And if there's anything dumber than racial profiling, it's generational solidarity.
Is voting out of racial/role model skylarking any dumber than voting for a candidate because she's a she? It probably is, because the differences between genders appear, to my amateur's eye, more striking than the differences among races. (I might feel differently if I had taken the Walloon's hatred of the Frisian with my mother's milk.) There are solid, compelling reasons to vote for a candidate just because she's a woman. In fact, the sacred scrolls of my religion enjoin me to beware the beast man, to shun him, for he will make a desert of his home and mine. I look forward to the day when women run everything, I was hoping Hillary Clinton would pull a late-primaries pile-driver on Obama, and if there were any hope for Cynthia McKinney (a twofer!) I'd be right there for her now.
But this goes back to the chicken/egg wasted-vote argument. Is it better to make a statement by voting for an outsider or to make a less audible statement by jumping in for a major party win? Is this not the country that made national fetishes of the Cowboys and the Bears, the Lakers and the Bulls, teams whose only attraction was their predictable dominance? It's enjoyable to be on the delivering end of the beatdown once in a while!
This year, Bob Barr has promised a credible run by the Libertarian candidate, and by temperament and party affiliation I should be all for him. I certainly hope he stays with the party and runs again in the future. And while I believe he is a mostly reformed character, I spent too much of the 1990s wishing for a chance not to vote for Bob Barr to miss the opportunity now.
But this is starting to sound like the to-be-sure section of an endorsement, and my point is that endorsements are so meaningless they might be said not to exist at all. I don't lament that this article will not change anybody's mind; I rejoice in it. Because I'm pulling the lever for a man who was both born to be and bred himself to be the Optimized First Black President: boring, charismatic, thoughtful, handsome, slick—in all respects the guy of my long-held dreams, except that I always figured he'd be a Republican or a war hero. That's not a logical reason to vote for anybody. But then (unless you've got a solid promise of a kickback with a specified dollar figure), the math argues that there are no logical reasons to vote at all.
tarran|10.28.08 @ 4:05PM|#
Wow. What's the word for a multitude of words conveying little
meaning?
Tim, if you waste your vote on Obama, you really should turn in
your official libertarian card. :)
Seriously, WTF? Why do you want to add your vote to the avalanche
of votes calling for a New Deal? If you want to think globally and
act locally, you want to add to neither McCain's nor
Obama's vote totals.
Voting for Obama because you want to cast a vote against Bob Barr?
Jeez. What a waste! Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your
face.
In all likelihood, your vote won't affect the outcome of the
election, and yes the next president of the United States, whether
McCain or Obama will continue to wield George Bush's wrecking ball
on the economy regardless of how you vote, but you don't have to
actually add your voice to the chorus egging the wrecking ball
on.
Very disappointed, Tim, Very disappointed.
PicassoIII|10.28.08 @ 4:39PM|#
tarran wrote:
you really should turn in your official libertarian
card.
Eh ... close enough.
Drink!
|10.28.08 @ 4:41PM|#
It would be nice if voting for a black man would heal racial divisions but it won't. Obama will drop the race card and accuse his critics of being racist the first time he runs into trouble. If God forbid he becomes unpopular or loses and election, the spin will be that some people just couldn't acctept the fact that there was a black person in the whitehouse. The Repbulican Base is going to be pissed if this election goes badly. You don't think the media won't portray them as racist? Of course they will. People have too much invested in racial divisions in this country for the election of one person to change it.
Warty|10.28.08 @ 4:41PM|#
What's the word for a multitude of words conveying little
meaning?
Logorrhea.
Guy Montag|10.28.08 @ 4:42PM|#
PicassoIII,
You don't have to tell me twice. Already have my billing entered
and headed to Pentagon Row for some cheap red wine.
|10.28.08 @ 4:49PM|#
John, if Obama was going to "play the race card," don't you think he would have done it already?
|10.28.08 @ 4:52PM|#
Makes sense. Voting is the ultimate irrational behavior. I
limited myself to choosing, in each race, the best candidate that
had no chance at all of winning. Why? I want to be able to complain
non-stop for the next two years.
Also, I'm voting against a bond. I'll lose on that one, too.
Federal Dog|10.28.08 @ 4:58PM|#
"It's a straightforward case of reverse racism."
There's nothing "reverse" about it. You're a racist, full stop.
Your racist remarks are rank and despicable. Do everyone a favor
and spare the nation racist voting.
|10.28.08 @ 4:59PM|#
The screams of libertarians who make this mistake will be loud
and prolonged over the next four years if Obama wins. Either make a
statement about liberty and free markets with an LP vote, or accept
the consequences of voting for Leviathan. Race issues are way past
needing symbolic help, anyway.
For those who must vote Obama for some misguided reason, please be
sure to vote for GOP candidates for Congress. It's for the best,
trust me. The reverse could work as well for those silly enough to
vote for McCain.
Tristan Tzara|10.28.08 @ 5:02PM|#
THE MINISTRY IS OVERTURNED. BY WHOM?
BY DADA
The Futurist is dead. Of What? Of DADA
A Young girl commits suicide. Because of What? DADA
The spirits are telephoned. Who invented it? DADA
Someone votes for Obama. It's DADA
FrBunny|10.28.08 @ 5:05PM|#
It's a straightforward case of reverse racism.
That's not "reverse racism" if such a thing even exists. It's plain
old racism. Don't deflect your insecurities onto my dictionary
please.
I, Kahn O\'Clast|10.28.08 @ 5:10PM|#
Given that I cannot write in Ron Paul and given that I do not believe Barr's conversion and given that I live in a swing(ish) state I too might vote for Obama... or perhaps not at all....
BDB|10.28.08 @ 5:11PM|#
You guys should have gotten Dave W. to do it. That would have gotten an even bigger rise out of people!
gorgonzola\'s foil|10.28.08 @ 5:12PM|#
Tim, if you picked up the Walloon's hatreds in your mother's
milk ("Cavanaugh": VERY Ardennienne surname, btw) you'd probably
hate on the Flemings, not the Frisians. The Frisians have some very
nice horses though.
But thank you for articulating my candidate-based reason why I'm OK
with a vote for Obama. Structurally, the management of the federal
bureaucracy needs to change, badly, after this past run. Team R
cannot win. I believe there are some race-based positives to Team
D's selection for receiving my vote.
|10.28.08 @ 5:13PM|#
Does anyone really think it's "racist" to want a black president, in the same sense that it's racist to want a white president? I've yet to meet anyone who would say that, but it seems common on the Internet. I call bullshit. If you really think that, you have some strange ideas about race, to say the least.
anarch|10.28.08 @ 5:14PM|#
if Obama was going to "play the race card," don't you think he would have done it already?
He may be saving it for a pinch, so that when he's accused of
playing the race card, he can say "If I were going to 'play the
race card,' don't you think I would have done it already?"
Les|10.28.08 @ 5:17PM|#
The Repbulican Base is going to be pissed if this election
goes badly. You don't think the media won't portray them as
racist?
I don't think they need the media to portray them as racists. They
seem perfectly
happy to portray themselves
that way.
Federal Dog|10.28.08 @ 5:17PM|#
"Does anyone really think it's "racist" to want a black
president, in the same sense that it's racist to want a white
president?"
If race is the dispositive factor, of course it's racist. That's
exactly what racism means: discriminating based on race.
alan|10.28.08 @ 5:21PM|#
Does anyone really think it's "racist" to want a black
president, in the same sense that it's racist to want a white
president?
Gingrich made a comparison that it is no different than the pride
Greeks felt during the Dukakis run. Okay, I can see that.
Personally, if no one is elected from my ethnic background in my
life time, I couldn't give a rat's ass. It does not effect me one
way or the other.
However, there is a fantastic baseball player, and a boxer now that
I think about it, with my last name, and that is a bit of pride
boost for me.
|10.28.08 @ 5:25PM|#
Tim - meet joe.
joe - meet Tim.
Ya'll have a lot in common to talk about; starting with racial
self-loathing.
CB
former lurker|10.28.08 @ 5:32PM|#
Federal Dog, that's not the only definition of racism, or even the primary one, at least according to the dictionary on my desk. Racism also means the belief in the supriority of one race. If I vote for the black guy in part because he's black, it doesn't mean I hate white people. We've still had 43 white presidents and we'll probably have plenty more. I'm cool with white presidents. If I vote for the white guy because he's white, it could mean that I don't want to see a black president.
|10.28.08 @ 5:34PM|#
Obama will drop the race card and accuse his critics of
being racist the first time he runs into trouble.
Well, to be fair, I don't think Obama will. But his peeps damn sure
will. They are already.
Given that I cannot write in Ron Paul and given that I do not
believe Barr's conversion and given that I live in a swing(ish)
state I too might vote for Obama... or perhaps not at
all....
You don't have to believe in Barr's conversion (he ain't gonna be
the next President) to believe that a vote for him will send a
message. That's all that's left for us in this election.
Anon|10.28.08 @ 5:34PM|#
Wow, huge Democratic presence in Reason this week. I feel like
I'm reading the Economist.
...just without the paradoxical support of expansive social welfare
programs...
|10.28.08 @ 5:34PM|#
Honestly, I can't think of a good reason to vote for president on this single issue. We keep putting in obviously inept candidates, we're going to get what we deserve. What about the Vietnam POWs who haven't been elected to the White House? Where does this identity-driven nonsense end?
|10.28.08 @ 5:37PM|#
The terms "racist" and "racism" have been so devalued by this
election cycle that who really gives a damn anymore if they are
called "racist" by their opponent? Such an epithet becomes purely
opportunistic rather than meaningful.
Obama's race is pretty much the only positive thing going for him,
in my estimation.
nonPaulogist|10.28.08 @ 5:37PM|#
I agree the math says there is no good reason to vote at all. That's why I'm not voting. Math is not subjective.
|10.28.08 @ 5:38PM|#
Gingrich made a comparison that it is no different than the
pride Greeks felt during the Dukakis run. Okay, I can see
that.
Wait, Greeks were proud during the Dukakis run? I would
have thought embarrassment would be the correct emotion.
Federal Dog|10.28.08 @ 5:41PM|#
"Federal Dog, that's not the only definition of racism, or even
the primary one, at least according to the dictionary on my
desk."
It's the basic definition on which all others logically depend.
Whatever value judgments are used to justify treating people
differently according to race depends on the basic decision to
treat people differently based on their race.
|10.28.08 @ 5:42PM|#
Well, I'll be voting for the lesser of two evils, McCain, so at
least I can say 'I told you so' when the nation inevitably
collapses in a morass of quasi-communism and authoritarianism. I
have a few other quibbles with your post, which I'll share with
everyone, even though I know no one will probably even read
this.
I'm somewhat surprised that, after going through your ancedotal
analysis of Obama, you concluded he was anything less than a total
disaster. The kind of disaster that people read about in history
books.
I was also surprised that Obama won your 'best guy to have a beer
with' test. I wouldn't want to spend two minutes in the same area
code with McCain or Obama. They bother induce a gag reflex that I
can only imagine would result in wholesale wretching should I ever
be unfortunate enough to stumble into either of their
presence.
Finally, I'll say one thing about women. They are either
delightfully right or teeth gnashingly wrong. I've never met a
moderate woman, or a woman that didn't have an opinion, but I've
met scores of lackluster shiftless men who, while intelligent
enough, simply don't put forth the effort to care. Of course, that
is not to say that most women (and most men, incidently), base
their opinions on what might politely be characterized as
'ignorence of real life.'
Oh well, I suppose with Obama I can at least start enjoying my new
welfare, I mean 'tax cut,' money.
|10.28.08 @ 5:42PM|#
nonPaulogist - do the world a favor and voluntarily shuffle yourself off this mortal coil.
svf|10.28.08 @ 5:44PM|#
I was also surprised that Obama won your 'best guy to have a
beer with' test. I wouldn't want to spend two minutes in the same
area code with McCain or Obama.
You should vote for Barr then... he likes martinis and cigars.
You'd have to pick up the tab, though....
nonPaulogist|10.28.08 @ 5:46PM|#
Whether 'tis noble in the mind to suffer the slaings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of dipshits and, by opposing, end them. Tis a consumation devoutly to be wished.
egosumabbas|10.28.08 @ 5:52PM|#
Let me get this straight. Bob Barr isn't libertarian enough, so
you vote for ... a candidate who disagrees with most of the
libertarian philosophy.
*bangs head on desk*
Neu Mejican|10.28.08 @ 6:02PM|#
John, RC Dean,
Is accusing someone of future race-baiting because they are black
the same thing as reverse race baiting, or is it just race
baiting?
nonPaulogist|10.28.08 @ 6:04PM|#
I hate the idea of BHO getting elected, but I hate voters worse.
All voters are assholes, dipshits or both. I rejoice when I think
that the non-voter's implicit endorsement of "none of the above"
will almost certainly win a plurality.
Even Barrrrr is a IRAQ war-authorizing asshole. Fuck'em all. The
social contract is not legitimate and government is inherently
evil.
Famous Mortimer|10.28.08 @ 6:04PM|#
"If race is the dispositive factor, of course it's racist.
That's exactly what racism means: discriminating based on
race."
No, sweetheart. Racism is the belief that a particular race is
superior, or inferior based on their inherent racial make-up. What
you are describing is prejudice, which everyone is. Prejudice can
be based on things other than the belief in inherent traits.
It's fun watching Libertarians reduce to themselves ot the "the
country will be destroyed under a Democrat" routine that they
claimed was going to happen under a Clinton Presidency.
Enough.
You're almost red baiting, and it's unbecoming.
Neu Mejican|10.28.08 @ 6:07PM|#
I rejoice when I think that the non-voter's implicit
endorsement of "none of the above" will almost certainly win a
plurality.
The voters rejoice with you.
Neu Mejican|10.28.08 @ 6:09PM|#
A formula:
implicit endorsement of "none of the above" = explicit endorsement
of the winner.
Neu Mejican|10.28.08 @ 6:11PM|#
Of course it is really:
Intended endorsement of "none of the above" = inferred endorsement
of "whatever you guys think"
|10.28.08 @ 6:14PM|#
And I'm pretty sure my reasons for voting for Obama are no
dumber than your reasons for voting for whomever you're voting
for.
Seeing as how yesterday I voted for Bob Barr because he has been
consistently articulating libertarian principles I agree with, I
have to say that your "I am voting for Obama because he's Teh
Black" "reasoning" (to be mighty charitable here) is WAY WAY dumber
than my reasoning. If it is any consolation, your "logic" is
roughly as dumb as all my 9th grade daughter's classmates crush on
this bloody statist.
Wow. You've certainly managed to inject a great deal of irony in
the name of the publication you work for.
(Drinks.)
nonPaulogist|10.28.08 @ 6:15PM|#
You can infer that I want to suck your wife's toes, but it doesn't make it so. Participation in a fraudulaent process indicates an endorsement of the process. Whether or not Coke or Pepsi is chosen in your bogus "Pepsi challenge" is irrelevant.
|10.28.08 @ 6:15PM|#
nonPaulogist: in other words, VERY FEW (almost none) associate
"not voting = I hate all of the choices"...most people assume a
"silence = consent" rule.
Put it another way: if six of us are sitting around discussing
pizza toppings and you say nothing, the other five of us will
assume that you're "OK with whatever".
|10.28.08 @ 6:17PM|#
Participation in a fraudulaent process indicates an
endorsement of the process
And in what way is it "fraudulent"?
nonPaulogist|10.28.08 @ 6:18PM|#
I'm just about done pouring drinks. I'm gonna just start chugging from the bottle.
Orange Line Special|10.28.08 @ 6:25PM|#
I didn't read it, but I can tell already that it's yet another
in the long line of stupid things Tim Cavanaugh has written.
I'm going to include a comment I left at another site; see if you
can figure out where I left it:
One reason why some (many?) might vote for BHO is because they
don't want racists to thereby win. If he does lose, a lot of
racists will cheer. However, there are very few racists with any
actual power; it's not like the Klan writes legislation (generally
speaking). After a BHO loss, racists will continue to have little
or no real power.
On the other hand, if BHO loses, those racists will also
lose.
However, another set of people will win: BHO's supporters. While
most are no doubt nice people, many are not and are willing to do
things like look through someone's private records (JTP case). And,
many have fascistic tendencies. No, really. Who
knew that East Germany-style thinking would find such purchase at
DailyKos?
And, of course, BHO has a growing personality cult which would only
get more pathological if he wins.
And, those people above - the cultists and those with fascistic
tendencies - would have actual power after a BHO win.
But, wait, there's more. A BHO win would also completely validate
every lie and smear the MSM has told on his behalf. Extraordinarily
undemocratic press behavior would be rewarded instead of
punished.
That said, I fully expect Althouse to support BHO, because she's
simply unable to figure any of this out.
nonPaulogist|10.28.08 @ 6:28PM|#
Angry Proctologist-
If the choice is between a socialist who is a reluctant warmonger
and a warmonger who is a reluctant socialist, it's fraudulent to
claim that it is a meaningful choice. Even Barrrrr is like adding
Orange soda to the Pepsi challenge when what you really want is
beer.
Russ 2000|10.28.08 @ 6:35PM|#
I understand the "Catholic Guilt" reasoning.
I am in the "I'm not going to react to my Catholic Guilt" stage of
life so therefore I am using that as my sole reasoning for voting
"anyone but Obama".
Actually, the "I'm not going to react to my Catholic Guilt" stage
of my life is my sole - and the best - reasoning for staying away
from democratic processes. I am fully cognizant of the seven
deadlies and make an effort to apologize and repent when I indulge,
but "Catholic Guilt" includes millions more non-sins as sins than
the seven deadlies. Most people vote as an act of envy and vanity,
and lie about it to boot - reason enough for me to repent from the
process.
F F F|10.28.08 @ 6:37PM|#
A vote for Obama would be bad for racists? I'm definitely voting for him now to spite OLS.
nonPaulogist|10.28.08 @ 6:44PM|#
Buddhists are what the Hitchiker's guide would call "mostly harmless."
|10.28.08 @ 6:44PM|#
Here's a good reason for not voting. I just did a back of the
envelope calculation on my odds of being killed in a traffic
accident driving to or from the nearest polling place. Assumptions:
200 million votes cast, 41,000 traffic fatalities annually in the
US, six miles round trip to my nearest polling place, driving
12,000 miles per year. Chances of being killed driving to or from
polling place: .000000077% chance of being killed in the
process.
Fuck it, it just ain't worth it.
Neu Mejican|10.28.08 @ 6:46PM|#
nonPaulogist | October 28, 2008, 6:22pm | #
Nue Beaner-
You can "assume" whatever the fuck you want. If a convict gets to
choose Leavenworth over Lompoc, it doesn't mean he's
free.
You've convinced me.
I agree with you that the best choice you have is to refrain from
voting.
The voters rejoice in your decision.
Neu Mejican|10.28.08 @ 6:51PM|#
nonPaulogist,
I speak for myself and all those whose silence indicates agreement
with me.
8^p
Neu Mejican|10.28.08 @ 6:55PM|#
nonPaulogist's Thesaurus.
New Mexican = Mexican = Beaner, Spic.
Speaks volumes.
|10.28.08 @ 6:58PM|#
so far, nonPaulogist has used the words "kike, spic, beaner and nigger"...your mom must be proud of you, nP.
|10.28.08 @ 7:00PM|#
If the choice is between a socialist who is a reluctant
warmonger and a warmonger who is a reluctant socialist, it's
fraudulent to claim that it is a meaningful choice.
Not what you said, doodles. You said that the
process is fraudulent, so quit moving the
goalposts.
Neu Mejican|10.28.08 @ 7:02PM|#
TAO,
From his diction I am assuming nonPaulogist fits the intended
meaning behind my favorite line from Sexy Beast
"You're the fucking problem you fucking Dr White honkin' jam-rag
fucking spunk-bubble!"
Invisible Finger|10.28.08 @ 7:14PM|#
implicit endorsement of "none of the above" = explicit
endorsement of the winner.
Ah, the ol' Nixonian 'silent majority' logic.
|10.28.08 @ 7:18PM|#
nonPaulogist | October 28, 2008, 7:15pm | #
Okay, nuevo-greaser, let me use small words. The process is fraudulent because it is framing the issue fraudulently.
Wow, nP is getting so worked up he can't even remember which person
he is arguing with on what subject.
TAO & Nue Mejican, ya'll may wan't to lay off before his brain
'splodes.
|10.28.08 @ 7:21PM|#
Okay, nuevo-greaser, let me use small words. The process is
fraudulent because it is framing the issue fraudulently. It's Ray
choosing the Stay- Puft marshmallow man. Government of any kind is
not legitimate because the social contract is not legitimate.
Initiating force in NEVER right, no matter who does it (including
the state).
Good luck in that world. I think it's the same planet where
communism works.
nonPaulogist|10.28.08 @ 7:23PM|#
it's true. I've confused TAO with nue mejican. It's all the tequila I've been drinking. That reminds me...
nonPaulogist|10.28.08 @ 7:25PM|#
Mo- two hunert years ago they said that slavery could never be outlawed. It had been around since the dawn of civilization. We outlawed slavery forever and we can get rid of the state too.
|10.28.08 @ 7:25PM|#
The process is fraudulent because it is framing the issue
fraudulently.
The process isn't fraudulent and (here's a hint) the process
doesn't frame itself. People "frame" it.
|10.28.08 @ 7:26PM|#
We outlawed slavery forever and we can get rid of the state
too.
Ha! Would you like to "outlaw" the state, nP?
nonPaulogist|10.28.08 @ 7:29PM|#
The state is doomed regardless of my opinion. it is economically destined to die because it is inefficient.
nonPaulogist|10.28.08 @ 7:33PM|#
TAO-
A process is fraudulent if it is based on a false premise. Asking
if you have stopped beating your wife assumes that you were beating
your wife.
Asking who you prefer to rule over you assumes you prefer to be
ruled.
|10.28.08 @ 7:34PM|#
Look, I'm one of the "house liberals" but I've also a long
record here of opposing affirmative action (it's detestable),
immigration, and the "racial healing" thinking behind nominating
Obama.
However, you have to admit, that having a black guy win the
Presidency would be really nice. It demonstrates that to a very,
very, large degree, racism is increasingly irrelevant. I mean,
c'mon, post-Obama Presidency when you hear that Amerikkka doesn't
give a black man a chance you can just laugh, and laugh, and laugh.
Young black kids would have a much harder time buying that
b.s.
I mean, really, if a mixed race guy with an Islamic sounding name
can win the Presidency this REALLY is the land of
opportunity....
nonPaulogist|10.28.08 @ 7:41PM|#
I would agree with you, MNG, if racism was our biggest problem. Unfortunately it is not anywhere close.
|10.28.08 @ 7:57PM|#
Asking who you prefer to rule over you assumes you prefer to
be ruled.
You're still evading the point. There will be a ruler, nP, the
question isn't about that. The question is, how will they be
chosen?
jnn|10.28.08 @ 8:00PM|#
His whole dang point is that it is always irrational to
vote.
So there is no such thing as a good reason to vote for anyone. It's
not worth the effort, rationally.
|10.28.08 @ 8:00PM|#
nP
I disagree.
If you're black or white racism is like the biggest issue around
these days. Affirmative action is there to greet you in jobs or
college admissions, scholarships, etc. Racism is the topic of so
many f*ing movies and tv shows and music and uhh, I'm tired just
thinking about it.
Look, we've been a nation for hundreds of years now. We used to
keep these people as slaves. Then we treated them like shit on a
stick until 1964. To have a black guy win the Presidency means any
American who beleives in the words of the Declaration of
Independence should stand up and say "whooo fucking-whooo!" If what
bothers you is his "socialism" then, Jesus, every candidate has had
that for a hundred years. At least we are getting something good
from this one!
Neu Mejican|10.28.08 @ 8:13PM|#
Mo, '
Good luck in that world. I think it's the same planet where
communism works.
Good call.
All the flavors of anarchy (whether nonPaulogist's
"Anarcho-capitalism" (he would cite Austrian economics, "the only
true economics" to support the idea) or "Anarcho-syndicalism"
(citing Marx) require that people don't actually act like people in
order to be implemented.
nP is far more articulate on the Steady-state economics thread
above. I wonder how long it will be before he is throwing around
racist clap-trap on that thread.
Neu Mejican|10.28.08 @ 8:16PM|#
nP,
Asking who you prefer to rule over you assumes you prefer to be
ruled.
Ah, so you confuse the government of a community with the "ruling"
of its people. A simple conceptual error.
Thing is the legitimate process is one where the people rule
themselves. Toss out the rulers and replace them with rule of law.
That was the insight of the Founding Fathers (amen).
Neu Mejican|10.28.08 @ 8:19PM|#
MNG,
I mean, really, if a mixed race guy with an Islamic sounding
name can win the Presidency this REALLY is the land of
opportunity....
Remember, I called this months ago.
Of course pointing out that it is really an articulate Harvard
educated millionaire in the Senate who is looking to win the
Presidency makes it seem less groundbreaking.
nonPaulogist|10.28.08 @ 8:22PM|#
Anyone who thinks that racism is the biggest problem is by
definition not a libertarian. (drink). One may be a
libertarian-leaning anti-racist, but that's not quite the same
thing.
Racist (and I admit they exist and that they're a problem) are not
nearly the threat that the statists are.
How many minorities have been lynched this year compared to the
hundreds of servicemen killed in Iraq? None? One?
Get your priorities straight, people.
nonPaulogist|10.28.08 @ 8:25PM|#
Neu Fuxican-
The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Unless it is the
unanimous consent of the governed, it is not the consent of the
governed.
nonPaulogist|10.28.08 @ 8:27PM|#
I am not the one confusing "leadership" with control. That would be you, NM.
|10.28.08 @ 8:40PM|#
Wow, huge Democratic presence in Reason this week. I feel
like I'm reading the Economist.
It took you til now to figure out that, libertarian rhetoric aside,
when push comes to shove, Reason is Pinker than Pussy?
Surely you jest!
|10.28.08 @ 8:50PM|#
"Wow, huge Democratic presence in Reason this week. I feel like
I'm reading the Economist."
Maybe reason, like the economist, would like to have an actual
effect on reality rather than be a Father Coughlin of the modern
age...
Oh Noes, Reason doesn't hue to my exact paleo-libertarian stance,
I'm upset. Jesus, grow up and ENGAGE the rest of the world...
|10.28.08 @ 8:54PM|#
"Anyone who thinks that racism is the biggest problem is by
definition not a libertarian."
I'm not what you would call a libertarian (though I think I'm
someone who is friendly to a lot of libertarian ideas, hence my
Reason reading). But, as both candidates are going to bring big
government approaches why not choose the one who will mitigate
racism, which, I might add, had been a major justification for
government intervention since the Freedman's Bureau?
Remember, McCain contemptously laughed at Ron Paul at the debates.
We know where he was coming from....
Fluffy|10.28.08 @ 8:58PM|#
It just boggles my mind that after 8 years of W's administration
taking a gigantic dump on every small government principle, and on
every Constitutional right they could reach, after 8 years of
secrecy, surveillance and deception trumping every liberty and
every pretense at the rule of law, these Freepers still have the
balls to crawl around here trying to convince us that they're
better for libertarians than the Democrats.
Reason gets to be "pinker than pussy" for a few more years while
you guys live W down.
nonPaulogist|10.28.08 @ 8:59PM|#
Choose Himmler over Goebels! This lesser of two evils argument is tiring.
|10.28.08 @ 9:06PM|#
nP - your incoherence is getting embarrassing. The government is here, and it's here by your assent. So now you get to choose whether you're going to participate.
nonPaulogist|10.28.08 @ 9:11PM|#
Arguing over whether-or-not monetarism is superior to statism is like arguing over whether or not magnetism is superior to gravity. Opinions don't count for shit. History will prove the Austrians right.
Chrispy|10.28.08 @ 9:13PM|#
If you're black or white racism is like the biggest issue
around these days.
I agree that racism exists and that it is a problem. But it's far
from the biggest issue right now. The drug war, the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan, federal tax rates, bailout plans, free trade
agreements, and government spending (just to name a few) are all
much, much bigger issues for me than racism is.
We used to keep these people as slaves. Then we treated them
like shit on a stick until 1964.
That's bad, and it's a reason to support freedom for everyone, but
it isn't a reason to vote for someone just because he's black. That
would be a form of affirmative action, which is inherently
racist.
To have a black guy win the Presidency means any American who
beleives in the words of the Declaration of Independence should
stand up and say "whooo fucking-whooo!"
If that black guy is a person who believes in the Constitution, a
limited government, free markets, and personal freedom, then I
would agree. But in that case it wouldn't matter at all if he (or
she) was black, white, or anything else.
If what bothers you is his "socialism" then, Jesus, every
candidate has had that for a hundred years.
That's true, which is why I won't be voting for Obama, McCain, or
anyone else.
At least we are getting something good from this
one!
Name one thing. And "a black president" doesn't count, for the
reasons above.
nonPaulogist|10.28.08 @ 9:13PM|#
TAO-
I also would give my wallet to an armed mugger, but that doesn't
make mugging moral.
Taxes are theft because they aRE ENFORCED WITH THE THREAT OF
FORCE.
tarran|10.28.08 @ 9:16PM|#
Neu Mejican,
I just want to get this straight. If my daughter is caught drinking
a beer any time before 2024, she will be locked up in a jail.
She's three years old. Exactly when did she consent to live by this
rule?
If she's ever caught with a marijuana cigarette, she can be locked
up again. Where exactly in our nation of laws, is the U.S>
Congress permitted to pass a law outlawing marijuana? When did she
consent to such a law?
Did she consent by the act of being born?
The notion that an organization that tries to exercise a monopoly
on violence over some piece of territory is somehow legitimate
because some of the people living in the territory get to cast
ballots to pick a small percentage of the members of the
organization out of a pool of candidates selected by the
organization somehow means people consented to live by the
organization's rules is ridiculous.
I mean, if a super-majority of Americans banded together to make
black people be slaves again via Constitutional Amendment, would
you be turning in your neighbors to be sold at auction because they
consented to be enslaved by participating in the ratification
process in a vain attempt to stop it?
To go to the extreme, in Nazi Germany, whose leaders were appointed
by an elected parliament via a set of periodically rtenewed
Enabling Acts, all done neatly and above board, were the Jews honor
bound to report to the ovens, merely because the nation of laws had
decreed that they must die?
nP has it right. The state, based on the notion that one group of
people can force others to disgorge property against their will or
force people to carry out certain actions against their will,
cannot claim the consent of its subjects regardless of their
actions. If I vote, I am assumed to consent to the government. If I
refuse to vote, I am assumed to consent to the government. The only
action permitted to me is to leave and go into permanent exile (or
alternately I can pay taxes for my first 10 years abroad). And,
even then, if I try to go to someplace where there is no state,
like say Antarctica, I will be harassed and kicked off of that
land.
I vote in a vain, minuscule rear guard action against the state,
much like the girl who begs her rapist to wear a condom and
promises to submit if he does so, not because I consent to the
government. nP is honorably refusing to legitimize the process at
all by refusing to go into the polls. But don't try to claim his
implied consent merely because he refuses to play the game.
Russell|10.28.08 @ 9:19PM|#
Barr seems like a respectable libertarian candidate. For a
Reason writer to not support him is a little bit of a head
scratcher.
Without trying to be too serious about this, I would say this
article reduces the author's moral authority to be taken seriously
with his future works.
economist|10.28.08 @ 9:25PM|#
To the President-elect,
My only request this election season is that you use lubricant,
because that at least reduces the bleeding.
|10.28.08 @ 9:31PM|#
Chrispy
If the US is a land of equal opportunity, then why, in its hundreds
of years existence, has 13% of the population NEVER been representd
as President? That looks funny to a lot of people, US residents
too...
We have a chance now to pick someone who will repudiate that,
someone who is at least articulate and smart, and no more
"socialist" than any other Prez candidate...So it seems silly not
too actually... Remember "race disadvantage" has been used for most
major governmental intrustions since the Freedman's Bureau...to
mitigate that is to mitigate government...
economist|10.28.08 @ 9:32PM|#
"We" kept them as slaves for years? Nope. Not me. Can't remember even living that long. And in my case, ancestral guilt doesn't work, either, since my ancestors all arrived here 10,000 years ago or in the 1870s.
economist|10.28.08 @ 9:35PM|#
To be perfectly blunt, MNG, what's the big fucking deal? Honestly, what sane individual really wants to be president? Sure it's a great symbolic issue, but who really cares that much?
|10.28.08 @ 9:38PM|#
"The state, based on the notion that one group of people can
force others to disgorge property against their will or force
people to carry out certain actions against their will, cannot
claim the consent of its subjects regardless of their
actions."
tarran, that's nuts.
You and I and several others live on an island. Joe lives on the
island. Joe shits in the river which comes downstream to us.
Are you going to eat that shit, tarran? Or are you and I and
several others going to coerce Joe to stop shitting in the river?
And if we do is that wrong?
economist|10.28.08 @ 9:39PM|#
I would be perfectly fine with every president being black, or Asian, or white, or French (yes, I know that's technically redundant, except that I dislike the French), as long as I have my money and my health.
economist|10.28.08 @ 9:41PM|#
MNG,
Bad comparison. Worse things than Joe shit in rivers naturally.
Believe me.
|10.28.08 @ 9:41PM|#
economist
C'mon. My ancestors never kept slaves, they even died to free
them.
But you can't agree it's pretty crappy that no black man has ever
been named to a national ticket? I mean, even considering random
stats that is crazy.
So a black guy, or mixed guy, or whatever, winning the Presidency,
says some amazing things about this nation, dontcha' think?
economist|10.28.08 @ 9:43PM|#
MNG,
Plus, the whole point of tarran's post had to do with the idea that
"the state" has any special legitimacy or rights that could not be
held by its individual members, and whether being born and living
in a territory ruled by a particular state amounts to consent of
its actions.
economist|10.28.08 @ 9:47PM|#
"A black guy, or a mixed guy, or whatever, winning the
Presidency, says some amazing things about this nation dontcha'
think?"
Nope. It's easy to vote for someone, especially if you never had to
personally do anything to earn that vote.
economist|10.28.08 @ 9:49PM|#
Seriously, I wouldn't give a shit if a half-Cherokee were elected president, if I also thought he was a douche. And it really makes me no better if any substantive way.
Conrad|10.28.08 @ 10:01PM|#
@jt:
Voting is like breeding. There's not much of a case for it, except
that everyone else who's doing it is an imbecile.
I'm probably pulling the donkey lever, too... VERY reluctantly. I
usually vote for a third party, but I don't trust Barr, I detest
Baldwin, and, to be honest, I want to hurt the Republicans as much
as I can. They've had it. If the next four years are going to be a
disaster regardless, which I think they are, I want to help neuter
the neocons. I want Obama to lose, but I want McCain to get
slaughtered.
economist|10.28.08 @ 10:10PM|#
Conrad,
Considering that there's enough imbeciles voting Obama to pretty
much put this election in the bag for him, why not send a message
by voting for Barr? He won't get elected, so not trusting him isn't
really a problem.
tarran|10.28.08 @ 10:16PM|#
Conrad,
Why not vote for Barr?
After all, there's no chance he's going to win, so you're quite
safe. And ask yourself, even if Barr wins, do you honestly think
he's going to be worse than Obama and McCain?
MNG,
You don't need a state to protect your property rights. You can
talk to joe. You can build filters to keep his shit out of your
water. You can sue him to reimburse you for the damage his shit
causes (please note, the state is not needed to operate courts -
look at arbitration firms used by businesses in the modern era as a
guide to how non-monopoly courts operate), you can organize a
publcity campaign to convince people to shun him/boycott him. You
can even go and retaliate violently if his shit is toxic,
recognizing the losses such a war will necessarily incur.
I notice you still haven't answered how my daughter came to agree
to be locked up in a cage if she burns a particular plant and
inhales the resulting smoke. I'll help you out, read any of the
texts written in defense of slavery in the 19th century; I believe
they explored all the arguments in favor of one group forcing its
will upon another. There were some pretty inventive guys coming up
with clever rationales to prevent the crazy topsy turvy society
that would result if one tried to permit the races to live
together.
tarran|10.28.08 @ 10:17PM|#
Dammit economist,
Stop agreeing with me! I'm used to arguing with you! ;)
tarran|10.28.08 @ 10:45PM|#
We argued about monetary policy and about the role speculators
play in setting prices... I think.
Sorry, I am grading papers and I don't have time to look it up.
Grading papers makes me very cranky.
Conrad|10.28.08 @ 10:55PM|#
@economist:
I still might go for Barr. His conversion still seems fishy, and I
think he seems too ready to compromise on civil liberties issues.
But I would definitely regret voting for Obama. And Barr also seems
pretty articulate, which is the one thing Obama has going for
him.
You're making a lot of sense. You must be at just the right point
on the drunk curve.
|10.28.08 @ 11:02PM|#
"...Obama's lock on California makes my vote especially
superfluous and irrelevant."
Thank you, Tim. As a fellow Californian, I now feel even better
about writing in Steve Albini for President.
MJ|10.28.08 @ 11:24PM|#
Yep, Tim, that's pretty much the definition of indefensible. I mean a writer for a political opinion magazine cannot find a candidate to endorse for policy reasons?
Chrispy|10.28.08 @ 11:36PM|#
But you can't agree it's pretty crappy that no black man has
ever been named to a national ticket?
No, because the color of a person's skin is completely
irrelevant. I think it's pretty crappy that there are
people who would otherwise vote for someone like Obama, but choose
not to because he's black. I think it's equally crappy that there
are people who otherwise wouldn't vote for Obama, but choose to
because he's black. It's racism either way, and that is what's
really crappy.
The US should be a land of opportunity, I agree with you there. I
believe the best way to make that a reality is to make sure that,
as of today, everyone is treated equally under the law. Many groups
of people have been persecuted in the past, but we shouldn't use
that as an excuse for inequality today; two wrongs don't make a
right.
Obama is an effective orator, I'll give you that, but I don't find
him particularly articulate or smart. He's certainly "more
socialist" than other candidates (Barr for instance, although I
don't trust him either, based on his record.)
Remember "race disadvantage" has been used for most major
governmental intrustions since the Freedman's Bureau...to mitigate
that is to mitigate government...
This argument I just don't follow at all. You seem to be saying
that the government has used a "race disadvantage" argument before,
and that's why we should find it convincing today? Or are you
suggesting that to 'mitigate government' would be a bad thing? I'm
100% in favor of a smaller, less powerful government.
X|10.28.08 @ 11:45PM|#
Obama's not winning because he's black. This time, he probably breaks even on race. He's winning because of the economy. Historically, that benefits Democrats, even if their cures are snake-oil. The notion of Republicans shitting on the poor is enough to kill them in bad times, and they haven't done too much to stop it. It's hard to explain conservative politics to nouveau paupers.
jk|10.29.08 @ 12:16AM|#
I look forward to the day when women run
everything,...
Timmy, you're just beggin' for a wedgie.
|10.29.08 @ 12:40AM|#
does the author of this article claim to be a libertarian? tim, you better read your hayek a little better, or maybe you should read him for the first time.
alan|10.29.08 @ 12:50AM|#
So, change three things about Obama,
Change his mix race to that of Irish,
Change his Democrat affiliation to Republican,
Change his last name to Buchanan,
Would Cavanaugh still support a Protectionist like Obama? Sure,
Obama is not Pat on immigration, but that is only a matter of
social correctness, where one is willing to live with contradiction
-- you accept human labor crossing borders but not product doing
like wise due to political expediency (cheap citrus fruits don't
have votes).
From a libertarian standpoint neither candidate is acceptable, and
as others have pointed out, you only increase the legitimacy of
these bad faith actors with your endorsement.
Anon|10.29.08 @ 1:14AM|#
I've checked this twice today and there was a comment with the "n word." It was subsequently erased. Is this censorship or did the person retract it? If it were censorship, there would be a great deal of hypocrisy, no?
alan|10.29.08 @ 1:22AM|#
mean, c'mon, post-Obama Presidency when you hear that
Amerikkka doesn't give a black man a chance you can just laugh, and
laugh, and laugh. Young black kids would have a much harder time
buying that b.s.
Certainly it would be a less annoying world in that respect but
then again to what extent will the, 'but we have a black president'
drown out valid complaint?
'We have a black president, you can't possibly be serious about
police brutality.'
'We have a black president, high incarceration rates for non
violent offenses can not possibly be indicative of systemic
racism.'
'We have a black president, what's your excuse for high drop out
rates?'
Chrispy|10.29.08 @ 1:22AM|#
If it were censorship, there would be a great deal of
hypocrisy, no?
Not really. Libertarians are against government censorship, but
reason.com is a privately owned website. The owners/moderators can
censor anything they want.
alan|10.29.08 @ 1:26AM|#
Anon | October 29, 2008, 1:14am | #
I've checked this twice today and there was a comment with the "n
word." It was subsequently erased. Is this censorship or did the
person retract it? If it were censorship, there would be a great
deal of hypocrisy, no?
It is there site to do anything they want, but hiding the ugliness
of the world only sweeps it under the rug.
alan|10.29.08 @ 1:29AM|#
Uhm, could the Reason censor hide a little of the ugliness of the world by striking that 'there' and replacing it with 'their' in my last post and then erasing this post?
wengdongqin|10.29.08 @ 1:37AM|#
Welcome to wow gold our wow Gold and wow power leveling store. We wow gold are specilized, wow power leveling professional and reliable wow power leveling website for wow power leveling selling and wow gold service. By the World of Warcraft gold same token,we offer Wow power levelingthe best WoW service wow power leveling for our long-term and wow powerleveling loyal customers. wow powerleveling You will find Wow power levelingthe benefits and value powerleveling we created powerleveling different from other sites. As to most people, power leveling they are unwilling to power leveling spend most of wow power leveling the time WOW Gold grinding money Rolex for mounts or rolex replica repair when replica rolex they can purchase Watches Rolex what they Rolex Watches are badly need. The Watch Rolex only way is to look Rolex Watch for the best place rs gold to buy WOW Gold . Yes! You find it here! Our WoW Gold supplying service has already accumulated a high reputation and credibility. We have plenty of Gold suppliers, which will guarantee our delivery instant. Actually, we have been getting Runescape Gold tons of postive feedbacks from our loyal RuneScape Money customers who really appreciate our service.
Non-Racist|10.29.08 @ 2:04AM|#
Random points:
1) There exists systemic discrimination FOR individuals who are
members of racial minorities and accept a Popular Intellectual or
white social framework. Hence, most young whites have been
discriminated against much more than Barack Obama in terms of
attaining their educational and professional goals. (I still
maintain that there is rampant discrimination AGAINST those
individuals who belong to minority groups and who do not adopt such
a perspective - such as those adopting a traditional "black"
perspective: one which arose out of slavery in the South or black
society during the early years of this country, wherein
discrimination was prevalent and de facto segregation produced
divergent cultures).
2) It pisses me off to see Obama labeled as a black man when he is
not black. He is half white and half Kenyan/African, and was raised
by old white people from KANSAS. When a descendant of former slaves
attains this nation's highest office, I will then rejoice; Barry's
ancestors were never systematically wronged by this country.
3) Even expressing the last 2 points in an educational/professional
setting would likely be more than enough to get me expelled and
blacklisted from any future educational opportunities and most
private sector employment.
True intellectualism is dead; either preach the Popular
Intellectual secular gospel, or lose everything.
Roy-Mark|10.29.08 @ 2:39AM|#
@Non-Racist:
You're overreacting. I hear both of these points in my black
barbershop all the time. But if you're saying that academia is full
of it, I'm not arguing.
Neu Mejican|10.29.08 @ 2:40AM|#
tarran,
nP is honorably refusing to legitimize the process at all by
refusing to go into the polls. But don't try to claim his implied
consent merely because he refuses to play the game.
The effect of not going to the polls is the same as consent.
The effect of going to the polls is not. It is active dissent if
you vote against the majority.
There is also the option of revolt.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Neu Mejican|10.29.08 @ 2:43AM|#
The process of government currently in place allows for the
government to be thrown off non-violently.
That is the process that nP calls a fraud.
He's stuck with the government he consents to because he refuses to
be involved in changing it.
Grow up.
jk|10.29.08 @ 2:51AM|#
Non-racist,
3) Even expressing the last 2 points in an educational/professional
setting would likely be more than enough to get me expelled and
blacklisted from any future educational opportunities and most
private sector employment.
Random points:
Non-racist:
I don't how you would do in the public educational sector, but in
the private professional sector or in the public professional
sector you would be regarded as immature dingbat for bringing up
your points 1 and 2.
There's no blacklist. In a professional position, whether you're
tasked with writing a new computer program, developing a budget for
a project, or investigating the market potential of a new product,
no one you're working for will give a rat's ass about how black you
think Obama is.
nonPaulogist|10.29.08 @ 3:58AM|#
MNG-
if you care so damn much about 13% of the people being
underrepresented, then what about the 50% who are not only not
represented, but without peni or Y chromosomes? Surely that
argument holds for women more than Melanin-Americans.
nonPaulogist|10.29.08 @ 4:05AM|#
"The process of government currently in place allows for the
government to be thrown off non-violently. "
No it doesn't. Secession has been and will be violently suppressed.
The insane interpretation of the constitution currently being used
allows the Judges to overrule the people.
nonPaulogist|10.29.08 @ 4:13AM|#
Democracy doesn't work. First of all, it's just as immoral as
autocracy. The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. The
minority gets crushed--or are blacks the only minority you care
about?
Second, it doesn't work because the majority destroys freedoms as
often as dictators do. Hitler (drink) was elected. So was
Milosovic, Hussein, W., Mussolini, etc.
Democracy IS the best form of government, but it still sucks and
that is why government itself needs to be abolished.
anarch (pluralismus majestatis|10.29.08 @ 5:15AM|#
So a black guy, or mixed guy, or whatever, winning the Presidency, says some amazing things about this nation, dontcha' think?
We are not amazed.
nonPaulogist|10.29.08 @ 5:37AM|#
Tim Cavanaugh is right. His reason is indefensible. Come to think of it, Reason is indefensible.
|10.29.08 @ 6:50AM|#
that is why government itself needs to be
abolished.
And how would one enforce contracts again?
I see tarran says that the State isn't necessary to enforce
contracts and the breach thereof because "arbitration" will save
us! What he forgets is the only reason arbitration works is because
it's legally binding.
|10.29.08 @ 8:00AM|#
TAO is right about arbitration. Either the person has to agree
to be binded by it or they have an agreement in which it is legally
enforceable by some third party, the state. And as to putting
filters in the river, etc., I think I would just rather have a
state than having to guard against any encroachment on my rights by
other parties (how would I deal with tresspassers or looters [armed
guards?] or air pollution!).
"I notice you still haven't answered how my daughter came to agree
to be locked up in a cage if she burns a particular plant and
inhales the resulting smoke."
tarran-I am in agreement with you on this. My sister is currently
serving time on a drug charge. The WOD is immoral bullshit and is
one of the reasons I like libertarianism. They take a principled
stand on this where the other two parties wimp out.
Guy Montag|10.29.08 @ 8:45AM|#
Okay, if Tim Cavanaugh really votes for Sen. Obama I am leaving the country!
|10.29.08 @ 9:45AM|#
Tim,
I have read some really stupid stuff, but it has been topped
now.
You could have used logic, but didn't. You could have used passion,
but didn't.
You did however, demonstrate a lack of seriousness, reason (wow,
quite a irony there), and principles that boggles the mind of a
regular Reason reader.
Very disappointing
economist|10.29.08 @ 10:46AM|#
The "We have a black president, so why are you complaining" idea is absurd, and remember that I hate victim politics. One "good" thing happening to one black person doesn't mean shit in real terms for all other black people. Having a black president in itself does not improve the economic situation of blacks, discrimination, or whatever the complaints of the day are. I'm not going to the affirmative action side, but I'm pointing that if you're looking at this from an affirmative action standpoint it's stupid to think that Obama's election, in itself, is at all meaningful.
alan|10.29.08 @ 11:41AM|#
The Angry Optimist | October 29, 2008, 6:50am | #
that is why government itself needs to be abolished.
And how would one enforce contracts again?
I see tarran says that the State isn't necessary to enforce
contracts and the breach thereof because "arbitration" will save
us! What he forgets is the only reason arbitration works is because
it's legally binding.
How often does the state take any effort to enforce those
contracts?
I had a friend who took his former roommate to small claims court
over a few hundred dollars worth of bills and a deposit. I told him
he was wasting his time and money trying to get a redress of
grievance here even if it was decided in his favor. Of course, I
was right.
How many times is the contract you sign on too
implicitly rewritten by the state for political reasons? Ask just
about any divorced dad in the country that question.
The state is not an efficient actor even in the scope of matters
that theoretically should be in its purview.
alan|10.29.08 @ 11:43AM|#
economist | October 29, 2008, 10:46am | #
The "We have a black president, so why are you complaining" idea is
absurd, and remember that I hate victim politics. One "good" thing
happening to one black person doesn't mean shit in real terms for
all other black people. Having a black president in itself does not
improve the economic situation of blacks, discrimination, or
whatever the complaints of the day are. I'm not going to the
affirmative action side, but I'm pointing that if you're looking at
this from an affirmative action standpoint it's stupid to think
that Obama's election, in itself, is at all meaningful.
It doesn't matter if the argument is absurd. The argument will be
made.
alan|10.29.08 @ 11:52AM|#
To expand on that a bit. Argument as rational narrative is
rarely the same thing a argument as effective narrative. In almost
any presidential debate going back to Kennedy, the effective
narrative, that which defined the parameters of public policy, from
a rational standpoint would not stand scrutiny, and many aspects of
every one of those things, like the 'missile gap' in the
Kennedy-Nixon debate are not only irrational but insane.
So,, "we have a black president now, so
stop yer bitchin'" though absurd as an argument, it will be made
and at times made effectively.
|10.29.08 @ 12:54PM|#
WOW! This is a new twist. I thought, if you vote AGAINST Barack
you are a racist. Now, when you vote FOR Barack you are a racist. I
guess, no matter what, you ARE a racist.
Well, assuming you are white.
alan|10.29.08 @ 1:05PM|#
wayne | October 29, 2008, 12:54pm | #
WOW! This is a new twist. I thought, if you vote AGAINST Barack you
are a racist. Now, when you vote FOR Barack you are a racist. I
guess, no matter what, you ARE a racist.
Well, assuming you are white.
If you have made a career espousing free markets and then suddenly
do an about face that undermines your entire career by supporting a
guy who has made blaming free trade for unfavorable economic
conditions a center piece of his campaign for no other reason than
he is the black guy in the race, and there is no way in hell you
would support a white guy with the same stand, well, there you go.
What more needs to be said?
|10.29.08 @ 3:32PM|#
"my reason is particularly indefensible. It's a straightforward
case of reverse racism."
My god your a complete idiot. There is NO SUCH THING as "reverse
racism" period. Or in the truest word your saying your NOT racist?
I know what your trying to say but it doesnt work. You are a
racist....or your not. PERIOD. I dont give a dam what color you are
or even if your purple with yellow pokadots. Your either racist or
not. ANYONE can and quiet often IS a racist. Some of the nicest
people i know are "of color" whatever that color may be. But some
of the MOST racist people ive met or seen on tv are of color. It
dont matter. Theres no such thing as "reverse"
Neu Mejican|10.29.08 @ 4:46PM|#
dan sertich,
You are trying to pedantic, but that is an epic fail.
"Reverse" racism is not modifying the "racism" axis of the term,
but the valance of the implication that adheres to it.
Racism typically has a negative valence.
You vote "against" someone because of race.
Reverse racism has a positive valence.
You vote "for" someone because of race.
The reversal applies to the decision made as a result of your
race-based decision process.
This also can be seen as a counter to Wayne's comment.
|10.29.08 @ 5:14PM|#
Barr seems like a respectable libertarian candidate. For a
Reason writer to not support him is a little bit of a head
scratcher.
When you're done scratching your head, you might look up his voting
record in Congress (see Iraq War, Patriot Act, DOMA, etc.), or find
the back issues of the LP News where Libertarians first targeted
his ouster as one of the worst Drug Warriors in Congress, then
celebrated their part in kicking him out, even if it was a bit of a
stretch.
|10.29.08 @ 5:16PM|#
I'll be writing in Ron Paul. A write-in vote is even more
pointless than my usual Libertarian vote, but at least it will
count in California now that he's a qualified write-in.
It will be interesting to see how Ron Paul does in the two states
where he's actually on the ballot, Montana and Louisiana. He earned
22% in the Montana GOP primary, finishing ahead of McCain.
Federal Dog|10.29.08 @ 5:36PM|#
"Reverse racism has a positive valence.
You vote "for" someone because of race."
Racists always consider their racism positive. It's part of the
pathology of racist emotion.
Neu Mejican|10.29.08 @ 7:08PM|#
Federal Dog,
Regarding "positive valance"
We can change the terms to make it more obvious.
Reverse Racism (positive valance): you like someone more because of
their race.
Regular racism (negative valance): you like someone less because of
their race.
|10.29.08 @ 7:11PM|#
Reverse racism has a positive valence.
You vote "for" someone because of race.
Cool! So I can vote for Sarah Palin because she is white and
cute... And I get a "positive valence" as a door prize.
NM, your ability to write gibberish is truly astounding. It's like
the hand and mind of God himself guides your wordsmithing.
Neu Mejican|10.29.08 @ 7:52PM|#
Wayne,
It's like the hand and mind of God himself guides your
wordsmithing.
Nope. Evidence from up thread
You are trying to pedantic, but that is an epic
fail.
Proves I am subject to joeZ Rool.
Neu Mejican|10.29.08 @ 7:57PM|#
Cool! So I can vote for Sarah Palin because she is white and
cute... And I get a "positive valence" as a door prize.
Well, it is, of course more complex than that.
If the default position is to prefer a particular race, then
choosing that race has neutral valence rather than a positive
valence. You might get points for choosing the woman over the man,
however, since the default is the male candidate.
Neu Mejican|10.29.08 @ 7:59PM|#
I notice a cool typo above.
"valance" for "valence"
"Valence" indicates direction/strength of attraction or
aversion.
Valance is decorative drapery.
Putting positive valance on racism may be the more appropriate turn
of phrase.
anarch|10.29.08 @ 9:08PM|#
And here I'd always thought reverse racism was a (sloppy) term to describe the attitude of a member of a racial minority who denigrates the racial majority.
Neu Mejican|10.30.08 @ 12:27PM|#
anarch,
That works too, for the same reason.
Again, the reversal is not on the "racism" but on the
aversion/attraction parameter of the term.
If race A, the majority, has positive status, a negative reaction
to someone due to membership in that race reverses that positive
valence.
Language is very flexible.
|10.30.08 @ 3:06PM|#
And if there's anything dumber than racial profiling, it's
generational solidarity.
I can beat that...I have relatives who are planning to vote for
Obama (or at least not vote against him)primarily because of the
alleged Irish in his heritage. (Yes, I know that McCain is, well, a
McCain, and no, I don't get it either...)
|10.31.08 @ 2:28PM|#
I agree with the article insofar as the lack of reason is
limited to the Presidential election. The irrational votes should
not be made in Congressional races (or local / ballot questions,
assuming your state allows the latter - I'm WAY more excited that I
have the chance to vote Yes on a question that would end the income
tax in MA than I am about the Presidential election - by far)
... I'm a conservative / moderate libertarian from Massachusetts
(bluest of the blue states), and I'm voting for Barr and passively
hoping that Obama wins (far from an endorsement, not that my vote
in MA means a damn thing), but I hope that Republicans do in fact
gain some seats in Congress (not that I'll have a real chance to
vote that way myself - like this guy Beatty (who I think is a
jackass for the most part) will ever take John Kerry out of his
seat that I'm pretty sure he thinks he owns through virtue of
Divine Right).
I saw that someone posted earlier in response to this comment that
libertarians will be sorry if they vote for Obama - true; but as
per usual, we'll be sorry no matter what! The individual also
commented however, that it would be advantageous to have a
Republican Congress. This I agree with, because from where I stand,
its the best possible situation we could have nationally given our
dismal choices.
I haven't been a fan of the neconservative foreign policy (so much
for that 'humble' crap in 2000 there, GWB), so to have a Commander
in Chief who will be less likely to wage another war is helpful ...
but then, a Republican Congress to keep him at least slightly in
fiscal check (not that I have much faith in the fiscal conservatism
of the Republican Party, but there are some old school fiscal
conservatives still left in the House - see McCotter, Pence, etc
(even though they were more on board with the GWB international
agenda than I would have liked, at least they don't want to
straight up steal from me like the liberal Republicans such as
McCain) ...
Vote as irrationally as you want for the Presidency (although I
still think voting for Barr sends a message that the two parties
are out of touch, which is my main reason for doing it) - really
look into who is running for Congress in your district though;
especially who is running for a House seat. I'm more excited about
BJ Lawson down in Durham, North Carolina (a place I've never been
nor probably ever really will go to) than I am the Presidential
election. Its important that we elect pro-liberty individuals to
the House - more Lawson types would have prevented the bailout from
passing.
Alan|11.2.08 @ 11:52AM|#
On the assumption that all other factors are equal, voting for a
racial or other disparaged minority candidate make perfect sence.
It sends a clear message to those who are doing the disparaging and
gives those who are disparaged positive support and hope.
Those are good reasons to vote for a candidate, probably better
than a lot of the more conventional reasons that guide our
choices.
Leave a Comment
More Articles by Tim Cavanaugh
- Hollywood Comrades, Tim Cavanaugh, October 30, 2009
- Inflation and You: Partners in freedom, Tim Cavanaugh, October 1, 2009
- The Debtorship Society, Tim Cavanaugh, September 21, 2009
Related Articles (Campaigns/Elections, Barack Obama)
- Mandating Disaster, Shikha Dalmia, November 20, 2009
- Are Tea Parties Racist?, Matt Welch, November 16, 2009
- The Secret Message of Stimulus Spending, Veronique de Rugy, November 3, 2009
- Sanity on Marijuana?, Steve Chapman, October 22, 2009
- In Defense of Fox News, David Harsanyi, October 21, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245