-19 votes

POLL: Which Principle is More Important?

Which of these two principles is more important to you?

---> http://strawpoll.me/3200/

Make sure to comment with why you voted the way you did or any other observation so we can get as many people to take the poll as possible! Thanks!

OTHER POLLS:
http://strawpoll.me/3284/
http://strawpoll.me/3274/
http://strawpoll.me/3262/
http://strawpoll.me/3238/
http://strawpoll.me/3236/
http://strawpoll.me/3202/



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Great stuff! Keep it up.

Great stuff! Keep it up.

Ventura 2012

The 2nd option applies to GJ

The 2nd option applies to GJ voters just as much as it does to people who write in Paul.

The 1st option applies to those who will vote for libertarian or liberty-leaning candidates from both the GOP and LP at the local, state and federal levels.

I think it's wrong to exaggerate the importance of the presidential election. There's thousands of different elections going on across the United States with liberty candidates. If you vote for them, you are doing the 1st option. Writing in Paul for president (or voting GJ or Goode) does not change that.

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/

You missed the point.

If a person comes to the conclusion that there are things that a vote for a specific candidate can do to promote the liberty movement reaching it's potential... #1 dictates who they choose for #2.

This poll measures how many people here (at least claim to) care about the liberty movement. Whether they actually do it is another story.

Do you really think that voting in a fraction of one branch of government would make more of a difference than getting a certain person elected to hold the entirety of another branch to themselves?

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

The big difference is that

The big difference is that libertarian Republican candidates like Thomas Massie, Kurt Bills, Tim Huelskamp, Mick Mulvaney, Justin Amash, Walter B. Jones and Kerry Bentivolio, as well as liberty-friendly Republican candidates like Ted Cruz, Jimmy Duncan, Raul Labrador, Jeff Flake, David Schweikert and Connie Mack can actually win, as can hundreds of other GOP liberty candidates at the state and local positions.

Gary Johnson can't win. It's unlikely he'll be allowed in the debates as they'll change the rules the moment he gets close. Most people will never hear of him because he's not a Dem or a Repub, and therefore he'll have an MSM blackout. It's really an impossible task to wake so many millions of people up to the message of liberty in less than 9 weeks. Even if he miraculously manages to beat Perot's vote share, the electoral college will work against him.

I support Gary Johnson personally, but I don't think it's right to call people out as anti-liberty for choosing not to support him.

Support Rand, Amash & other liberty candidates? Check out: http://www.LibertyConservatives.com/

Gary Johnson has a better chance of winning...

by running an aggressive campaign than Ron Paul has when he fails to show leadership in the campaigns to get him on all 59 state ballots or as a write-in.

When a person intentionally

When a person intentionally ignores the great things that would happen with a large turnout for Johnson WHETHER HE WON OR NOT for the sake of sticking to an emotionally biased choice built on misconceptions... they sabotage that potential.

It's aggression towards me, the liberty movement, and in turn the country.

It's not libertarian.

The problem is people don't put much REAL thought into the positive things that would happen in the short and long term with a vote for Johnson because those same people don't want to change their minds. They choose to sabotage their own perception of reality with inaccurate information and THEN apply that to their possibly great principles. A skewed perception of the facts and overall situation + great principles = "the road to hell being paved with good intentions."

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Instead of offering up another orange thief...

Without being contentious, could you explain why it would not be better to just boycott the election and put a spotlight on the orange thieves and expose them, along with the corrupt, rigged system that enables them.

A very vocal boycott of the election... complete with ads, billboards, etc., showing comparisons of the contenders and how they are alike where it matters, as well as ads exposing election hanky panky and including the vulnerability with electronic voting and secret vote count.

The two would need to go hand in hand, though, (boycott AND exposure)because even if the vote counts and reporting were honest, if the candidates to pick from are still orange thieves, there would be no gain for liberty.

Since there IS so much election hanky panky and the obvious problem with electronic voting and secretive vote counts, even if everyone agreed that Gary Johnson were the lesser of three evils and that voting for him would be what you describe in your first poll choice(promoting the cause of liberty to its full potential),why are you confident at all that your vote, or anyone else's, would even end up being recognized for Gary Johnson?

It wouldn't work...

The vast majority that are simplistic thinkers would take it as "The situation sucks!" when many of them already know it.

They would need a solution that caters to their feelings... such as hope of better things. Because these are the type that are too lazy to look up information on candidates in the first place... they're not going to take up the torches and start volunteering. They need an easier solution than that if this campaign were to work.

Ventura is working that with his "2 party gang" book on television... saying that if you want to really take it to the 2 parties responsible for the country's problems... vote Gary Johnson.

You have to take into consideration the mentality of the average "sheep".

I've only voted twice before and that was back when I was a naive life long democrat that only cared about "social issues". Since that campaign (especially starting now after the conventions and such large numbers of people already deadset on voting one way or another) wouldn't work... the best way for advocacy is national television via the debates and letting people see it for themselves without forcing it on them.

If that doesn't happen, then 4 more years of the internet's great idea and information sharing, passing political meme's back and forth all day on facebook, the nation's discontent with both parties growing even larger, especially after possibly finding out too late that they did have a 3rd choice and that it was corrupt rules that kept them from finding out about him... it will probably be the last grain of sand before the hill comes down and we have a peaceful revolution. If a true libertarian doesn't get nominated in 2016 via the GOP, 3rd party is going to have an even greater chance to win.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

The two options in the poll

The two options in the poll aren't mutually exclusive, and there's no "both" or "neither" option.

So what we have here is a stupid poll with a half-assed attempt to frame the conversation to fit the agenda of the OP. You're hilarious for thinking that your vote for Johnson will be counted. They didn't count our votes for Paul.

Really, it's you who is being willfully ignorant.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

For those that like to

For those that like to believe themselves to be true libertarians, the clear choice is #1 seeing as #1 would decide #2 for them.

For those that don't care for themselves or others to believe they're libertarians, because they're not... they can easily choose #2 seeing as the liberty movement doesn't matter to them.

Those that don't have principle #1 vote #2 and those that have both vote #1.

Thanks for the observation others have made already and not putting thought into what this poll would achieve finding before opening your mouth with assumptions :]

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

This is not cut and dry. So

This is not cut and dry. So we got screwed by the GOP and Romney is the nominee. I am still not voting for him, instead I am going to keep showing everyone how Romney and Obama are the same. So we have to wait for another chance in 2016, by then we should be ready to take over 20 state delegations, replace Reince, and wake up even MORE people. If Romney wins, we have to be big enough, strong enough, and ready to go to draft a Paul(Ron or Rand) to challenge his nomination. Think about what would happen in Iowa with only two Republicans on the ballot if Romney wins and nothing changes?

What is the first way we can

What is the first way we can show millions of Americans that Obama and Romney are the same in the worst ways and plant a seed in America's mind about not going along with the status quo in 2016 whether that be a better candidate in 3rd party or with a libertarian in the GOP?

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Based on the two options the poll gives....

...It doesn't have merit. A revolution based on principle is about winning a war not a battle and that is not an overnight process or is ther just one avenue of success.

This poll wasn't meant to be

This poll wasn't meant to be used as a normal poll. It was meant to show how many admittedly non-libertarians were here and show how many people think they're a libertarian whether... whether they are or not is up for debate.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Apparently...

Apparently liberty's "full potential" is to elect someone who doesn't even fully embrace the libertarian philosophy.

Gary Johnson couldn't even be legitimately called a minarchist, yet we are supposed to believe his election would be the "full potential" of the liberty movement.

If electing Gary Johnson is the best the liberty movement can do, then boy we are in trouble.

I really think we can do better.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

What is your definition of a libertarian philosophy?

On that note there are plenty of Liberts who don't consider RP a true libertarian but really who gives a rat's arse. It is not a label some one gives you that matters.

The Non-Aggression Axiom and Self-Ownership

That is the libertarian philosophy.

The idea that you are free to do as you please, so long as you do not initiate aggression against others.

It is the rejection of the initiation of force, the only justifiable force is defensive.

You have a right to you Life, Liberty, and Property(and the right to defend it), but you don't have a right to aggress against the Life, Liberty, or Property of others.

You have these rights because you own yourself, you have free will, and only you can exercise ownership over your own body.

Here is a video on it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GazZBvHhgQ

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

full potential takes time.

Be patient and plan long term.

Beleive me, I am planning for the long haul.

If you noticed I was using the words "full potential" in quotes, they are xRegardsx words.

He thinks Gary Johnson is liberty's full potential.

He doesn't like that I choose not to vote for Johnson, and instead choose to adhere to the Non-Aggression Axiom.

In order to preserve the philosophy for the long haul, I am not violating the Non-Aggression Axiom, and not resorting to consequentialism in the short run.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

How good of a candidate he is

How good of a candidate he is not the question.

The question is... which vote promotes the liberty movements potential the most for the sake of now and the future?

Here, you start.

List the ways a write-in for Paul promotes the liberty movement...

...I'll wait.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

In my opinion

our "potential" is better preserved, by preserving our integrity and only voting for NAP adherent candidates.

If you are of the opinion that you can actually fix this system by voting in the "right people" then you are sadly mistaken.

The only use politics has for the libertarian message is as an educational tool, a platform we can use to spread our ideas.

It is better to not water down our message, and not to promote candidates that are philosophically inconsistent with our message.

If we are to educate, we should spread our ideas in their purest form, not dilute them.

It is better not to vote at all, then to promote deviation from the philosophy of liberty, promoting these deviations are much more harmful.

"How good of a candidate he is not the question"

Really, it is not important how much of a libertarian he is?

If the LP nominee was Bob Barr again, would you have us vote for him?

If the LP nominated a neoconservative, who was only slightly better than the Republican or Democratic nominee by a fraction of an inch, wold you urge us to vote for them?

Here's a good question:

If we had the choice of picking from three candidates,

1. who would kill 5 people

2. who would kill 10 people

3. who would kill 15 people

Would you tell us to vote for person number one, as opposed to not voting at all, and not endorsing any of the criminals?

This is just a gauge, it will help me to understand you a little better.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

So your simple answer is

So your simple answer is "Would preserve our integrity as being NAP principled" then?

The question was regarding how the votes would affect the liberty movement as a whole. It wasn't regarding just the message. There's a lot more to consider than just our message that gets barely heard from write-ins.

And to answer your question... given the much longer list I have for positive things that happen to the liberty movement and the country as a result of getting behind Johnson... yes... I would pick #1. Standing idly by saying "I take no responsibility because I didn't vote or voted for Ron Paul" instead of voting to make violation of NAP much less than it has been for decades with a person that's open-minded and willing to listen to libertarians to better place his policies... yeah. I would be doing more to lessen and eventually bring down the amount of NAP violation than you would be. Being a consequentialist compared to a deontologist allows you to be more than self-centered for the sake of guarding your own ego.

This isn't a "lesser of three evils" situation because Johnson isn't a crook and liar.

If Johnson wasn't on the ticket, I would write-in Paul... because there wouldn't be a non-evil choice. There's more to a candidate being "evil" than how much they violate NAP.

The fact is that Gary Johnson isn't only "better by a fraction of an inch" as you're trying to imply with an exaggeration. And again... I'm looking at the end result of votes for Johnson whether he were to win or lose... the end results for the liberty movement for 2012 and 2016 regardless of who wins the presidency.

Feel free to consider all of those things.

So, was that the only thing on your pro-write-in list? I'll add the only other one I've heard and then compare it to my list if it is.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

So in the hypothetical you

So in the hypothetical you would rather enable a murder by voting for him, than opposing him and choosing not to have blood on your hands?

Also, you may not see Johnson as the lesser of three evils, but others do.

Just because you don't think hes a lesser of three evils, does not mean others don't see it that way.

I can guarantee that the vast majority of Anarcho-capitalists/Voluntarists see Johnson as a lesser of three evils, and even a great many minarchists do as well.

I think not endorsing immoral policies is a great reason to write-in or not vote at all.

As opposed to "Hey guys I know Gary see's nothing wrong with starting wars under humanitarian pretexts, but I'm telling you he's liberty's 'full potential'".

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Let's me realistic for a

Let's me realistic for a moment. One of these three are going to be president.

Your choice is between "less death" or "feel good about myself because I didn't vote for death at all"?

Choosing to feel good about yourself over making an actual real world positive change... not selfish at all.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Well, Mr. Blood Onhands

You go ahead and vote for Gary Johnson if you'd like, but no amount of screeching is going to convince me to join you.

Have fun

Au Revoir

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Well, Mr Blood OnHands ButTellMyselfThatsNotMyName

I made a valid point.

You are CHOOSING to feel good about yourself OVER there being LESS blood being spilled at all.

You're using circular logic to feel like you have no responsibility when your reasoning is flawed. You're choosing the easy route.

If you're sabotaging the possibility of there being less spilled blood... doesn't the difference between what would've been spilled and what will be spilled end up on your hands?

Your vote for Johnson = Less Blood Spilled
Your vote for no one or Ron Paul (in turn for Obamney) = The same if not more Blood Spilled

Your "I'm clean" vote where Obama or Romney win - "Less Blood Spilled" vote where Johnson at least has a chance = the amount of blood that's on your hands.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

I've heard this record before

Whats on Side B?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

You've heard it before... and

You've heard it before... and it's true. You can't invalidate it. Pretending to yourself that it makes no point doesn't change the fact that it does.

Example: If someone is stealing oranges, and you have the ability to do something to lower the number of oranges stole THAT shows that you don't want oranges stolen. Standing there yelling at the top of your lungs that you don't like oranges stolen when you COULD have done something to actually show it doesn't do anything.

Actions speak louder than words.

Using your vote to make an actual change speaks louder than you using your vote as a protest or claim of how pure in principle you are so you can avoid feeling responsible.

Bottom line: If Johnson would have less blood spilled and you sabotaged his chances... whatever difference there is between Obamney and Johnson in amount of blood spilled ends up on your hands.

A "I didn't condone this" vote doesn't wipe your hands clean when that vote could have been used to ACTUALLY do something.

Your self-centered approach doesn't really change anything.

The fact that you've heard this evidence before, couldn't invalidate it, and kept believing what you wanted to believe... ignoring valid evidence... shows that you're willfully ignorant. Congrats to you.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Oh no not the orange thief, how will we ever stop him.

"Example: If someone is stealing oranges, and you have the ability to do something to lower the number of oranges stole THAT shows that you don't want oranges stolen. Standing there yelling at the top of your lungs that you don't like oranges stolen when you COULD have done something to actually show it doesn't do anything."

Oh I do love this example, it shows that you still do not comprehend the Non-Aggression Axiom.

If someone was stealing oranges I would simply stop them, not look for somebody who steals less oranges, as you would be inclined to do.

You seem convinced that the political process is a viable option for the creation of a free society.

I've got news for you, it doesn't matter who you voted in, it could be Jesus Christ himself, and it wouldn't stem the growth of the state one bit.

There is one use and one use only for the political process, as a soapbox to stand on and spread ideas.

And if you are going to spread your ideas, you had better not water them down.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

You have only two

The person stealing is whoever the president is at the time. Doesn't matter whom it actually is per this example.

If the violation of NAP IS going to happen... it means you can't stop the person from stealing some... all you can do is choose to act which will lower the number after the fact or simply tell yourself "i don't condone this and that makes me a good person".

You have only two choices...

Do you stop the person from stealing MORE
OR
Do you just stand there saying you don't condone it?

I'll wait for your answer that you won't give...

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally