Federal Bureau of the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice

The FBI is gearing up to face a dire threat to all Americans: consensual adult pornography. The agents, for some reason, are not overly enthusiastic about being diverted from fighting terrorists, mob bosses, and kidnappers. Money quote:

"I guess this means we've won the war on terror," said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity because poking fun at headquarters is not regarded as career-enhancing. "We must not need any more resources for espionage."

Greg Beato wrote about Washington's new porn crackdown in a Reason cover story last year.

Comments

[NaG]

On the other hand, a crusade against porn is something the feminist Left can support. Think of this as President Bush bringing people together by keeping them apart.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

They should make me an agent. I've been studying the subject for many years, and my collection is bigger then the Vatican.

[M1EK]

I am continuously assured by my friends here at H&R that both parties are equally bad, and that we are not slouching towards a theocracy. I eagerly await their response.

KERRY WOULD HAVE TAXED DEAD PEOPLE MORE!!!!!1 THAT'S MUCH WORSE THAN THIS!!!!!1

[Joe]

Money comes, money goes. A party that taxes you a bit more is never fun, but it doesn't significantly place a damper on your quality of life.

By contrast, you can't place a price tag on your right to privacy, nor on the assurance that some theocratic constituency won't press the government to violate your privacy in the future on whatever tomfool thing gets their dander up.

It's clear that the Democratic party is becoming the new home for small-l libertarians.

[metalgrid]

It's clear that the Democratic party is becoming the new home for small-l libertarians.

Don't flatter yourself 🙂 Some of us just see the benefits of divided government better than others.

[Timothy]

Nothing says "leave my alone" like absolute gridlock in Washington.

[Dave W.]

Democrats were not very welcoming to me in 2003. I would have voted for their candie in 2004 if I lived in a close state, but I didn't so I didn't.*

Democrats need to learn that they need friends and who those friends might be. I think, for a small - el libertarian, I was pretty open to the Democratic party, but Democrats were not very open to me. Not at the grassroots political discussion level. Not at the torpedoing-the-Dean-candidacy level either.

Footnote:

* I think I said in a post a few weeks ago that I had voted Democratic for prez once. If I did, that was a mistake; I never did. I was misremembering 2004. Being in Cali I went Cobb (mostly to help get 3d parties on the ballot; also an antiwar vote).

[SR]

This goes along with the Dept. of Homeland Security's anti-child pornography initiative. You know, the agency that was created to handle terrorism because the FBI had too many other law enforcement responsibilities to deal with.

[Les]

I eagerly await their response.

Well, here's mine. Though most of my friends are Democrats and I do identify more with them, I think of the two parties as dishonest, abusive spouses. One would beat me five times a week while the other would only beat me once or twice, though they both tended to be just as dishonest. Fuck 'em both. I prefer to be single.

[bigbigslacker]

"It's clear that"...

Only a strong Democrat could see how clear that is. Even most small-l tarians will have serious problems with the Dems continuous assault on the 2nd amendment and the property rights of ignorant individuals vs. the more enlightened greater community. I suspect small-L'ers might not be too happy with the Bush expansion of entitlements for seniors. But support for the party that wants even more of that type of thing doesn't seem to follow logically. Offhand, I can't think of anything about the Democratic party that gives this small-L lib a woody. OK, so on the subject of porn, the Dems are, on average, a little less fascist than the Repukes. Whoopie! Let me check. Nope, its still soft.

[Lost_In_Translation]

The Ayatollah would be proud. Why do they hate us again? Oh right, because we have freedom....and rights?

[Phil]

I voted for Democratic candidates for President and other national offices all the time for many years, exactly because of the Republicans being so beholden to and pursuing the agendas of 1) the religious right and 2) southern racists.

But after hearing the umpteen-millionth not-as-clever-as-he-thinks-he-is Democrat tell me that libertarians were "Republicans who smoke pot" -- neither of which is or ever was remotely true in my case -- I decided that the Democrats could go fuck themselves gently with a chainsaw, and would no longer be getting my vote, as they obviously thought little of the principles I care about.

Thus I started voting for either the Lib Party, other third-party or independent candidates, or leaving portions of the ballot unchosen.

That said, the original post indicates a single-minded obsession with this topic not seen since the days of the highly entertaining Meese Commission. Sad, sad, sad.

[M1EK]

"Fuck 'em both. I prefer to be single."

You don't get to be single in the real world. Choose.

[Joe]

""Even most small-l tarians will have serious problems with the Dems continuous assault on the 2nd amendment and the property rights of ignorant individuals vs. the more enlightened greater community.""

Speaking as a Democrat who's pro-second Amendment and Anti-Kelo, I think Howard Dean's signal that gun control is "no longer a national issue" is a good one, and I hope it takes hold.

As far as Kelo, I think either party will have to respect the broad bipartisan consensus against it.

Now, for those who prefer gridlock: If you want gridlock to come back to Washington, *who* should you be voting for these days? 😉

[Amanda Hugginkiss]

It's clear that the Democratic party is becoming the new home for small-l libertarians.

Oh, absolutely. After seeing how the liberal justices voted on the medical ganja and Kelo cases, I've got my running sneakers on so I can race to the polls to elect folks who will stack the courts with more liberals. Gosh, what was I thinking by ever voting for anyone except a Democrat?

Gotta go. Suddenly I'm thirsty for Kool-Aid...

[Jennifer]

God gave you us bodies so we'd have something to be ashamed of.

[Jennifer]

Dammit, people, will you quit the partisan sniping already? Both parties suck. Democrats will give your house to a megacorporation, while Republicans will let you keep your house but imprison you for what you do inside it. Sheesh.

[Les]

You don't get to be single in the real world. Choose.

You illustrated it better than I could. The "real world" is basically "you're with us or you're with the Republicans." Where have I perceived that black and white attitude before? Let me think...

There will always be only two viable political parties so long as people feel pressured to vote for assholes. I'm not going to vote for Democratic assholes simply because they might possibly be slightly less assholish than Republican assholes.

As soon as the Democratic party takes responsibility for its dishonesty and destructive, incompetent domestic and foreign policies over the past, say, thirty years, I'll consider giving them my vote. Until then, they're no different than the Republicans, who are also incapable of taking responsibility for their dishonesty and destructive, incompetent domestic and foreign policies.

And you want me to "choose" between the two? That's not terribly democratic.

[Phil]

There's somebody that thinks that Hobson's Choice is actually a real choice? Interesting.

[Ruthless]

Do we think citizens may, one day, notice how government is a broken record with its wars on this that and the other ad nauseum?
Is there a chance a bureaucrat could come up with a peace on something initiative? Or would Karl Rove think that was a perverted "watersport"?

[J Goldberg]

Boy, I hope the Omega 3 does Bush in and Cheney gets his turn at bat!

[thoreau]

Jennifer-

You forgot to mention that Libertarians will applaud when your creepy landlord comes into your apartment and threatens to evict you if you put the wrong bumper sticker on your car.

Everybody sucks.

[mediageek]

Speaking as a Democrat who's pro-second Amendment and Anti-Kelo, I think Howard Dean's signal that gun control is "no longer a national issue" is a good one, and I hope it takes hold.

Joe, if you're pro-2nd Amendment, then I'm the King of Dirkadirkastan.

[Phil]

Different Joe, mediageek. Small-j joe's email is [e-mail] . This one has a Georgetown U. address.

[Anonymous]

different Joe. the other one is joe

[mediageek]

Incidentally, Howard Dean's espousing that gun control is "no longer a national issue" is nothing more than political posturing.

Essentially, the Democratic party has woken up to the fact that their anti-rights stance on the gun issue has cost them a number of important elections, so they're now trying to toe the line with pro-gun posturing*. You may eat it up, but quite frankly it strikes me as nothing more than pathetic.

*Dean's statement, Kerry's jackassery about "crawling on his belly with a shotgun," and many other examples of Democrats attempting to make chummy with the gun culture.

[mediageek]

Oops.
My mistake.

Evidently I need another cup of coffee.

[Meyer]

The sad fact is that in every election either a Democrat or a Republican will win. Since Democrats are at least slightly better on almost every issue than Republicans, doesn't voting Democratic move us closer (even if marginally) to Libertarian utopia?

[Agammamon]

". . .It's clear that the Democratic party is becoming the new home for small-l libertarians . . ."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Get rea .. . no wait, huge increases in government power, promising to give money to every crank activist who asks for it, military adventurism with no clear goals - BWAAAAAAA! ITS TRUE!!

[Cedarburg]

Joe writes:

"Money comes, money goes. A party that taxes you a bit more is never fun, but it doesn't significantly place a damper on your quality of life."

Gosh, those trustafarians at my school were right!

[saw-whet]

But still, if you're a King and everything,...Do I get three wishes?

[quasibill]

"You forgot to mention that Libertarians will applaud when your creepy landlord comes into your apartment and threatens to evict you if you put the wrong bumper sticker on your car."

Some small gov't Republicans who misidentify themselves as libertarians, maybe. This libertarian, and those whom I know personally, would say that the landlord's actions are immoral and wrong, but that using the violence of the government to address the issue entails more negative consequences than positive. Personal responsibility - the flip side of liberty - would require me to refuse to do business with such a landlord, much like I refuse to do business with Wal-Mart. Further, i have not only the right but the moral obligation to criticize, publically, the landlord who did something I found immoral.

Don't confuse the position that "you have the right to be a jackass" with the position "Yeah! I love your jackassishness!"

[saw-whet]

Damn, you guys are fast!

[Cold Dead Hands Across America]

You can take my hardcore porn away from me when you pry my -- um, wait a minute, lemme rephrase that . . .

[dhex]

"You don't get to be single in the real world. Choose."

why? a third of the country did in the last election, and i predict even more will in 2008.

[TheocracyIsComing]

This looks like nothing more than Gonzalez trying to buffer his image with the radical religious right before a potential SCOTUS nomination.

[Lowdog]

I love the "pick a lesser of two evils" attitude.

Total bullshit. As others have said, if more people had the balls to start voting for whom they want to win, not against whom they want to loose, we wouldn't "have to" only choose from between two parties. (And I put "have to" in quotes because you don't "have to" do any such thing, if you're honest with yourself.)

[Rhywun]

Essentially, the Democratic party has woken up to the fact that their anti-rights stance on the gun issue has cost them a number of important elections

Do you think so? I don't think gun control or lack thereof resonates as much as taxes or "values". In other words, I believe that if the Dems did a 180 on gun control they'd still win only on the coasts.

[Meyer]

I think the ultimate problem for any third party is that people are already voting for whom they want to win. Like it or not, most people want the Democrats or Republicans to win. The rest of the voters are too hopelessly fractured to make any difference.

If you're waiting for the majority of Americans to start supporting big-L Libertarianism, you'll be waiting a long time. Meanwhile, your kids will be learning Intelligent Design (unless they're in jail for some drug or porn charge or dying in Iraq).

[thoreau]

quasibill-

I agree. One can defend the right to be a jackass without supporting jackassery. But for some reason people here get upset when somebody criticizes a private sector jackass, even if the critic doesn't call for a coercive remedy.

Yeah, I know, most people out there who criticize a jackass are indeed thinking of a coercive remedy. But very few of them are on this forum. Yet the knees keep jerking anyway...

(The last part was not meant to imply that you are one of those people.)

[Les]

Meyer,

That's exactly what the major parties want you to believe. "There's no point in voting for anyone else but us, because look at how bad things are going to get!"

The Democrats gave Bush the unprecedented powers he used to invade Iraq, they support the War on Drugs, they support the death penalty, they're all happy to vote themselves pay raises every year while making four times the average salary. Intelligent Design is the least of our concerns regarding the public school system and Republicans have had next to nothing to do with the waste and incompetence one sees there. When people vote for whoever they think is best for the job, as opposed to less evil, there's a greater chance for improvement across the board.

[Meyer]

Les,

All I know is that I voted for who I thought was best for the job (not the Democratic candidate) in the last two elections and all it got me was 8 years of W. Somehow I think if I, and others like me, had voted for the lesser evil, then we wouldn't be in this mess.

[quasibill]

Thoreau:

"One can defend the right to be a jackass without supporting jackassery"

Reminds me of one of my favorite recent tv quotes - "Why is that everytime I have somewhere to be we get waylaid by jackassery?!"

I use it all the time. My wife finds it somewhat less funny than I do.

Sorry, but I find the word "jackassery" very amusing, so I couldn't resist...

[quasibill]

P.S. - I'll admit to being a bit of a knee-jerker. I try to temper it, but I catch myself doing it sometimes. People haven't seemed to hold it against me too much, so I have to be willing to eat crow sometimes.

[Akira MacKenzie]

As others have said, if more people had the balls to start voting for whom they want to win, not against whom they want to loose, we wouldn't "have to" only choose from between two parties.

The thing is that even after the last 5 years, most of the Republicans I know still think Bush is the the greatest president of all time. To them, instead of dropping the ball on 9-11, Bush "rallied the nation against the Islamo-facist threat." Instead of cowtowing to the Christian Right, he "strives to protect our essential morals and values." Instead of mishandling the ecomony, "he made the tough decisions to keep our country going." No matter what the issue or how badly Dubbya screwed it up, the true-blue conservative believers will carry water for him and pump up his reputation to mythical proportions.

For the right, Dubbya was who they wanted to win.

[quasibill]

"Somehow I think if I, and others like me, had voted for the lesser evil, then we wouldn't be in this mess"

No, we'd be in some other mess. Different only in the particulars, but overall, we'd still be in trouble. Especially if it was Kerry, whose Iraq plan was "stay the course, but do it different!" Blah. All that would have accomplished is that the neocons would have been able to blame the problems on the donkeys instead of on their own incompetence.

[Les]

Meyer,

That's an understandable feeling (my friends and I argue about it often). But I think we'd just be in some different messes and a lot of same ones we're usually in. I mean, the Democrats aren't immune to waging war under false pretenses (Gulf of Tonkin) or poor disaster planning (Hurrican Katrina; which is not to remove responsibility from the feds as their performance was equally abysmal).

[Lowdog]

Meyer - no. I have tons of friends who kept telling me that I had to vote for Kerry, and I had to vote for the lesser of two evils, whether they were Democrats or more independent/libertarian-minded. I told them that I had to vote my conscience. I live in AZ, it wouldn't have mattered, as far as I know, if everyone who voted lib in my state, Bush still woulda won. There is more of a chance, that if everyone voted their conscience, the results would be different. Course, the winning candidate might only get, say, 25% of the vote, so maybe it wouldn't be better in the end, but goddamn it, it would be different. If only for experimental purposes, I'd be happy to see some change.

It also might finally get a us a new voting system that could possibly lessen the tyranny of the majority, but I don't really know anything about that topic, so I'll shut up now.

[Eric the .5b]

Yeah, I know, most people out there who criticize a jackass are indeed thinking of a coercive remedy. But very few of them are on this forum.

Thoreau, if you mean the pedantic "very few people are on this forum", sure.

If you mean to tell me that very few people on this forum are here to argue with the libertoids and tell them why they're wrong... well, that misapprehension's probably from probably spending a lot more time on your work, so carry on. 🙂

[toddb]

Lowdog,
Americans don't believe in the existence of "the tyranny of the majority"...they believe in the magic of democracy. Democracy doesn't deliver any magic unless it is tied to strict limitations of government power, but Americans completely miss that point and busy themselves trying to decide which version of statism they prefer.

[John]

There is just no defending this crap. I will say that if Congress would repeal the laws, these guys wouldn't have anything to enforce. It is a bit much to expect DOJ to pick and choose the laws it enforces. That said, it does get to pick and choose where it puts it resources. There is just no reason for this. Thank God, Gonzalez is not going to the Supreme Court.

[M1EK]

"I love the "pick a lesser of two evils" attitude.

Total bullshit. As others have said, if more people had the balls to start voting for whom they want to win, not against whom they want to loose, we wouldn't "have to" only choose from between two parties. "

WARNING: M1EK IS ABOUT TO BE DISCOURTEOUS ON PURPOSE; JENNIFER AND OTHERS DID IT FIRST:

Until this country gets a system OTHER than "plurality take all", you ABSOLUTELY SHOULD vote for the 'lesser of two evils'; or you're effectively voting for the "greater of two evils". Why is it that your average second-grader can figure this out, but you morons can't?

[thoreau]

M1EK-

Which is worse? The guy who stays home on election day, or the guy who votes third party?

Or are both equally bad in your eyes?

[toddb]

M1EK,
When I vote "lesser of evil" my vote is registered as an approval or preference for the policies of the chosen evil. That gets turned into a "mandate" to pursue all sorts of state action on my behalf. I would rather stay home or vote my conscience.

[M1EK]

toddb,

And when you vote "other", the "greater of two evils" gets much closer to winning, which is unquestionably worse than your implied support for the "lesser"'s policies.

thoreau,

BOTH are bad. Are you trying to make me choose the lesser of those two evils? If so, I'll say that the guy who bothers to vote but doesn't vote against the greater evil is slightly more palatable than the guy who doesn't vote at all.

[R C Dean]

Since Democrats are at least slightly better on almost every issue than Republicans.

Except taxes and spending.

And gun control.

And education reform.

On the drug war, I would say it is close enough to a tie to make no difference.

And we've just about reached the end of the list of domestic issues I care about.

[toddb]

M1EK,
So basically you've placed us in a kind of prisoners dilemma where we all act pessimistically to avoid the maximum damage to us temporarily while ensuring that we will never reap the best case scenario. This is just a recipe for guaranteed continued encroachment of the state on individuals.

[Isaac Bartram]

Since my individual vote is absolutely irrelevent to the outcome of an election I will continue to vote for my choice rather than leading people to believe I might be in favor of an unprincipled demagogue*.

I mean, what the fuck, it's not like betting on a horserace. It's not like you get a prize for picking the winner.

*ie anyone likely to be nominated by the repugnicons or dimmycraps.

[Captain Awesome]

M1EK, I think part of the problem with the lesser of two evils argument is that your looking at the mean evil of two candidates. If you take into account their particular standard deviation of evilotude, we simply cannot accept the hypothesis that Candidate A is of evil not equal to Candidate B, therefore it is still a futil gesture. On the issue of partisans coming here to "talk" to the libertarians, I happen to think that one of the reasons we get such good discussion here is that libertarians are percieved as great recruiting grounds for swing-voters. Where else do you get so much discussion of what might, or has changed your vote in particular elections? Having the R's and D's come here to discuss (even condesendingly) to try to win these opinions greatly increases the value of discussion here.

[thoreau]

Announcement of Gathering in the DC Area
This is a thread-jack. If you do not cooperate we will unleash the wrath of Allah on your server!....oh, wait, never mind.

Anyway, in light of how successful the other gatherings have been, Mr. Nice Guy and I are looking to have a gathering in the DC area, any weekend from Oct. 28 through mid-December.

Here's how it works:
-If you're interested, contact me. The address is real if you remove the part about spam.
-Let me know which weekends you can meet in the DC area. If you aren't sure of your schedule but want to be on the mailing list for the event, just send me an email and I'll keep you in the loop.
-Most popular weekend wins.
-I'm fairly new to the area, so if you have a suggested venue, preferably near a Metro stop, let me know that too.

I'm thinking an evening, preferably a Saturday, but whatever time works for the most people is what we'll do. Mr. Nice Guy and I will try to organize a trip to the shooting range (in Maryland, not DC, obviously) in the afternoon before the event for those who are interested. Both of us live near Metro stations and can probably take in somebody who wants to crash.

Also, Smacky is coming to DC for a wedding Oct. 14-16. I'm busy that weekend, her schedule with the wedding is kind of busy, and I figure that the shorter notice might not work for those wanting to come from out of town, but if somebody is interested in putting something together, you might want to get in touch with her and see who else is interested.

[Les]

How was Jennifer discourteous, M1EK? And nobody called you a moron. If you're going to be discourteous, at least have the balls to take responsibility for it.

Your "I said it's so, a 2nd grader would agree with me, so it must be so" argument is really unimpressive and very similar to the arguments one sees at Town Hall and Free Republic.

You think that the voters' responsibility is to elect people who are less dishonest and less incompetent than the most dishonest and most incompetent. Others here believe that the voters' responsibility is to elect people who are honest and competent.

I would argue that if everyone voted the way you think they should vote, a dishonest, incompetent government is guaranteed forever. If everyone voted for demonstrably honest and competent candidates, an honest and competent government, while not guaranteed, is at least more likely.

[Amanda Hugginkiss]

My voting philosophy: When you're trapped in a hole, stop digging. I don't know if voting 3rd party or not voting at all will do anything in the long run, but as toddb sez, after living through 8 years of Janet Reno and what will likely be 8 years of Ashcroft/Gonzalez, I can't actively endorse members -- at least on a national level -- of the two major parties since that just makes the hole deeper. So M1EK can take his recruitment efforts elsewhere.

Capt Awesome,

That was an enlightening comment (I'm not being sarcastic). I've only recently realized that Hit & Run was being used as a recruitment center for Democrats. I can be slow on the uptake sometimes.

[J]

"Why is it that your average second-grader can figure this out, but you morons can't?"

Wow, that's a breathtaking combination of over-the-top rudeness and stupidity. The reason voting for a third party doesn't have much effect is because halfwits like you have made it a self-fulfilling prophecy that a third party candidate can't win. If voters removed their heads from their asses long enough to actually vote for the candidate that best fit their views, instead of limiting their choices to dems and reps, a third party candidate could have a legitimate chance of winning, and an even larger chance of having a meaningful influence on policy as dems and reps would be forced to lose the delusion that their winning 48% of the vote in a low-turnout election with artificially limited options means a single goddamn thing about any sort of a "mandate" for their platforms and methods.

[M1EK]

"reps would be forced to lose the delusion that their winning 48% of the vote in a low-turnout election with artificially limited options means a single goddamn thing about any sort of a "mandate" for their platforms and methods."

Yes, they'd be forced instead into the realization that in a credible three-party race, they can claim a "mandate" with as little as 34 or 35% of the vote.

[M1EK]

Les,

"How was Jennifer discourteous, M1EK?"

Dammit, people, will you quit the partisan sniping already? Both parties suck.

I'm not a partisan, and I'm not sniping. If you think the Republicans are the lesser evil, I urge you to vote (R) instead of (L). It's much smarter.

"You think that the voters' responsibility is to elect people who are less dishonest and less incompetent than the most dishonest and most incompetent. Others here believe that the voters' responsibility is to elect people who are honest and competent."

Those others are stupid, since there is zero chance that the third party candidate will actually be elected. ZERO. And finishing a close third isn't any better than finishing with 0.0001% of the vote.

[M1EK]

"M1EK,
So basically you've placed us in a kind of prisoners dilemma where we all act pessimistically to avoid the maximum damage to us temporarily while ensuring that we will never reap the best case scenario."

The optimist would say that by consistently voting for the lesser of two evils, you show a preference for less, rather than more, evil. This could easily lead to more responsible politicians.

IE, picking an Taurus over a Suburban would probably lead to more fuel-efficient vehicles being built in the future, even though you didn't buy the Prius.

[Lowdog]

J makes a good point - if you had 3 or 4 credible parties, the guys coming in #2, #3 and #4 would make it clear to the guy who came in #1 that there were other issues out there. As it is now, that never happens. Both #1 and #2 think they're so right, that if they worked just a little harder, their unique vision would emerge victorious. Unfortunately, their unique vision is the same shite that's been spewing from their, and the folks like their's, mouths for years.

[thoreau]

M1EK-

Do you see anything wrong with supporting a third team if the race isn't even close?

[Lowdog]

Oh, and why can your average second-grader figure this out, but morons can't? Gimme a break, dude.

[M1EK]

"Do you see anything wrong with supporting a third team if the race isn't even close?"

No, of course not.

"if you had 3 or 4 credible parties, the guys coming in #2, #3 and #4 would make it clear to the guy who came in #1 that there were other issues out there."

You guys keep asserting this, but I see no evidence that it is true, and what's worse, I see no credible reason why it COULD be true. Who CARES what other issues are out there if you won?

[J]

"Yes, they'd be forced instead into the realization that in a credible three-party race, they can claim a "mandate" with as little as 34 or 35% of the vote."

No, they'd actually be forced to recognize that they don't have a "mandate," at least not for their entire platform.

"Those others are stupid, since there is zero chance that the third party candidate will actually be elected. ZERO."

Are you honestly this incapable of understanding that a large reason their chances are so low is because so many voters have been suckered by your moronic "lesser of two evils" argument?

[M1EK]

"Oh, and why can your average second-grader figure this out, but morons can't?"

It's "plurality take all". This means that you only have to do better than the second-place guy; it doesn't matter how many more votes you get after that; and the third-place guy is completely irrelevant.

[M1EK]

"No, they'd actually be forced to recognize that they don't have a "mandate," at least not for their entire platform."

When has this ever happened? Did Clinton try less hard to push his platform because he didn't get 50% of the vote? Did Bush try less hard to push his platform in 2000 since he lost the popular vote?

You guys keep asserting things which not only aren't supported by recent history, but that don't appear to be supportable by rational game theory. And yet it doesn't seem to give any of you pause. The cognitive dissonance here is so thick you could cut it with a knife...

[Aultimer]

I get the feeling that M1EK is too young to remember Ross Perot and is willfully ignoring Jesse Ventura. Deeply flawed third party candidates can pull off 20% in a presidential or even win a gubernatorial. Why couldn't a strong centrist/lib-leaning third party candidate do better?

[drf]

Okay - "rational game theory". do tell.

do tell.

what is the discipline of "rational game thory"?

I'm sitting here with several PhD candidates, and we're all waiting...

[Isaac Bartram]

M1EK

You still haven't answered why it makes any difference.

GWB would have won in 2004 whether I had voted for John Kerry, voted for Badnarik or written in Mickey Mouse. Hell Bush would have won if every libertarian had voted for Kerry. Individual votes make no fucking difference except at PTA meetings.

Your real problem is that you think democrats are good. If only we had democrat leaders we'd have perpetual peace, unlimited prosperity, alabaster cities, light rail that would would whisk us wherever we wanted in mere seconds and all the kiddies would get ponies. How could I be so stupid. After all, that's the way it was in the six democratic administrations of my lifetime.

[Amanda Hugginkiss]

I get the feeling that M1EK is too young to remember Ross Perot

I get that feeling too.

[dhex]

"And when you vote "other", the "greater of two evils" gets much closer to winning"

that's assuming the person wasn't going to just not vote in the first place, rather than pick the lesser evil.

[dhex]

it also assumes you live in a state where there is a close race. in new york i could have voted bush, kerry, badnarik, green party, or written in for charlie satan bumblepants and still not have effected the election one whit.

[thoreau]

To be fair, M1EK is right in that our system gives strong incentives to support one of the 2 front-runners. See "Duverger's Law" (and yes, I know, it isn't an iron-clad "law", but I'm not the one who coined the phrase, and it is supported by sound theoretical observations).

Those who prefer to support a third party usual do so on the basis of strategic calculations with a longer time horizon: In the context of a single election it may very well be in your best interest to always support the lesser evil, but if you do that every time you'll be taken for granted and ignored. So some people go to third parties to send a signal that they can't be taken for granted. Of course, if they always do that then they'll be written off as unreachable.

I'm not saying which strategy is best, I'm just saying that these are the rationales that some people use to pick a course of action. Take it for what it's worth.

[Captain Awesome]

If game theory is all the rage around here. A utility maximizing individual would skip the polls all together and have an ice-cream cone. Voting is pretty non-valuable in reality, and that's why alot of people vote 3rd party, it's a protest vote. The value of saying "stuff-it" on paper to the main parties, is worth more than the value of their vote proportional to the percieved difference of evil between the two major candidates.

[Lowdog]

My left-leaning, anthropologist friend is always trotting out the game theory angle on me (he's big into it, and has presented some of his work at some rather prestigious archaelogical gatherings). And while his arguments make sense when we're playing a fucking game, they don't make as much sense to me when we're talking real life. I cannot willingly vote for evil when there is an alternative. Call it cognitive dissonance, call me a moron, I don't give a fuck. But at least I can sleep at night knowing I didn't vote for someone who doesn't give a flying fuck about me or any of my philosophical viewpoints.

[toddb]

M1EK,
You bring up Clinton and I think that works against your argument. Perot managed to grab 19% of the vote (from poor misguided third-partiers and independents). I think this had two important impacts. One, it took the sting out much of the far left crap that Clinton likely would have pushed and forced him to moderate. Two, it forced both parties to take the issue of fiscal responsibility very seriously for the first time and the result was real work towards a balanced budget. It is probably also the reason why we had the brief glimmer of hope (soon to die) that Republicans might deliver on their small government rhetoric in the mid nineties.

Perot never had a chance to win, but he sure as heck got the attention of the major parties and forced them, at least briefly, to respond.

What if a candidate in favor of liberty were to do the same...would that vote be wasted?

[Captain Awesome]

In fact, according to your Prius example. I would say that voting third party has significantly more utility to all involved. It's like shopping at Wallmart vs the corner store. Walmart cares very little if they lose one persons business, much as the dems repubs could give a shit about libertarians. But the small shop owner knows his clients and cares a great deal if he looses one, given his ability to absorb the loss, much the way people light up when a new face goes to a local Libertarian party meeting to check it out.

[Les]

The optimist would say that by consistently voting for the lesser of two evils, you show a preference for less, rather than more, evil. This could easily lead to more responsible politicians.

But here you're asserting something that's not supported by any history whatsoever. Anytime. Anywhere.

What part of Clinton's platform was superior to Bush Sr.'s or Dole's? Was it his administration's unprecedented persecution of marijuana smokers (including the negligent homocide of Peter McWilliams)? His unprecedented persecution of gays and lesbians in the military? His rabid support for the death penalty? His ignoring of the genocide in Rwanda? His regular bombing of Iraq, which killed a good number of civilians? The first decrease in MPG requirements for automobiles? And this is the Democrats' star player.

So, voting for someone like Clinton is being part of the solution how, exactly?

[Les]

I should add I'm not necessarily for government mandated MPG requirements, but since the Democrats are always bragging on caring more about the environment, I thought it relevent.

[drf]

Lowdog:

gotta love it when the leftie social sciences grab pages from the dismal science book 🙂

a buddy of mine at the Libertarian-leaning GMU econ dept has Dr. WE Williams talk about the statistical insignificance of voting. apparently it was really interesting.

Capt: consumer's choice and game theory can be separate. utility maximizing behavior doesn't need game theory to analyze it. and since it's based on individual preferences - it's not a choice between ice cream and voting. i know it was intended as humor, but the "rational game theory" (which called our math. economist type here said "good gawd" to that phrase. so we're fired up a bit here) got us talking 🙂

[Amanda Hugginkiss]

And while his arguments make sense when we're playing a fucking game, they don't make as much sense to me when we're talking real life.

Exactly. Because these types of game theories don't include a lot of external realities. Like the prisoner's dilemma: the prisoner is still going to jail no matter what, and finks have a bad time of it in prison. Or so I'm told.

Academics like game theory because it's logical and ordered, and has absolutely jack to do with real-life applications.

[Lowdog]

Yeah, my buddy is actually really good at games. Even poker he picked up fairly quickly because of his experience in statistics and game theory. But let's think of a more practical matter, say, relationships, and he's not so good. Good with money, but that's just because he's anal, not because of game theory. 🙂 (And all said in a very friendly manner - he's a good fellow and a good friend.)

But really I just like to say "fuck" a lot. 🙂

[Captain Awesome]

Funny, I was out drinking with my buddy who got his econ phd from GMU last week. We were talking about how voting was fairly useless, then decided that talking about it was even less usefull, especially given the opportunity cost of being around actual real life women in a real life bar.

[drf]

Jawohl mein Kapitan!

have a great evening!

cheers,
drf

[Phil]

Did Clinton try less hard to push his platform because he didn't get 50% of the vote?

Given that homosexuals still can't serve openly in the military, that the Defense of Marriage Act is still law, and that there is no national healthcare plan, I'm going to answer "Yes" on this one.

M1EK reminds me of the people that say atheists shouldn't bitch in December because, for pete's sake, the publicly-funded town hall display has both a creche and a menorah!

[Native NYer]

So what if enough people don't bother to vote and then it becomes statistically significant again?

I was one of 110 people who voted for a guy for city ccouncil in NYC last week. 110! So my vote acccounted for almost 1% of the total. Is that worth it? I convinced my wife and a friend to vote for this guy too, so I'm up to 2%.

I'm a playa!

[Lowdog]

NYer - That's why small, local elections are where us disenfranchised souls should channel our efforts. Unfortunately, it's harder to follow them. And I'm a total hypocrite in that. I mainly stick to voting for the senate, congress, and the pres. I suppose I should put my money where my mouth is and pay more attention to local politics. But the news around here is awful. Huh.

Anyway, there are so many people in this country that it would take even much greater apathy than exists already for the number of voters to get so small that any one of our votes really "counted".

[Native NYer]

Lowdog - very true nationally. BBut the city council is a sweet job, part time, I think it's 80K per year, and lots of business perks.

Hmmm, maybe I'll rn for the darn thing!

[Jason Sonenshein]

Hmmm, maybe I'll run for the darn thing!

Maybe you should. It seems to me that it would be easier for libertarians to get elected if they run in major-party primaries than if they run in general elections as Libertarians or independents. Join the dominant party in your region (if there is one), start making contacts with influential people in your district, and wait for an incumbent to retire. If you run in an open-seat election with a crowded field, you might be able to win the primary with a quarter or a third of the vote. (I know, this would be harder in New York where you have runoff primaries.)

Libertarians have ideas that appeal to people in both parties. If you run in a Democratic primary, emphasize your opposition to corporate welfare and tolerant views on social issues. If you run in a Republican primary, emphasize your opposition to gun control and support for tax cuts and deregulation. There are organizations that promote liberty in both major parties. You can find the Democratic Freedom Caucus here. As a loyal Democrat, I won't link to the Republican Liberty Caucus, but I'm sure you can find it by typing "Republican Liberty Caucus" into your favorite search engine.

[Carl]

Since both parties suck and America's committed to a two party system, the logical thing to do is hijack a party. First, go to a district where there's no competition for House Rep, then sign up to be the candidate for the side that doesn't have a chance. You'll get some experience with running a campaign and some bucks from the party. Keep doing this until you've got enough know-how to go someplace else and win.

[Carl]

I didn't read what Jason wrote before I posted, but yeah, do that basically. Hijack a real party.

[M1EK]

"One, it took the sting out much of the far left crap that Clinton likely would have pushed and forced him to moderate."

Again, with the completely making up stuff and ignoring reality.

Clinton was a CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRAT. I know that the cornerites you guys are^H^H^Hlisten to^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpretend not to be like to call any successful Democrat a 'liberal', but it's just not true in his case.

[M1EK]

"in your best interest to always support the lesser evil, but if you do that every time you'll be taken for granted and ignored."

No. You'll be catered to as far as the "lesser evil" is willing to move away from the "greater evil". I.E., you'll be part of "the center" that both parties try to grab.

As for me being too young to remember Perot:

I VOTED FOR HIM. *TWICE*. Looking back, not my best move ever. I liked him the first time because he was the only candidate to speak honestly about the stupidity of not taxing social security benefits (at the time, I lived in Rich Old Fart Central, i.e. Boca Raton). And, of course, I honestly thought he could win (the first time).

I don't know what the hell I was thinking the second time; but I still couldn't vote for Clinton because of the whole drug thing.

[M1EK]

"GWB would have won in 2004 whether I had voted for John Kerry, voted for Badnarik or written in Mickey Mouse. Hell Bush would have won if every libertarian had voted for Kerry. Individual votes make no fucking difference except at PTA meetings."

In 2000, weren't there states where Gore could have won by pulling the libertarian vote? If not, this is certainly more hypothetical for YOU GUYS, but obviously the Naderites need to think more practically.

[M1EK]

Hey drf,

Shove your snide crap where the sun don't shine.

[quasibill]

M1EK,

Your logic would work if we were voting on issues, not platforms. Since neither parties' platform is consistently "better" or "worse" than the other, voting for the "lesser" of two evils will accomplish only having the "lesser" candidate proclaiming a mandate for those parts of the platform where he was the "greater" of the two evils.

It just doesn't work the way you wish it did.

[J]

"As for me being too young to remember Perot..."

So are you just going to ignore the role he had in directing the political debate about balanced budgets and social security, or are you going to acknowledge that even a third party candidate as...uhh...less-than-ideal (crotchety, suffering from paranoid delusions, vaguely muppet-like) as Perot can have a significant effect on this country's politics if you don't automatically define him as irrelevant simply by virtue of the fact that he's a third party candidate?

[toddb]

M1EK,
You call Clinton a "conservative democrat" and I'll give you that he is really a moderate more than a liberal. But that doesn't address the point that his party pushes left and getting only 43% of the vote in an election where a 3rd party candidate defined the most important issue of the election as fiscal reform made it much more difficult to claim some "mandate" to push the party platform.

I would be thrilled if a 3rd party candidate could focus the conversation on liberty vs. big brother for just a single election...even in a losing bid. It would accomplish more than a lifetime of voting the lesser of evils.

[M1EK]

"So are you just going to ignore the role he had in directing the political debate about balanced budgets and social security"

Both Bush and Clinton were responsible adults, and both would have strove to cut the deficit, with or without Perot. This is coming from a guy who voted for Perot, remember.

[M1EK]

"You call Clinton a "conservative democrat" and I'll give you that he is really a moderate more than a liberal. But that doesn't address the point that his party pushes left and getting only 43% of the vote in an election where a 3rd party candidate defined the most important issue of the election as fiscal reform made it much more difficult to claim some "mandate" to push the party platform."

Clinton ran on a platform of welfare reform. You guys keep claiming he's some kind of liberal, or at best, "moderate Democrat". HE WASN'T. He was a conservative Democrat.

His platform didn't change one iota because of the votes Perot got, people. This is easy to verify - all you have to do is look at what he talked about before the election (or during his career in Arkansas).

[thoreau]

M1EK-

With regard to whether it's better to be a party loyalist or swing voter, I would say that our system empowers 3 groups:

1) Guaranteed primary voters.
2) Donors, and to a lesser extent loyal activists who can generate results.
3) Voters who are on the fence in the general election.

The optimal strategy is clear: Be as involved as you have the time and inclination to be, always vote in a major party primary, and in the general election show a willingness to bolt to a third party or maverick from the other party now and then (how often depends on your views and the candidates before you).

[J]

"Both Bush and Clinton were responsible adults, and both would have strove to cut the deficit, with or without Perot."

You have got to be kidding! If you honestly believe there would have been nearly the same political interest on the part of Clinton or Bush to cut the deficit without Perot's making such a big deal out of it and getting 19% of the vote, you're as delusional as Perot was. But if ignoring the effects of Perot's campaign is what it takes for you to convince yourself that third party candidates can't be relevant, go crazy. It certainly does lend a poignant touch of irony and hypocrisy to your comment that "The cognitive dissonance here is so thick you could cut it with a knife..."

[drf]

snif M1EK.

that was one, however where you weren't proactively rude. Just ignorant. You obviously have as much training in econ as you do in critical thinking.

... i tried shoving it there, but the plug was still in yer wife's ass.

[John Di Saia]

This is the place where I go Libertarian.

Protect our borders. Protect our security. Protect our children.

But that which consenting adults do in their homes is simply not a national interest.

This is a waste of our tax dollars and could get a Democrat elected in 2008.