h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This is a brilliant brilliant article and I will definetely reccomend it. I'm very impressed by your grasp of political knowledge. And you mentioned Ayn Rand. Not many people use her as a reference. I've written an article on Ayn, but it needs a whole ton of work before it can be put up. I'd appriciate your input on the article.

Once again, thank you.

To tell the truth, I'm relying on second-hand testimony for the parallels between objectivism and libertarianism. I'm not familiar with her work at all, although I am familiar with the basics of objectivism. Still, I'm glad you liked the article... vote Browne in 2000!

Heck yes! Have you seen his website? I highly reccomend it. http://www.harrybrown.org

Yeah, I've been there several times. Browne is a bit of an extremist Libertarian, and I don't agree with him on everything, but he is certainly a better choice than the clowns the major parties have dressed up and put on parade.

You live in the IE, so you must get the LA times. Did you happen to see the article where they said "Cheney only an asset if Bush Wins"? That's their idea of objective reporting...

But, yes, Dubya and Bore are truly pathetic. What makes me upset is that whenever I discuss Libertarianism as an alternative to the GOP or Democrats, I'm always met with, "But I don't want to throw my vote away..."

Grrr. Like voting for someone you don't belive in isn't throwing your vote away...

Absolutely. People wonder about voter apathy, but I don't. People choose not to vote because they hate both major candidates. If they'd get off their butt and register a protest vote, it'll send a message. Even if it's for Mickey Mouse, if Mickey ends up with 15% of the popular vote, they're going to have to take notice. Plus, everyone is so locked into the two-party system that they don't realize that there's very little difference to the two anymore. It's like following a football team... if you're a true fan, you stick with them no matter what. That's okay, though. Libertarianism owns the young vote. If we can just get more of them out to the polls...

Didn't MTV try that?

Actually, I was made aware of the Libertarian party through the internet. I think that if Harry Brown were to do a very inclusive internet campaign, he would probably win.

I became aware of him through the '96 campaign. Ross Perot's shenanigans had been bringing attention to third-party politics, and an episode of Larry King Live was dedicated to third-parties. Along with Libertarian and Reform were the presidential candidates from Green, Natural Law, and the Socialist Party. I respected Nader, but his politics are rather poorly defined (he has nothing to say after save the rainforests and end corporate welfare), and the Natural Law and Socialist guys sounded like crackpots. I was already going in with a healthy respect for what reform was all about, even though my respect for Perot was waning, but Browne really impressed me. After that, of course, I jumped on the internet to find out more, and that was when I became totally impressed. No democrat or republican I've ever known has been so brave as to put every position and their stance in such unmistakeable terms. And that's always what I've been after. I don't want to hear pretty speeches, I don't want to see personal attacks... I want to know what you intend to DO. For example, look at health care. The democrats want to nationalize it, but have no plan. The republicans want to nothing. Only the libertarians have a solid plan that has been researched and scrutinized. Even if it were doomed to be a horrible failure, at least they came up with SOMETHING.

Well, when you have nothing to hide, or lie to yourself about then the truth is a very natural thing...

Nader, to my knowlegde, has based his entire platform on the fact that people are wasteful, and make too many products that pollute. And that pollution is a bad thing. And clean water is a good thing. Etc, etc. Never mind the fact that he totally blanks out any mention of the fact that men's products are the reason for his high standard of living, and that pollution is not the result of the products, but the result of bad planning og the products (ie; the men who invented them), and that who will pay for the cleaning of the water, but the men who's products pay for these sweeping social reforms...

Too many glaring contradictions. This is why he'll never be elected. His heart's in the right place, but his head is somewhere unmentionable.

I hope that we start getting some Libertarians elected in the U.S...that way people will finaly be free and allowed to live their own lives. By the way, I liked the article so much, that I am putting a link to it on my user page.

"Life is ours, we live it our own way...and nothing else matters."
-Metallica

Politicians *don't* take notice of protest votes. Think about it - in a two-horse contest, in order to win you need over 50% of **the people who voted for one of the two horses**.

So if, say, 20% of the population voted for Nader, then that means that Gore has to do MUCH, MUCH less to try and appeal to the green vote - because he knows that the greens aren't going to vote for him. Similarly for people who don't vote. He'll concentrate on the 80% of people who don't care about the enviornment.

If you vote for someone with no chance of winning, you are effectively disenfranchising yourself. How much attention was the female vote given back when females couldn't vote? That's the same amount of attention that libertarians will get if they vote for a libertarian candidate.

If you want people to be able to vote sincerely without it making their votes worthless, then support electoral reform. Approval, IRV, Condorcet, heck ANYTHING is better than the system as it stands. Until the electoral system is changed, voting for a minority party continues to be an exercise in pointlessness.

And if there's any time you might have a chance of doing it - this year is the time.

I STRONGLY disagree. Politicians are forced to take notice of protest votes. Did you notice how much Gore was pleading with Naderites to keep from "throwing away their vote"? Gore needed 50% of the *total* vote, not 50% of the votes that were for either him or Bush. Voting for one of those clowns is the throw-away vote... people vote for the one that they consider to be a "lesser of two evils", and all they're doing is supporting the current power structure. Gore lost Florida because people voted for Nader who would have otherwise looked at him as the lesser of the two evils. He has to do MUCH MORE to appeal to the Greens. When the rest is a deadlock, it's those swing votes they have to target... third parties ARE swing votes.

I suggest you check into the history of the Populist party in the US before you start dismissing third-party politics. Then check into the first days of the Republicans, who originated as a third party, but don't seem to go away. Third paties are the only way to effect true change.

And, on the flip side, did anyone notice Bush trying to pillage the Libertarian platform? His stated policy towards social security is almost right off their platform. Unfortunately, he also stole one of the Libertarians' worst ideas... the abolishment of minimum wage.

Given that Nader got about 2%, he needed just over 49% of the total vote.

Third parties are swing votes *provided they swing*. If people 'vote their conscience' regardess, then they *are* disenfrachised. If they are at least willing to make the 'lesser of two evils' decision, then sure - their vote isn't totally wasted. They can get a change out of the candidate which is closest to them (Gore in this case).

But it gets worse. If we label people, on the green spectrum, from 0 being the oil companies and 1 being Greenpeace. {I could talk about voters, but american politics seems to revolve entirely around big companies and pressure groups }. So Bush appeals to 0.0-0.5 and Gore appeals to 0.5-1.0.

So Nader comes along, and appeals to 0.9-1.0. They all vote their conscience, and Gore loses. Bad news for the green people. Alternatively, Gore shifts his position upwards, so he now appeals to 0.55-1.0, and Nader agrees to compromise and drop his candidacy. Bush, being a politician, shifts to 0.0-0.55, and wins the election.

So who would you prefer in power as a green voter? Gore, saying 0.5-1.0, or Bush, saying 0.0-0.55? Just as a side note, because the democrats show they are prepared to flex, next time they will likely see another green candidate to make sure the same thing happens. If they show they are not prepared to flex, then they are less likely to see one. Since a green candidate is bad news for the democrats, it pays them in the longterm to be inflexible in negotiations (but 'inclusive' in public).

I'll agree that minority parties can gain power. It's happened in the UK too - that's where Labour came from. However, it requires an awful lot. In the case of the UK there was a worldwide rise in socialism and its popularity, and we'd just won a world war against the extreme right. That's the sort of extenuating circumstances that I don't see in modern America. Global warming may be nasty - but it's not yet on the Megadeath scale.

However, while minority parties persist, they can do a lot of damage. The LibDems(~10%) and Labour(~40%} have split the socialist vote to an extent that is probably the major cause in keeping the conservatives elected many more years than not. That may be a good thing if you're right-wing, but it's not an example of democracy in action, is it? And it may have effected real change - but the real change in question would be the privatisation of everything and the destruction of trade union power - not things I feel that the libdems were aiming for...

This is coming from someone who voted libdem last election. But then, it was in a safe seat, so my vote was wasted whoever I voted for. *Dang*, but I hate our election system.

Some people say voting for a third party is throwing away your vote. I say that voting for someone or something you don't believe in is throwing away your vote.

Exactly. If I had voted for Gore or Bush, I would have completely violated my principles. I believe in the basic tenet of the Libertarian party, which is that people govern themselves better than government can. Both Gore and Bush intend to expand the power of the government. In that light, how could I possibly support either??

I think that you're presenting the concept a bit too simplistically. Not all Greens are voting for Nader because of his environmental policy. I actually distrust him for that... I think he'll overregulate business and drive costs up to the point where the Germans and the Japanese will take over our domestic markets again... it'll be cheaper to make things out of the country and ship them in than to produce them locally. I believe businesses will get better about pollution. Meanwhile, our single biggest polluter is the national government... let's not expand it, if we want to drink the water.

The reason I respect Nader is because of his stance on corporate welfare and on campaign financing. First, it will get the corporations out of politics. Second, it will create a truer free-market economy. As Dan Akroyd said in "Tommy Boy", "We have to have the courage to take a few companies and bash them in the head with a shovel. That's progress."

So, my point is this: there is a whole lot more to an election than the environment.

Yeah - I was simplifying greatly - but the same effect occurs in any election - plurality deals *very* badly with third candidates. Heck, if you want the Libertarian candidate to win, just clone Gore and Bush often enough and have all the clones stand for election.

Ok, so say Gore and Bush are both dire. Say that if Bush is elected you'll be unhappy to the cost of $100. If Gore is elected you'll be unhappy to the cost of $110. If the libertarians are elected you'll be so happy there'll be a bonus of $1,000,000.

The probability that your vote will be the deciding one in the Bush/Gore race is low - perhaps 1/1,000,000. But the chances of your vote being the deciding one in a libertarian/bush or libertarian/gore race is about one in 10^14. So if you vote Bush to keep out Gore, your vote is worth one thousandth of a cent to you. If you vote libertarian, your vote is worth about a millionth of a cent to you.

So the 'rational' thing to do is to vote tactically. You can vote how the heck you like of course - but that's what politicians mean when they talk about 'wasted votes', and, under the US and UK system, they'd be right.

If you reckon that Gore and Bush are equally horrendous then the 'rational' thing is to vote libertarian, sure. But for most people the small differences between them are enough to make it better to ignore their principles.
--
Given that the environmental protection in Germany is several light years ahead of the US - I don't think you need to worry about environmental legislation being so harsh you get outcompeted by Germany. I can't comment on Japan.

But why cast that vote over a $10 difference? What exactly would be the point? Yes, I would affect the election, but for little good. And I would have to live with myself and the knowledge that I could have cast that million-dollar vote, and that it could have been mine, if only I hadn't been such an idiot and prostituted my voice for ten measly dollars. And the rest of the country is just like me.

You're putting such a value on having a voice, but not any value on what you actually say with it. How is democracy served if yours is the actual vote that determines the entire election, and you waste it on some chump you wouldn't hire to wash your car windows?

And, of course, this fallacy is what keeps those chumps in office, and they'll do whatever they can to perpetuate it.

Nope - if it was a tie between Rep and Dem, and you voted Rep, then Rep would win, and you would have made a $10 difference. But if you had voted Lib, then it would have ended a tie, and you'd have made no difference at all.

If, on the other hand, the thing turned into a *three-way* tie between Rep, Dem, Lib, and you voted Lib, the you'd have made that million dollar difference. Do I have to tell you that the chance of a three way tie in the last election was so tiny as to be negligible?

It's not a fallacy - it may not be good, or desirable, but in the current state of affairs it is a fact of life. This is one case where the politicians are teling the truth, much as I hate to admit it. It would be better yet if they told people what the solution was.

Well, we will always disagree on this one. I think making a $10 difference just isn't worth it. It achieves too little. My vote is too important to me to pass it on to someone I don't believe in. The message I send with my vote is more important than the impact.

However, if I had the deciding vote, and I refused to break the tie, that still makes a large difference. That sends a clear message to the Republicrats that I find them both completely unpalatable. As they turn to the House and Senate to choose between them, the nagging question in the backs of their minds will be "What do I need to do to ensure that he'll vote for *me* next time?"

And that, my friend, is exactly the message I want them to receive...

fair enough.

I'd just like to be able to send them that message... AND be able to influence the outcome of the election. Having to do one or the other is just about the most frustrating choice there is.