A Thought Experiment.

[Sentient Void]

Here's a thought experiment for everyone:

If the government had both of your parents, and declared there would be a national democratic vote on which one would be executed, how would you vote?

And do you understand the point behind this thought experiment?

 

[acptulsa]

If the government were holding both of my parents, I would be a little too busy to vote.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

btw, my vote in this poll was in jest. In seriousness, I would pick the 3rd option.

 

[guitarlifter]

Murder isn't a means that could justify any end when it comes to murdering innocent people. I would certainly not vote, and I would do everything in my power to save both of them.

 

[Sentient Void]

btw, my vote in this poll was in jest. In seriousness, I would pick the 3rd option.

Which is why I made it a public vote - for jokers such as you

I wonder how long it'll take though before people understand the point behind this thought experiment?

This has been a valuable thought experiment that I've used successfully multiple times when I've heard a certain argument about why people vote the way they do in elections.

 

[acptulsa]

So, what are you prattling on about, SV? The dreaded lesser of two evils?

 

[Sola_Fide]

I would propose a Second Amendment solution to this little quandry...

 

[ChaosControl]

I'll answer by saying I'd be on the DHS's list.

 

[muzzled dogg]

democracy the god that failed
hans herman hoppe

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Which is why I made it a public vote - for jokers such as you

I wonder how long it'll take though before people understand the point behind this thought experiment?

This has been a valuable thought experiment that I've used successfully multiple times when I've heard a certain argument about why people vote the way they do in elections.

I think it's a great thought experiment to show the fatal flaw of elective government. A nice variation on Alan Simpson's quip that the choice between the parties is choosing between "the stupid party and the evil party".

 

[pcosmar]

My Father is Dead.
My Mother is quite elderly, and is a well respected and loved member of the community.

The government loses.

No vote necessary.

 

[Sentient Void]

So, what are you prattling on about, SV? The dreaded lesser of two evils?

Exactly. I've run into the argument from both republicans and democrats... that they supported Obama, even though they didn't like him at all - just because they liked the other guy less - because he's 'less evil'. Or that they voted for McCain, even though they didn't like him at all, simply because they'd rather have McCain than the other guy who's worse - Obama. The hope is to get the less evil person elected, or at least make it harder for the other person to get elected.

Point being, that confronted with two choices which are both clearly evil, even if one is less evil than the other - you should not vote for either of them, period. Don't vote at all, or protest vote - on the basis of principle - especially if it clearly won't matter how you voted, when an evil decision is being made either way.

They say - "Well, my vote doesn't really count in the grand scheme of things anyways - so why should I vote third party if it won't make them win? Either way, a republican or democrat will win - so I might as well vote for a lesser of two evils."

If it doesn't matter, then that's more of a reason *not* to vote for evil. It should make it even easier, if anything, *to support principle*.

Me - I protest vote (if the protest vote is someone I do certainly agree with) to send a clear message, and the more people that protest vote, the clearer the protest against the two evil choices are.

That being said, while not voting at all is clear legitimate on the basis of principle, I feel by not voting, it does give a sense of legitimacy to those who get selected by majority. Instead of a growing percentage taking away the vote from either Rs or Ds, their percentage is greater. A greater third party vote would send a much clearer message than no vote at all.

Hell, in the example above, if I were to vote, I'd probably write in the President's name, or 'the government', or whatever.

 

[DamianTV]

If the government were holding both of my parents, I would be a little too busy to vote.

^^^ This! ^^^

 

[Anti Federalist]

Let me posit my quandary, and this is for real. I posted this already in another thread, I'd like to see some more feedback.

Here's my dilemma: as it stands right now, it looks like Mitt is a shoo-in for the GOP primary (leaving aside howls of protest and the like, just bear with me).

The problem, on a personal level, is that one of Mutt's primary residences is uncomfortably close to my hometown.

Now, granting that a choice between Romney or Obama is no choice at all, the empire will roll on just as it is now, with no appreciable change, do I throw my support behind Obama for the purely selfish reason of keeping the crowds, the DC security apparatus and the swarms of everfucking cops of all shapes and sizes that come with it, from hut hutting about, in what amounts to my back yard?

Exactly. I've run into the argument from both republicans and democrats... that they supported Obama, even though they didn't like him at all - just because they liked the other guy less - because he's 'less evil'. Or that they voted for McCain, even though they didn't like him at all, simply because they'd rather have McCain than the other guy who's worse - Obama. The hope is to get the less evil person elected, or at least make it harder for the other person to get elected.

Point being, that confronted with two choices which are both clearly evil, even if one is less evil than the other - you should not vote for either of them, period. Don't vote at all, or protest vote - on the basis of principle - especially if it clearly won't matter how you voted, when an evil decision is being made either way.

They say - "Well, my vote doesn't really count in the grand scheme of things anyways - so why should I vote third party if it won't make them win? Either way, a republican or democrat will win - so I might as well vote for a lesser of two evils."

If it doesn't matter, then that's more of a reason *not* to vote for evil. It should make it even easier, if anything, *to support principle*.

Me - I protest vote (if the protest vote is someone I do certainly agree with) to send a clear message, and the more people that protest vote, the clearer the protest against the two evil choices are.

That being said, while not voting at all is clear legitimate on the basis of principle, I feel by not voting, it does give a sense of legitimacy to those who get selected by majority. Instead of a growing percentage taking away the vote from either Rs or Ds, their percentage is greater. A greater third party vote would send a much clearer message than no vote at all.

Hell, in the example above, if I were to vote, I'd probably write in the President's name, or 'the government', or whatever.

 

[acptulsa]

The problem, on a personal level, is that one of Mutt's primary residences is uncomfortably close to my hometown.

Now, granting that a choice between Romney or Obama is no choice at all, the empire will roll on just as it is now, with no appreciable change, do I throw my support behind Obama for the purely selfish reason of keeping the crowds, the DC security apparatus and the swarms of everfucking cops of all shapes and sizes that come with it, from hut hutting about, in what amounts to my back yard?

Form a homeowners' association.

NOW!

 

[Anti Federalist]

Form a homeowners' association.

NOW!

1 - I'm not that close to Mutt's digs.

2 - I'm pretty rural, there are not that many "homeowners".

3 - That's a cure that's worse than the disease.

 

[emazur]

 

[MN Patriot]

Well, maybe someone could come up with the bright idea of forming a third party. But we all know that 3rd parties = fail. Forever and ever amen.
Might as well get used to that boot on your throat.