Gyroscopic Investing

Reading the comments on this topic convinces me that the only sane voting strategy is to vote against the incumbent regardless of party, platform, experience, etc.  Every time for the next 3-5 election cycles.  It sounds insane, but it may be the only way to break the stranglehold that the political class and lobbyists have on the country.  It may not be applicable at the state or local level, where they are perhaps more responsive to the electorate, but at the federal level when everybody votes for "their guy/gal"...how's that workin' for us?

Isn't Einstein credited with some aphorism about "doing the same thing but expecting a different outcome?"

moda0306 wrote: Most of those don't sound like reasons that liberals would like him.

But yeah, awful president

But let's not forget that even "Cool Cal" was in favor of our involvement in WWI.  I don't understand it, but a lot of good people wanted that thing to happen.

I love Teddy though.  So maybe I'm just trying to justify his WWI support.

I don't expect infallibility from our officials. I expect principled governance based on the ideals of a minimalist approach to the state (a necessary evil) and a strict respect for the rule of law and private property. Coolidge was not perfect. But he was the best President of the last 112 years. Sadly politicians are always under such pressure to give things to those who vote for them. It is the curse of democracy and one of the reasons why I am a libertarian monarchist.

Ad,

I really don't want to turn this into one of every other thread I've altered, but here are my ill owing points:

1) Private property as we've known it for centuries is a statist-supported myth.

2) Favoring forcing men to go fight foreigners to the death is perhaps the worst possible form of coercion short of what foreign war itself imposes on the foreign individuals.

Maybe a thread hijack.  Just couldn't help it .

moda0306 wrote: Ad,

I really don't want to turn this into one of every other thread I've altered, but here are my ill owing points:

1) Private property as we've known it for centuries is a statist-supported myth.

2) Favoring forcing men to go fight foreigners to the death is perhaps the worst possible form of coercion short of what foreign war itself imposes on the foreign individuals.

Maybe a thread hijack.  Just couldn't help it .

Well if private property is a statist myth it's apparently a very old conspiracy.

Thou shalt not steal. (Exodus 20:15)
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. (Exodus 20:17)

And yeah I think that anarchist claptrap is, well just that. And I have eight thousand years of human history that says anarchism is the myth. But I'm largely sympathetic to your views on the subject of compulsory military service, especially for wars of aggression.

Simonjester wrote:

Ha, that's awesome.

Ad Orientem wrote:Well if private property is a statist myth it's apparently a very old conspiracy.

Thou shalt not steal. (Exodus 20:15)
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. (Exodus 20:17)

George Carlin had this to say about coveting:

"This one is just plain stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going! Coveting creates jobs!"

The three worst presidents were Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR.
Fourth place is in play, but O has an excellent claim on it. Before him, I would have said Bush, and before that, Clinton.
So the trend isn't very favorable. 

Libertarian666 wrote: The three worst presidents were Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR.
Fourth place is in play, but O has an excellent claim on it. Before him, I would have said Bush, and before that, Clinton.
So the trend isn't very favorable. 

Take heart, there's likely to be some severe recency bias with something like this.

If Clinton, W, and O are all in the running what does that say about the electorate?

Reub wrote: If Clinton, W, and O are all in the running what does that say about the electorate?

That we should have stuck with a monarchy? 

Reub wrote: If Clinton, W, and O are all in the running what does that say about the electorate?

This is just the situation warned about by guess who:

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe. "

I will take bland dolts like Clinton, W. Bush and Obama any day over people like Fidel Castro or Idi Amin.

Believe it or not, we could do a lot worse than elect idiots to be our leaders.

MediumTex wrote: I will take bland dolts like Clinton, W. Bush and Obama any day over people like Fidel Castro or Idi Amin.

Believe it or not, we could do a lot worse than elect idiots to be our leaders.

Reminds me of this quote:

"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S. Lewis

rocketdog wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I will take bland dolts like Clinton, W. Bush and Obama any day over people like Fidel Castro or Idi Amin.

Believe it or not, we could do a lot worse than elect idiots to be our leaders.

Reminds me of this quote:

"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S. Lewis

That one is going into my files.

rocketdog wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I will take bland dolts like Clinton, W. Bush and Obama any day over people like Fidel Castro or Idi Amin.

Believe it or not, we could do a lot worse than elect idiots to be our leaders.

Reminds me of this quote:

"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S. Lewis

Sorry I'm so stupid.  Which ones are the "robber barons" and which ones are the "omnipotent moral busybodies?"  I'm just askin'.

cnh wrote:

rocketdog wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I will take bland dolts like Clinton, W. Bush and Obama any day over people like Fidel Castro or Idi Amin.

Believe it or not, we could do a lot worse than elect idiots to be our leaders.

Reminds me of this quote:

"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S. Lewis

Sorry I'm so stupid.  Which ones are the "robber barons" and which ones are the "omnipotent moral busybodies?"  I'm just askin'.

As much as I have enjoyed C.S. Lewis's fiction, I have increasingly come to see his views on religion, philosophy and politics to be half-baked.

In reading some of his nonfiction, I cringe at the looseness of his reasoning.  He talks about his friends and how they disagree with his views, and I wonder if they disagreed with his views so much as they were annoyed at the shallowness of his reasoning.

I don't think I would much want to live under the rule of a robber baron or an omnipotent moral busybody.

Unfortunately we have the pleasure of living under both simultaneously at the moment.