Lesser of two evils argument: how to respond?

I keep telling people to not vote for any evil. Ron Paul is still in the running and it is not over til the fat lady sings and even if he does not get the nomination.........I WILL WRITE IN........
Dr. Ron Paul, U S President (whether he is registered or not)
 
McCain will pull the rug out from beneath any organized resistance within the Republican Party to his brand of Big Government.

If he's a republican and knows and respects former Rep Bob Dornan or Sen Bob Smith... get him to watch the 1st video on http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/

We have traveled farther down the wrong path with a Republican president and Congress than we would have if we had experienced gridlock with a Democratic president and a Republican majority in the House and the Senate.

Does your friend believe Bush has been a disaster? or not so bad? or better than Kerry? Your approach will depend on the answer to that question as well.
 
What I always tell people is as long as we continue to settle for the lesser of two evils the criminals will keep on putting out two controlled candidates year after year. But if enough of us say we're not gonna stand for it anymore we can put pressure on the parties to run decent candidates.
 
Tell him...unlike a lot of other people, my conscience will haunt me if the candidate I vote for winds up being a worse president than Bush. My integrity is more important than electability.

Also it's not a vote for Obama because if third party candidates weren't running, I would stay at home and not vote at all.
 
Who knows what the situation will be in November. Any one of the candidates may very well blow it big time at some point before that.

Operating on what we know at this moment, Obama will win. So we have two options:

Obama wins because....

1) McCain loses by a slight margin and the GOP continues to think they are on the right path because they came oh so close to beating a very popular candidate.

2) McCain gets his ass handed to him because lots of conservatives voted for Barr and Baldwin. He loses so badly that the GOP sits up, takes notice, and maybe even rethinks the direction they've been heading.

Either way, Obama wins. You just have to decide which GOP you want fighting against him for the next four years.



I think 1000-points really has the dynamics straight!

Obama will probably win this election if he doesn't make any big mistakes by November.

When the votes are tallied and the GOP sees McCain could have won with the conservative base, that abandoned him for Barr/Baldwin/Paul (certified write-in), they will see the error of their ways. In subsequent elections you'll see a shift in toward the conservative direction, from Representatives, Senators, and Presidential candidates.

Should McCain only lose by just a little bit, the GOP will think they haven't moved ENOUGH to the left, and will move further in that direction.

That's the reason NOT to vote for McCain, and to encourage all conservatives and freedom loving individuals to take a stand and show the establishment enough is enough. It's time to vote for freedom and Liberty, it's time to vote for a third party!!


FF

P.S. Due to the high numbers of Democrats who will probably be voting, this will require huge voter registration drives. We need to get huge numbers who believe in the freedom movement, and we need to make sure they vote for a conservative candidate. This will ensure a change of direction in Washington D.C.
 
Last edited:
Plain and simple: I WILL NOT VOTE FOR EVIL, whether its the lesser or not.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. Whether its murder or petty theft, its still SIN. You're either evil or you're not evil.

People ask me, "So since RP is not the nominee, who are you going to vote for? You've got to vote for somebody."

My reply is always, "I'll vote for nobody before I opt for the lesser of two evils. I'll write RP in. I'll abstain."

The saddest fact about 99% of voters is that they have NO concept of voting their conscience. If their man/woman doesn't win the primaries, doesn't get the press, doesn't sound/look good enough, then they beleive they've got to change their choice and vote the "lesser of two evils." That is why we're in the shitty predicament we're in now. Nobody thinks for themselves anymore...nobody take responsibilty for their government....PEOPLE ARE SHEEPLE.
 
"We saw this when Perrot ran and gave the election to Bill Clinton"
I don't buy this arguement, Most of the Perrot voters I knew were from union families who would have voted for Clinton.....
In my county the count was
clinton 21K
bush sr. 19k
Ross Perrott 17k
I think the MSM & Both Parties used this tactic to keep a 3rd party from becoming a contender
 
Really what can America afford less.

Give me a choice hmmm.

Pull out of Iraq and get less expensive health care.

VS

Invade Iran and get drafted.

Now tell me which is more evil?

This country really can't afford 4 years of McCain's foolish dementia
 
I keep telling people to not vote for any evil. Ron Paul is still in the running and it is not over til the fat lady sings and even if he does not get the nomination.........I WILL WRITE IN........
Dr. Ron Paul, U S President (whether he is registered or not)

damn.... had to get to the 3rd page of this thread on the RON PAUL FORUMS to find RON PAULS name all the while discussing who us as "RON PAUL supporters" should vote for.

You all make me wanna puke. except you pepperpete...
 
I would check with your States' elections laws regarding Write-In candidates. If Ron Paul isn't a certified "write-in" candidate and you write him in, your vote may be trashed. It's good you didn't vote for the lesser of the 2 evils, but it won't count for freedom either!!

If your vote gets trashed, your vote won't be counted in the Freedom Movement.

Wouldn't it be better to have Ron Paul be a valid write-in candidate, vote for him, and be counted? Making sure the establishement can see your vote?


FF
 
The whole point of democracy is to vote for the most qualified candidate--the one who will most follow the Constitution. If one doesn't vote like this, then one doesn't deserve a democracy.
 
Voting for the lessor of two evils is voting for the evils of two lessors. It is still advocating evil.

I voted this way once. Once.

I felt so damned dirty about it after. I betrayed my then future kids by not taking a stand and vote on principle. I teach them core values that make people more than simple house pets: truth, freedom, reason, justice, sound money, and limited government.

How can we EVER get out of the grasp of evil if we approach voting this way? How can the good prevail if we have this mindset? It is the ever downward spiral to doom as every election cycle we vote for the lessor of two evils, as it begets more evil. We would become a society of cannibals. And a society of cannibals is doomed to destruction.

Hopefully, in the future, we can reduce State size and power to an absolute barebones minimum.

Right now, all we accomplish through the voting system is decide which group of thugs steal from us via taxation and inflation - but they all steal. Think about it. I don't have the right to steal from you. You don't have the right to steal from me. We can pretty much agree that we all do not want to live in a society where it is OK to steal from each other.

Then how do we delegate that right to steal from each other to a third party (the State)? This is exactly what we accomplish via the voting system. The State needs you to prop up the facade of democracy by voting. Imagine if an election was held and 0% of the population turned out to vote? What would the implications be? That all candidates were too evil to vote for? That would be goodness..

Ron Paul's message is but a step (a huge one) in the right direction. If I was able to vote (I am Canadian) I would write him in or abstain. And no, there is no Canadian worthy of my vote at the moment. Probably means I'll have to run so I can work my self out of a job ;)

Sorry folks about going off on a tangent. Need. More. Coffee. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Voting for the lesser of two evils only encourages more evil.

There have been several interesting scholarly articles written about the game theory implications of choosing the lesser of two evils. Reader's Digest Version: Voting for the lesser of two evils produces more evil.

It may only promote a little more evil instead of a lot more evil (unless you're a Bush voter and couldn't see evil if it bit your ass), but it's still the wrong damned direction and if we don't want the future to be hell we should turn around...
 
Abstain From Beans

By Robert LeFevre — (1911 - 1986)

In ancient Athens, those who admired the Stoic philosophy of individualism took as their motto: "Abstain from Beans." The phrase had a precise reference. It meant: don't vote.

Balloting in Athens occurred by dropping various colored beans into a receptacle.

To vote is to express a preference. There is nothing implicitly evil in choosing. All of us in the ordinary course of our daily lives vote for or against dozens of products and services. When we vote for (buy) any good or service, it follows that by salutary neglect we vote against the goods or services we do not choose to buy. The great merit of market place choosing is that no one is bound by any other persons selection. I may choose Brand X. But this cannot prevent you from choosing Brand Y.

When we place voting into the framework of politics, however, a major change occurs. When we express a preference politically, we do so precisely because we intend to bind others to our will. Political voting is the legal method we have adopted and extolled for obtaining monopolies of power. Political voting is nothing more than the assumption that might makes right. There is a presumption that any decision wanted by the majority of those expressing a preference must be desirable, and the inference even goes so far as to presume that anyone who differs from a majority view is wrong or possibly immoral.

But history shows repeatedly the madness of crowds and the irrationality of majorities. The only conceivable merit relating to majority rule lies in the fact that if we obtain monopoly decisions by this process, we will coerce fewer persons than if we permit the minority to coerce the majority. But implicit in all political voting is the necessity to coerce some so that all are controlled. The direction taken by the control is academic. Control as a monopoly in the hands of the state is basic.

In times such as these, it is incumbent upon free men to reexamine their most cherished, long-established beliefs. There is only one truly moral position for an honest person to take. He must refrain from coercing his fellows. This means that he should refuse to participate in the process by means of which some men obtain power over others. If you value your right to life, liberty, and property, then clearly there is every reason to refrain from participating in a process that is calculated to remove the life, liberty, or property from any other person.

Voting is the method for obtaining legal power to coerce others.

http://www.voluntaryist.com/lefevre/beans.php
 
Abstain From Beans

By Robert LeFevre — (1911 - 1986)

In ancient Athens, those who admired the Stoic philosophy of individualism took as their motto: "Abstain from Beans." The phrase had a precise reference. It meant: don't vote.

Balloting in Athens occurred by dropping various colored beans into a receptacle.

To vote is to express a preference. There is nothing implicitly evil in choosing. All of us in the ordinary course of our daily lives vote for or against dozens of products and services. When we vote for (buy) any good or service, it follows that by salutary neglect we vote against the goods or services we do not choose to buy. The great merit of market place choosing is that no one is bound by any other persons selection. I may choose Brand X. But this cannot prevent you from choosing Brand Y.

When we place voting into the framework of politics, however, a major change occurs. When we express a preference politically, we do so precisely because we intend to bind others to our will. Political voting is the legal method we have adopted and extolled for obtaining monopolies of power. Political voting is nothing more than the assumption that might makes right. There is a presumption that any decision wanted by the majority of those expressing a preference must be desirable, and the inference even goes so far as to presume that anyone who differs from a majority view is wrong or possibly immoral.

But history shows repeatedly the madness of crowds and the irrationality of majorities. The only conceivable merit relating to majority rule lies in the fact that if we obtain monopoly decisions by this process, we will coerce fewer persons than if we permit the minority to coerce the majority. But implicit in all political voting is the necessity to coerce some so that all are controlled. The direction taken by the control is academic. Control as a monopoly in the hands of the state is basic.

In times such as these, it is incumbent upon free men to reexamine their most cherished, long-established beliefs. There is only one truly moral position for an honest person to take. He must refrain from coercing his fellows. This means that he should refuse to participate in the process by means of which some men obtain power over others. If you value your right to life, liberty, and property, then clearly there is every reason to refrain from participating in a process that is calculated to remove the life, liberty, or property from any other person.

Voting is the method for obtaining legal power to coerce others.

http://www.voluntaryist.com/lefevre/beans.php

Wow. Great post! It is exactly correct. Ron Paul's message certainly embraces this. It would be a reversal of generations of socialist ideology that could not be undone in a 1 term presidency. It is a lifelong struggle and requires educated (not in government indoctrination camps we call "public education"), engaged, vigilant citizens to recognize when this beast rears it's head and crush its skull.

Truth Warrior? Ever heard of "agorism"?
 
Wow. Great post! It is exactly correct. Ron Paul's message certainly embraces this. It would be a reversal of generations of socialist ideology that could not be undone in a 1 term presidency. It is a lifelong struggle and requires educated (not in government indoctrination camps we call "public education"), engaged, vigilant citizens to recognize when this beast rears it's head and crush its skull.

Truth Warrior? Ever heard of "agorism"?

Thanks! I'm really pleased that you enjoyed the article. The author was my original libertarian mentor, long ago.

Agorism? Surprisingly no, I had not heard of it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. :D

http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Agorism ;)
 
Last edited:
It's nonsense.

I haven't followed this entire thread, but I'm curious--will your vote for Obama (I'm assuming that's who you plan to vote for) be a lesser of two evils vote, or will it be a vote of confidence?
 
I haven't followed this entire thread, but I'm curious--will your vote for Obama (I'm assuming that's who you plan to vote for) be a lesser of two evils vote, or will it be a vote of confidence?

A vote of confidence in a confidence man. I've got no hope that this will lead to change...
 
Back
Top