Anonymouse Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 This was an experiment proposed by a professor whos an avid libertarian critic. Thus I will need for you folks to please vote before it will be visible what the results are. If you were presented with two choices, A and B, who would you vote for? And if you know the purpose or the result of this, please do not share and vote with others so we may see where people stand. Thank you in advance folks. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Person A is identified as "a well-known critic of government, this man has been involved in tax protest movements, and has openly advocated secession, armed rebellion against the existing national government, and even the overthrow of that government. He is a known member of a militia group that was involved in a shoot-out with law enforcement authorities. He opposes gun control efforts of the present national government, as well as restrictions on open immigration into this country. He is a businessman who has earned his fortune from such businesses as alcohol, tobacco, retailing, and smuggling." Person B is described thusly: "A decorated army war veteran, this man is an avowed nonsmoker and dedicated public health advocate. His public health interests include the fostering of medical research and his dedication to eliminating cancer. He opposes the use of animals in conducting such research. He has supported restrictions on the use of asbestos, pesticides, and radiation, and favors government-determined occupational health and safety standards, as well as the promotion of such foods as whole-grain bread and soybeans. He is an advocate of government gun-control measures. An ardent opponent of tobacco, he has supported increased restrictions on both the use of and advertising for tobacco products. Such advertising restrictions include: [1] not allowing tobacco use to be portrayed as harmless or a sign of masculinity; [2] not allowing such advertising to be directed to women; [3] not drawing attention to the low nicotine content of tobacco products; and, [4] limitations as to where such advertisements may be made. This man is a champion of environmental and conservationist programs, and believes in the importance of sending troops into foreign countries in order to maintain order therein." Who do you vote for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel4hope Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 how bout neither?...but if i had to choose, id choose the first guy....for u already know his "flaws" but the second guy, B sounds too good to be true, and i bet has underlying reasons... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 One vote for A. I should add that I'm counting this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Anon, with all due respect, this is just another idiotic example of how the American higher education, presumably being founded on Socrates methods have been dragged in the mud of hollow assumptions and cheap shots, that some proffesors pride themselfs with. They call this 'TRICKY' questions. Since in America everyone lies, then most probably you shouldn't vote for any one. However, If we agree that the political system sucks and everyone tries to cover up as much as possible his past and present sins, than 'B' should be the right choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 I vote A ... I am not too in favor of tobacco regulations at the federal level, as well as strict gun control and banning animal testing so by process of elimination, A it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Okay, so far we have 2 for A and 1 for B. Thank you folks I appreciate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoushik Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 My vote is B. (Somehow just the letter B didn't count for me to post. Also, Anonymouse, do you need my reason for my vote? If so, please let me know. Right now it's just too late for me to get into this.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 A, definitely. B sounds like another spineless Clinton type. By putting restrictions on all those things he is not only probably merely trying to please the dumb 'environment protectors' masses, he is also playing right into the hand of organized crime, who will make billions out of tobacco etc. And as Angel said, with A you already know his faults. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 I just hope A and B don't turn out to be the same since then, I'm going to go find that professor and punch him in the face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 What are they being voted for ie what office? Chairman of the school board? Its clear that neither is ideal (though again each has its merits and detractions)...per se - but much is situational dependent. My guess is that A is Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson or someone similar...B...could be about anyone these days..but yes a characterchur...i would say Jimmy Carter..but he was in the navy...and couldnt be Clinton either...so don't know... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Although i admire the revolutionary spirit of A, I'll have vote B as I agree that arms regulation isn't a bad things (I'd rather be opposed to fanatical groups like the NRA etc.) I also would support a well-managed universal medicare system (if such exists somewhere in the world) and more transparency in the food/drug indusrty ie. mandatory labelling of all consumables (for consumer protection - GMOs, provenance of meats/fish etc). I suspect however, that this experiment will put all of these ideals in a poor light. Also, I would wonder exactly what opposition to 'open' immigration is... many of us are here thanks to 'open' immigration policies. I would think it hypocritical/oppotunistic not to support such policies after having taking advantage of them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Yeah VAVA - but yur tal,king too much the rel world here...not some abstract philosophy in which everyone is rich - or at least everyone that matters and who cares about the poor sods anyway...and whop cares if they shoot each other a bunch or get poisened..as long as business is good...yeah... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 This man is a champion of environmental and conservationist programs, and believes in the importance of sending troops into foreign countries in order to maintain order therein." I like the first part - but I'm not sure about the latter... my support of troop deployment would be based upon the circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vava Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 ...not some abstract philosophy in which everyone is rich - or at least everyone that matters and who cares about the poor sods anyway...and whop cares if they shoot each other a bunch or get poisened..as long as business is good...yeah... HAHA lol - yeah Thoth, how abstarct is that? I remeber someone in another thread saying the philosphers (unlike politicians) are here to handle real problems and suggest/implement permanent solutions. so i'm reponding with this in mind - yes, my response is at least a little 'real-world'... but really, it's all the same BS in the end.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 (edited) but really, it's all the same BS in the end.... Are you refering to just this thread..or to politics/politicians etc in general...in some ways i can certainly agreewith both. However - as much as I too an am Anarchist in spirit (and certainly am always being accused of being such) - and am certainly a critic of government(s) -ours, others, just in general - i have also worked with about every level of governemnt that there is in this country - from cumunity association (was a board member for years), to local citizens actions groups (ditto several differerent ones...), to local government, (again been involved...have participated on citizens task forces shaping county policies etc - drafting policies, making recommendations etc etc), to State Governemnt (least involvement here) to national - legislature (have worked for different congressional commitees...been involved in legislation & other stuff) and executive branch...(including our beloved national beauracracies and agencies etc etc)..and judical (well...been on a jury...but have never been locked up or anything..amazingly so...LOL)...and OK here is my statement - all the mechanism are in place for it to work. Democracy is a wonderful thing! And its a whole lot more then just voting in elections. Yes - to me the 2 party system sucks - and that so much is controled by narrow interests and money..but do not think that you as an individual can't move things as well - it can be done - thewre are avenuues and mechanisms - and its not just the vote - but the threat of the vote that matters. Yes - our choices are indeed limited - and politicians are by and large - the lowest common denominator - but there are many ways to influence the process and to get thinsg done..and by and large things work fairly well - all things considered. And if one thinks there is graft and corruption in democratic societies - please look at the alternatives and you will see much worse. I think we are pretty spoiled here (in the US and perhaps even in Europe - thoguh to me legally the US has more going for it..) - to not understand that indeed the fact that legally our nations laws do put the individual first - we have rights and government (in theory) exists to serve us - and not the other way around - well this is a big thing. And yes - in my mind the mechanisms are there - if there is falure it is because of apathy and people failing to get motivated and act - and that is all - and I truly believe this. Edited February 9, 2004 by THOTH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azat Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Anonymouse tell me which one you are so i can vote for you. I know the answer so i will not vote for either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Well, if I had to vote I'd vote for A. Those of you who voted for B actually voted for Hitler. Candidate A is closer to what the framers of the American Republic were. Do you see how political indoctrination can go a long way to make people convinced they need a socialistic leader? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sev-mard Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Definately an interesting little quandry you have there mouse. I came to late and saw the result before i could vote. It's tough because given the information there, you'd mostly likely choose B. But historical circumstances, past and present climate in a country, neighboring factions, all affect how and when a populous acts politically. Is is widely known, Hitler didn't work alone and even though all those Nazi's weren't as crazed killers as some of their comrades, it just goes to show how climate and a person who knows how to manipulate that climate can affect the minds of average people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 even though all those Nazi's weren't as crazed killers as some of their comrades Don't say that too soon. A lot of those leaders tried to make us believe they were acting only on direct orders and that they did not know that the order for extermination of the Jews had been given (the famous "Wir haben es nicht gewusst.." , also frequently used by the German people who voted on Hitler). In fact they all knew. And they knew it all. You are right in saying that some were more cruel than others, this is always so. But if they really wanted to do something for the Jewish people at that time they could have, even if it was a small thing. Signing up for the Nazi party is in fact enough proof of a man's ideals. I think there is a new book out called "Hitler and his generals" where all Hitler's meetings with his underlings are reproduced word by word. I've heard from friends that it gives an interesting insight on how much Herr Adolf's henchmen really knew. I have yet to read it myself. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Definately an interesting little quandry you have there mouse. I came to late and saw the result before i could vote. It's tough because given the information there, you'd mostly likely choose B. But historical circumstances, past and present climate in a country, neighboring factions, all affect how and when a populous acts politically. Is is widely known, Hitler didn't work alone and even though all those Nazi's weren't as crazed killers as some of their comrades, it just goes to show how climate and a person who knows how to manipulate that climate can affect the minds of average people. Hitler ran on a similar platform of candidate B. People forget that Hitler was a Socialist. Yes, he was not an international Socialist like the Commies, but he was a National Socialist. In that sense, whether it is a Democracy, Fascism, or Communism, or Socialism, they are all socialistic, since they are all vertically organized systems with a strong central government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Hitler never stated in any of his party platform while campaigning for office that he wanted Jews dead. That is untrue. You are once again correct. However, it doesn't take a genius to figure out where his plans might lead does it? What he most definitely DID say is for example: "Die Juden sind unser Üngluck". Also, as a German citizen in say 1939, when you see posters hanging around that picture a patient dying because visited by a Jewish docter you should get the message. You can't possibly convince me that the German masses were so stupid that they didn't forsee the extermination of the Jews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Hitler ran on a similar platform of candidate B. People forget that Hitler was a Socialist. Yes, he was not an international Socialist like the Commies, but he was a National Socialist. Yes you raise a valid point here. Most people indeed forget that Hitler's party was the NSDAP, National-Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiderpartei Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sev-mard Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Hitler never stated in any of his party platform while campaigning for office that he wanted Jews dead. That is untrue. Yeah he just said he had the "Final Solution" !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 If you were presented with two choices, A and B, who would you vote for? A fine example of the False Dilemma fallacy. But to answer your question, I would choose A, no matter how much I dislike it. Because by choosing B, you are only delaying your chances of a "revolution." You must drive the pathetics to the edge of the cliff so that they'd all fall off, in order to have a better chance at re-building a society based on solid values and belief systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Hitler never stated in any of his party platform while campaigning for office that he wanted Jews dead. That is untrue. And, of course, there is not a single document that directly links the Jewish genocide with Hitler or any of his deputies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.