I won't be voting. If none of the candidates are viable, don't vote.

By doing a lot of things, I lump myself with a lot of people. It's my intentions and thoughts that separate me, and if someone cars to only judge me based on my actions with no regard to why I did them, **** em.

I think it's important to vote

I say they represent whatever geographical area they have authority over as a whole, but they don't represent the dissidents.

George Bush is a representation, or was, of AMerica's political atmosphere; religious and paranoid.

-- Edited by DEATHPIGGIE at 03:08, 2008-08-30

While you may not like the people running for office, as a citizen you have a duty to vote. And even though your vote might have little say at least it is something.

Democracy and what we live in, a constitutional democratic Republic is a very confusing system.

The rights of those residing in the borders of the country are outlined in the constitution. People have a right to their property, to their minds, to speak as they feel is appropriate, to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. I don't think that people have a right to live in an unjust society, so I don't think people should be allowed to vote out moral laws.

In an extreme minimalist's view, I think the government's job is to police and to defend the country as a whole. I'd say it would still be appropriate to vote in representatives, senators and presidents to handle certain issues like creating laws in accordance with the constitution, maintaining itself, military and individual police budgets, ways of generating cash voluntarily etc.

I can't find a reason why a " little rights violation " should ever be allowed. People shouldn't be allowed to vote away rights on a state level, or any other level.

-- Edited by DEATHPIGGIE at 03:19, 2008-08-30

How? SHUT UP AND LEAVE ME ALONE THATS HOW>

I guess I don't think people are all THAT bad, for the most part. *******s, sure, but I really think America has a great bunch of people.

Also, it's always possible to change things in a system such as this. This is why it's more important to change society philosophically first, and why I don't consider politics all too important to discuss with people.

in any society that allows free speech, and remains democratic, there is always hope.

I will. I will condemn Americans who have allowed it to get this bad. Once again, it's philosophic changes that change the political landscape of America. You need a push towards rational thought before you can have a truly rational government.

I am hopeful that America will change, and my hope isn't unfounded. Everyday I hear things that give me at least some bit of hope. More and more people are becoming resistant to Religious individuals in politics, in the Republican party which is typically viewed, especially since Reagan, as the party of the Christians.

Sometimes i hear someone on the news make a point. THis person doesn't belong to the CATO institute or the ARI. He was some random guy who isn't associated with any think tank, who gets it.

Also, on an educational level the Ayn Rand Institute has been able to circulate over a million of Rand's books into public schools. Young people reading Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead and Anthem more and more gives me hope because it's rare that someone REALLY reads her books and doesn't have some kind of powerful feeling about it.

I do believe the nation is headed for a kind of meshing of Religion and Socialism, and Obama IS the prime candidate for that, though McCain is certainly not admirable either, even when compared to Obama. But despite this, I will continue donig what I can to spread the word of limited government and individual rights. I'll continue to love my life in America, because I am able to freely think, to do what I want with little restriction and possibly make a change.

Jason wrote:

---

Why not endorse a political system that forces ethical virtue, like Plato's Republic was supposed to do?

Objectivism doesn't seem principally opposed the use of force against the immoral; after all, it endorses the invasion and conquering of any and all countries that it deems irrationally/unjustly ruled. The use of force in one's own country, with the aim of building a more just society, doesn't seem too crazy.

---

 Because there is no guarantee these supposed philosopher kings are going to stay just and fair.  It's much more effective to have a society based on choice of leaders, since even though you may get a bad leader, a constitution prevents him from going crazy with power.  There is also the possibility that we will elect very good and honorable men who use their positions of power to make government more effective at it's job, and create a peaceful land to live in.
Freedom of speech and freedom of political choice are paramount to a moral society.  We cannot leave our fates up to the rules of myself, JasonOrr and Pizza because we are human and subject to change.  We also cannot leave ourselves up to the whims of the majority who vote in National Socialists in order to racially purify our society, so a constitution is created to protect certain rights that would guarantee while a society can go bad, it always has a chance of coming back again.