5 ms·

> So under your system of responsibility, as long as the parties keep one-upping each other in evilness, they can infinitely get worse Yes, unfortunately. We a

> So under your system of responsibility, as long as the parties keep one-upping each other in evilness, they can infinitely get worse Yes, unfortunately. We are effectively slaves, so absent a revolution (or alternative that leads to viable third parties) we don't have a choice about this. > and no one is ever to blame. No. Those who voted for the lesser evil are blameless for the actions they didn't support, until the next election when a new choice is made based on the info at that time. The other voters are to blame. It's very simple: when you make the best possible righteous choice, you are blameless.

tolmasky 12y ago
> Yes, unfortunately. We are effectively slaves, so absent a revolution (or alternative that leads to viable third parties) we don't have a choice about this. > It's very simple: when you make the best possible righteous choice, you are blameless. Ah, but by your own admission, the best possible choice is actually to start a revolution, not to vote for a party that is also evil. So why doesn't your unique take on morality instead assign blamelessness solely to those actively trying to start a revolution, instead of conveniently assigning blamelessness to those that vote for the lesser of two evils but perpetuate a system you admit perpetually ratchets up in evilness? Is it because its easier to tick off something on a piece of paper and tell yourself you're doing your part rather than devoting your life to actually making things better? Seems to me that if you really want to have this black and white view where only, and I quote, those that make "the best possible righteous choice" can be blameless, then you unfortunately fall into that ... other bucket :/
- fargolime 12y ago
  You can support an end to the 2-party oligopoly and vote for the lesser evil. Doing both does greater good. I don't support revolution, because it's not the best viable way to improve things, let alone very viable at this point. A much better way is for the good people to ostracize (as much as possible) the bad people. Imagine if Bush's daughters had disavowed love for him, over his needless violence. It may well have had an effect, and if not then at least been a consequence to him, serving as a warning to others.
  - tolmasky 12y ago
    Nah, you're just being lazy. I could have said the same thing during the colonies: "revolution isn't viable right now, we'd being going up against the most powerful military in history. Its a way better strategy to shun people that support the British, yeah, that'll work!"
    - fargolime 12y ago
      At some point back then it would've been clear it was viable. We're obviously not anywhere near that point yet, and there are likely other better ways. We don't yet have full dictatorship, which makes the difference. For example, it would likely take less energy to gain vote ranking (or other way to make third parties viable) by protesting and striking than by revolution. If the protesters and strikers are mowed down by bullets or tanks, then you need revolution.
- dalke 12y ago
  Party activists are more influential in the primaries. The black-and-white anti-third-party logic applies much less in those elections. The best possible choice is clearly to pick a party and get involved in its internal politics, and not wait until the general election to do anything. Revolution from within! (Oh, wait, that's what happened with the Republican party starting in the 1980s.) But that that's not as easy as ticking off a piece of paper and assigning blamelessness.
forgotpasswd3x 12y ago
This is so ridiculous. It allows half the country to feel blameless by believing they're voting for the "lesser evil". You're not blameless for voting for the less-bad of two bad options. You still voting for a bad option. This image comes to mind whenever people talk bring up this kind of thinking. http://i.imgur.com/afp9dQp.jpg http://i.imgur.com/afp9dQp.jpg Additionally, the threat of one of the major parties losing votes to a third party has been shown to influence the politics of the major party, so even if the third-party candidate doesn't win, it still may have a positive effect down the road. People don't seem to think very far down the road, unfortunately.
- fargolime 12y ago
  > You're not blameless for voting for the less-bad of two bad options. You still voting for a bad option. There's no contradiction. You made the best viable choice. You can't be made "bad" by doing that. That benefit of voting for a non-viable third party is outweighed by the advantage of voting for a lesser evil that can viably win. If hypothetically you were the voter that could tip the election to Gore in 2000, your best choice is to vote for him, not Nader, even if voting for Nader has some benefit. Voting for Nader could be reasonable only if Gore had no realistic chance of winning your state.
  - dalke 12y ago
    If hypothetically you could have secretly ruined votes for Bush for Palm Beach county - would you have? Assuming your logic has merit, the benefit for you not committing voter fraud is surely outweighed by the benefit of not letting the Great Evil Bush get power, making voter fraud the best viable choice, no? Why would voter fraud be "bad"? Surely even the worst case of spending a couple of years in jail is worth the future of not having Bush in charge, right? Are you ready to commit voter fraud for what you think is the greater good? Are you ready to torture for the greater good?
    - fargolime 12y ago
      I support torture where it's clear it's the best viable choice to prevent greater violence. That may be an exceptionally rare case. On your hypothetical I'll say only that I strongly support the The Congressional Oath of Office, namely this part: > I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same That said, the best ways to effect change are still legal, like general strikes and boycotts.

tolmasky 12y ago

> Yes, unfortunately. We are effectively slaves, so absent a revolution (or alternative that leads to viable third parties) we don't have a choice about this. > It's very simple: when you make the best possible righteous choice, you are blameless. Ah, but by your own admission, the best possible choice is actually to start a revolution, not to vote for a party that is also evil. So why doesn't your unique take on morality instead assign blamelessness solely to those actively trying to start a revolution, instead of conveniently assigning blamelessness to those that vote for the lesser of two evils but perpetuate a system you admit perpetually ratchets up in evilness? Is it because its easier to tick off something on a piece of paper and tell yourself you're doing your part rather than devoting your life to actually making things better? Seems to me that if you really want to have this black and white view where only, and I quote, those that make "the best possible righteous choice" can be blameless, then you unfortunately fall into that ... other bucket :/

fargolime 12y ago
You can support an end to the 2-party oligopoly and vote for the lesser evil. Doing both does greater good. I don't support revolution, because it's not the best viable way to improve things, let alone very viable at this point. A much better way is for the good people to ostracize (as much as possible) the bad people. Imagine if Bush's daughters had disavowed love for him, over his needless violence. It may well have had an effect, and if not then at least been a consequence to him, serving as a warning to others.
- tolmasky 12y ago
  Nah, you're just being lazy. I could have said the same thing during the colonies: "revolution isn't viable right now, we'd being going up against the most powerful military in history. Its a way better strategy to shun people that support the British, yeah, that'll work!"
  - fargolime 12y ago
    At some point back then it would've been clear it was viable. We're obviously not anywhere near that point yet, and there are likely other better ways. We don't yet have full dictatorship, which makes the difference. For example, it would likely take less energy to gain vote ranking (or other way to make third parties viable) by protesting and striking than by revolution. If the protesters and strikers are mowed down by bullets or tanks, then you need revolution.
dalke 12y ago
Party activists are more influential in the primaries. The black-and-white anti-third-party logic applies much less in those elections. The best possible choice is clearly to pick a party and get involved in its internal politics, and not wait until the general election to do anything. Revolution from within! (Oh, wait, that's what happened with the Republican party starting in the 1980s.) But that that's not as easy as ticking off a piece of paper and assigning blamelessness.

forgotpasswd3x 12y ago

This is so ridiculous. It allows half the country to feel blameless by believing they're voting for the "lesser evil". You're not blameless for voting for the less-bad of two bad options. You still voting for a bad option. This image comes to mind whenever people talk bring up this kind of thinking. http://i.imgur.com/afp9dQp.jpg http://i.imgur.com/afp9dQp.jpg Additionally, the threat of one of the major parties losing votes to a third party has been shown to influence the politics of the major party, so even if the third-party candidate doesn't win, it still may have a positive effect down the road. People don't seem to think very far down the road, unfortunately.

fargolime 12y ago
> You're not blameless for voting for the less-bad of two bad options. You still voting for a bad option. There's no contradiction. You made the best viable choice. You can't be made "bad" by doing that. That benefit of voting for a non-viable third party is outweighed by the advantage of voting for a lesser evil that can viably win. If hypothetically you were the voter that could tip the election to Gore in 2000, your best choice is to vote for him, not Nader, even if voting for Nader has some benefit. Voting for Nader could be reasonable only if Gore had no realistic chance of winning your state.
- dalke 12y ago
  If hypothetically you could have secretly ruined votes for Bush for Palm Beach county - would you have? Assuming your logic has merit, the benefit for you not committing voter fraud is surely outweighed by the benefit of not letting the Great Evil Bush get power, making voter fraud the best viable choice, no? Why would voter fraud be "bad"? Surely even the worst case of spending a couple of years in jail is worth the future of not having Bush in charge, right? Are you ready to commit voter fraud for what you think is the greater good? Are you ready to torture for the greater good?
  - fargolime 12y ago
    I support torture where it's clear it's the best viable choice to prevent greater violence. That may be an exceptionally rare case. On your hypothetical I'll say only that I strongly support the The Congressional Oath of Office, namely this part: > I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same That said, the best ways to effect change are still legal, like general strikes and boycotts.