A blog for people
with a critically rational individualist perspective. We are
developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the
very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of
the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from
Samizdat /n. a system of clandestine publication of banned
literature in the USSR
[Russ.,= self-publishing house]
Time to decide
Dale Amon (Belfast, Northern
It seems like everyone has announced their decisions now: even Megan
McCardle. So it is my turn... well, actually that isn't really true.
You see, I had to vote about two or more weeks ago to make sure my
absentee ballot made it to Pittsburgh by October 31st so my decision cycle
was a bit tighter than most.
It is not so much a difficult decision as a painful one. I have had to
do something I have never done in my life. I started off Clean for Gene
putting up posters when I was still a high school student; friends were
out for McGovern... and then the LP came along and made me feel
comfortable voting, something I had not really felt in the earlier
I have election after election been perfectly happy voting straight LP.
Even if I did not see my candidate take an oath, I at least knew I agreed
with what they stood for.
Unfortuneately, this year I again became, in Marshall Fritz's words,
'Politically Homeless'. The LP stand on the current war has left me in the
unfamiliar and awkward feeling position of selecting the least of
Do not get me wrong. There is really only one of the three candidates
whom I really loath and it is not Badnarik.
I also a worry this election might be another squeeker, something I was
not expecting. I believed it would be a runaway. That appears not be the
case. Votes do matter more than usual this time.
It really came down to a no-brainer though. I have voted for a
Republican for President for the first time in my life. I don't agree with
George Bush on many issues, but I do indeed agree with him on the war and
the war cabinet is one I quite like. There is a minor plus that all the
right people are totally off the wall and over the top insane about the
prospect of him winning.
There is an undertone of religious intolerance against his obviously
sincere and deep faith. I do not find this distressing despite my own
total non-belief. I am a pure physical scientist, but just because I do
not see need to posit a supreme being does not mean I do not respect those
who do. I feel George is a good man and honourable. I simply do not buy
the rantings of the left or even of some of our own. Disagree with him if
you must, but please do not descend into ludicrous accusations.
I do not like some of his domestic agenda, but for the exact opposite
reasons the Kerry side is against it. On the other hand, he has managed a
number of political shuffles that appear to be one thing but whose outcome
was not really that bad. The cloning research 'ban' appears to have been
little more than a ban of state funded research, something no Libertarian
could argue with.
But that is all secondary. We are in the middle, not merely of a war in
Iraq, but of a global war on whose outcome our very lives may depend. I am
too close to technology not to realize how much evil can be done by a
small number of dedicated followers of the dark side.
I endorse George W. Bush for President of the United States.
I don't understand the need for 'a foolish consistency' in politics.
Often, I find myself agreeing with only one or two issues in a party
platform. Designed, as it is, to appeal to the broadest possible
consitituency, a platform can't be all things to all people. I'd no more
consider voting a straight ticket than I'd consider biting my hand off.
Beside, specific issues change year to year and the solutions required
change -- at least, I think they do. I voted for Gore in 2000, for Dole
before that, for Clinton before that, and for Reagan before that. In each
instance, I made the best decision I could based on my appreciation of the
issues and what I perceived to be the character of the man involved.
Character weighs heavily in the equation. Far heavier, indeed, than party
loyalty or so-called intelligence.
There's no need for anyone to explain why they're voting for George
Bush. Like Rudolph Giuliani and Winston Churchill, he's proved himself an
able leader in confusing times. Bush doesn't have to be perfect. Leading
is damned hard and the bitch of it is that very few people criticising
from the sidelines have a clue as to what is involved. Even when you do it
poorly, it's a thankless task. To do it well is a talent beyond the
capability of most.
In keeping with my philosophy, I'm voting for Barack Obama for Senator
of Illinois (a Democrat) and George Bush for President.
Welcome to the light side! I disliked Bush's decision on the
stem-cell issue too until I realized Bush stopped only gov't funding.
btw: Megan's wrong in her decision-making post about the corporate tax
bill. There was a small amount of pork but a lot of technical corrections,
as Kevin Hassett write in a piece in TechCentralStation.com
Lets see why George Bush is so attractive as a candidate:
1) Supports anti-gay marriage amendment.
2) Spends tax money like drunken sailor, including the largest
percentage increases in non-defense spending in decades, and the creation
of a record deficit.
3) Claims that it is fine to throw US citizens in jail indefinately
without trial or right of counsel on the President's say so.
4) Got us involved in a stupid war in Iraq on the pretext that Saddam
Hussein had WMDs (false) and had something to do with 9/11 (also
5) Said war having now cost the lives of tens of thousands of innocent
Iraqis, or perhaps even more.
6) Said war also having been run with spectacular incompetence.
7) Supported steel tariffs.
8) Supports textile tariffs.
9) Mangled the only thing he did even half right, a tax cut.
10) Anti-abortion, and likely to appoint supreme court justices who
will overturn Roe vs. Wade
11) Created large expansions of the foolish semi-socialized medicine
12) Vastly enhanced the powers of federal police agencies to violate
individual rights without any notable increase in security.
13) Participated in the federalization of things like airport security,
creating vast increases in bureaucracy without notable improvements in
14) Vastly increased funding for the drug war.
I could go on and on.
Any libertarian voting for Bush is deceiving themselves beyond my
capacity to describe. I can see opposing Kerry. Kerry has very little
going for him. But support Bush? That's just nuts.
As another resident of Pittsburgh, attending your alma mater's robotics
institute, I hope that our combined votes tip the scales of the PA
electoral vote :)
You can see my reasons to vote here.
On a related note, you can see my brother's reasons here.
It's related because he also lives in PA, and is actually somewhat
undecided. I've thought for at least a month that the person for whom he
decides to vote will most certainly win.
You can get updates on his position here.
It's not really Bush's leadership I don't like it's his lack of focus
on the long range. I think the funding cut for stem cell research was
nearly as bad as banning it. Unfortuatly I believe it might lead to some
non-profit organizations and schools withholding funding to stem cell
research for fear of offending coservitive donors and alumni. Also I am
hacked off that he left the most promising feild of nanotechnology
(scan page two of this article) out in the cold and instead focus their
funding on scientists who are producing nanotech sunblock. And that's just
the science stuff.
I'll probably vote for Kerry but I don't like him much either. I do
believe he can fix some of the domestic problems Bush has gotten us into
and I don't think he as big a pansy when it comes to Iraq or national
defence as he's made out to be.
How does the state look from Pittsburgh, anyway? It doesn't look very
good on this side: I'm a suburban Philly resident and it would appear that
the Democratic machine is going to do the same thing it did four years
ago- run buses into ethnic neighborhoods to farm likely Kerry voters,
partially on the taxpayer's dime.
Crazy. So Bush has only let 3,000 people be murdered by terrorists when
he had adequate warning to stop it. What's your standard for great wartime
leadership, then? 3,500 people? 4,000? You like his War Cabinet? Why? Abu
Gharib turn you on? Highest levels of terrorism in 20 years not quite high
enough for you? Telling us the war will pay for itself and that we'll be
greeted like liberators close enough to the truth for you? Telling us they
KNEW where Saddam's nuclear weapons were hidden didn't bother you?
respect religion also, except yours, which is some kind of bizarre belief
that Bush has these vague character traits such as "strength" and
"clarity" which mean jack against a few dedicated people with nuclear
weapons. Here's Osama bin Laden, THREE YEARS after he killed 3,000 fellow
Americans, on my TV mocking my President. My President is a joke to
terrorists around the world. They aren't dead or in jail. They aren't even
scared. They are mocking him. They don't fear him. Which means they might
come after us.
This coupled with John Ashcroft's new version of
America in which he's reading your credit card receipts, library book
list, the websites you like to visit, etc. You're a funny
You're going to lose this election. On the bright side,
you will be much better off for it.
What I hope for is an about face if President Bush is re-elected.
That means a sudden redirection of focus away from healthcare spending,
risky (as far as criticism from the democrats) tax cuts, and department
cleansing. I doubt, however, that he will follow through with anything
that radical. Bush doesn't particularly strike me as a radical political
In the future, the Republicans will need a more radical candidate and
stop pandering to the center. The democrats are guilty of the same. Either
that, or honest to goodness real libertarians (in the IRS destroying,
income tax destroying, regulation destroying sense) need to get up off
their asses and convince people that electing a democract or republican is
not the answer. We have the internet. We can organize much better than
ever before. All it takes is a small voice in every major city of the
country to change things.
I don't care what Bush has done or not. It's sufficient for me to
notice that pornographers (child ponographers at that), satanists,
abortists, and the like, HATE Bush, in order for me to like the guy. If
his enemies are of such kind, I want nothing to do with them.
The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and
heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world
with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many
crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social
individualists, libertarians, extropians, futurists, 'Porcupines', Karl
Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand
worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric
Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed
anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and
The Samizdatistas are:
Perry de HavillandPrincipal contributors
Robert Clayton Dean
Alice BachiniResting Contributors
Gustave La Joie
Samizdata.net editors are God and God
moves in mysterious ways. If you have an article, comment, rant or
smart-arse rejoinder that you would like to contribute to Samizdata.net,
e-mail it to us and we might publish it suitably edited. Or not.
content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any
other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons