Say you had to choose between Obama and Romney in the general election. For the sake of argument, assume Obama actually wants to pull the troops and end interventionism (we know this is wrong, but assume he wants to do this and has the capacity to do it).
Whom would you choose?
I find it difficult, because on the surface, Romney possibly is a little closer to free markets, yet Obama would be (again, assume the wrong fact) anti-war. And I find it difficult juggling “free market” with “less casualties.”
This dilemma just leads me to the same old conclusion: utilitarian calculation is impossible. You can’t weigh one freedom against another. You may make your own choices, but to wield the hammer which smashes your neighbors and the other people across the ocean is completely unjustified. Do people to realize that democracy turns people into kings who decide on which freedom to suppress? (the point that democracy actually means you get the tie breaker notwithstanding)
I writing in/voting for Dr. Paul, but to answer your question, Obama. Romney isn’t pro-market in any way, so it’s always better to have the person whose rhetoric matches their actions than to have the true Reaganite.
They are exactly the same regarding policies. Putting Romney in essentially means at least another 8 years without a pro-market president (since even if he is a one-term president, he would in all likelihood be succeeded by a Democrat president). Putting Obama in means at least another 4 years without a pro-market president. With that in mind, Obama is the better choice. This is without factoring in that the results of Romney’s presidency would be erroneously attributed to capitalism, which makes him an even more undesirable president.
Let me tell you a story. When I was in kindergarten, my teacher held a mock-election. The candidates were Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street. If Bert was elected, we’d get chocolate ice cream, but we’d also have to eat brussels sprouts. If Ernie was elected, we’d get vanilla ice cream, but we’d also have to eat lima beans.
To this day, I remember that I preferred vanilla ice cream and brussels sprouts. But that combination of “policies” wasn’t on the ballot. I couldn’t understand why not. It was incredibly hard for me to decide which candidate was closer to what I’d like, so I didn’t want to vote for either of them.
What I didn’t realize at the time was that, in voting at all, I was also saying to my classmates “I want to force you to take this combination over the/any other”. I think this is an even stronger argument against voting in general. Why must there be a single policy that everyone must follow?
People act like there’s no way to back out of group efforts. You can see this even when people discuss where to go for dinner. No one’s obligated to go along with what “the majority” says. But withdraw from the group, or even threaten to, and you’re suddenly seen as “anti-social”.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that Obama wants to end the drug war, end all foreign wars, end all regulation, end the income tax, and finally, disband the state. who would I vote for?
I would vote for Obama.
This is a completely meaningless hypothetical. Obama will never do those things, and he won’t do the things in your first hypothetical. I just don’t see what the point of this exercise is…
I am pretty sure Romney is much more pro-market. I can give you 10 things in which he is more pro-market. Give me one in which Obama is more pro-market.
Yes. In every instance I think you ought to follow the crowd. Come on. Saying that something is anti-social is not the same thing as saying that its wrong.
Eugene - firstly, that’s all talk. How many failed promises did Bush and Obama make? If you look at Romney’s record, it’s doubtful he really is pro-market anyway.
The plans are meagre in themselves, and might not actually make that much of a difference - with the result that any continuing economic troubles would be blamed on capitalism once again. They also reveal that Romney has a faulty understanding of the market and wealth creation, with the continuing references to ‘stimulating the economy’ through increased spending.