Gun Rights and Voting

Printable View

08-14-2012, 07:22
Pancho Villa

Gun Rights and Voting

Yesterday I attended Liberty on the Rocks Flatirons, a sort of liberty-minded social group that brings in speakers and such. A bit of a drive for the family, but the speaker was a good one, and a friend - Dr. Diana Hsieh, philosophy PhD from (of all places) UC Boulder.

Her general speech was great and on the lines of why philosophy is important to everyone, what political principles are right and general political activism, since the group is very politics-focused.

But an interesting point she made about voting for "the lesser of two evils" was pointing out one area in which liberty has made a ton of advancement in the last 25 years or so; gun rights.

She pointed out that it used to be that the Democrat would be adamantly anti-gun (no guns / registration) in many places, with the Republican moderately anti-gun (supports the AWB, etc.) The idea was the Republican could be safely "moderately" anti-gun, and help pick up some independent voters, and what would the hardcore pro-gunners do? Vote democrat?

Actually, they abstained. And that tipped more than a few elections - until the Republican party started realizing that they were losing more votes than they were gaining with that sort of stance, and began to move in the proper direction or gun rights.

It's a bit of a simplification - a big component here was also expanding the number of gun owners and making gun-owning more respectable - but the political point is still very valid. Think of other "locked up" interest groups that often simply get left by the wayside - on both sides - because they will vote en masse for one or the other side no matter what.

The very successful pro-gun movement is an interesting example of long-term strategic thinking paying off in a relatively short amount of time. I thought that might be food for thought for the political discussions going on.

Edit: My favorite line of the night was "when you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, you end up with a lot of evil."

Dr. Hsieh mostly does practical ethics on her weekly podcasts, which I think are great, but I may be accused of bias since she's a friend. They're available at http://philosophyinaction.com/.
08-14-2012, 08:58
Inconel710

Thanks for the write up. I'll have to check out her podcast.
08-14-2012, 09:09
10mm-man

I am not sure about the "more Evil" from voting lesser of two evils. Sounds to me like she was trying to sway the crowd to vote for Obama.

Let's just say we see Romney/Ryan as the lesser of two evils. How would we end up w/ more evil? Or even the reverse-Obama/Bidden?
08-14-2012, 09:28
Pancho Villa

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10mm-man

I am not sure about the "more Evil" from voting lesser of two evils. Sounds to me like she was trying to sway the crowd to vote for Obama.

She most emphatically was not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10mm-man

Let's just say we see Romney/Ryan as the lesser of two evils. How would we end up w/ more evil? Or even the reverse-Obama/Bidden?

Thinking long-term, compromise begets more compromise. Think if all those pro-gun voters said "well, this Republican who is against assault weapons is better than the democrat; I'll just vote for him." We'd have bolt action rifles left - maybe. The more you give, the more gets taken in that sense.

It's not "more evil this election than if Obama gets in" - it's, if you keep compromising, Obama's platform will be the GOP's in 16 years, and they'll be running against for-real communist platforms.

Just look at, for example, how the GOP opposed social security, medicare, medicaid, etc., and now support for these programs is beyond question in the party.
08-14-2012, 09:34
10mm-man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pancho Villa

She most emphatically was not.

Thinking long-term, compromise begets more compromise. Think if all those pro-gun voters said "well, this Republican who is against assault weapons is better than the democrat; I'll just vote for him." We'd have bolt action rifles left - maybe. The more you give, the more gets taken in that sense.

It's not "more evil this election than if Obama gets in" - it's, if you keep compromising, Obama's platform will be the GOP's in 16 years, and they'll be running against for-real communist platforms.

Just look at, for example, how the GOP opposed social security, medicare, medicaid, etc., and now support for these programs is beyond question in the party.

I think your point can be made also by going back over the years and how the parties has basically switched sides. Not sure how to stop it, think Ron Paul and his push for more constitution based individuals is a start! Glad to hear she wasn't pushing for Obama but with that kind of thinking not sure how she couldn't?? I say that because if everyone was to vote for someone other than Ryan/Biden (and vote 3rd party)we know Obama would def stay put. Everyone on both sides of the fence would have to vote outside there party for it to work.........[Beer]
08-14-2012, 09:38
spqrzilla

Politics is all about compromise. "No compromise" positioning at the ballot box means that you are not voting and the politicians do not try to influence your vote.

We got where we are with long term thinking, and incremental improvement, and its been very successful. All of the nay-sayers that attacked the NRA's work have been shown wrong.
08-14-2012, 09:43
Pancho Villa

Quote:

Originally Posted by spqrzilla

Politics is all about compromise. "No compromise" positioning at the ballot box means that you are not voting and the politicians do not try to influence your vote.

We got where we are with long term thinking, and incremental improvement, and its been very successful. All of the nay-sayers that attacked the NRA's work have been shown wrong.

Yeah, Dr. Hsieh was all about incrementalism and the NRA is definitely a success story on that end. She just was pointing out that an attitude of "we need to vote in the guy who is not quite as bad as the other guy" is often counterproductive.
08-14-2012, 09:51
10mm-man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pancho Villa

She just was pointing out that an attitude of "we need to vote in the guy who is not quite as bad as the other guy" is often counterproductive.

Seems like that has been the norm for sometime now..........
08-14-2012, 10:23
Danimal

This is a problem that I have thought of for years. Looking back there are many times where I wish I never had voted because both candidates were a level of suck that I was not willing to back even if they had won. Now that the problem is identified, what are we as a nation going to do about it? I see a lot of discussion about the failings of our political system but no one is putting out solutions. Here are a couple ideas that I had.

1) Politicians are paid on a sliding scale after their term is up that is based on their general approval rating. So basically if you suck ass and have a 25% job approval rating then you get 25% of that positions standard salary. That way you as an elected official have a vested interest in doing the right thing by the majority of your constituent population.

2) Ban all political advertising. Give each candidate a specific forum to answer questions that are selected by the American people, then have those answers available for all to see prior to election. Formal structured debates would also be a good idea, but the most important part is getting the money out of election races. If they can not advertise, then they do not need 90% of their current budgets, which gets them out of the pockets of special interest groups. Make it illegal for any elected in office politician to accept money from any source other than their private business ventures (which should be closely monitored) and their pay as voted on by the people.

The reason we have to vote for the lesser of two evils is our political system rewards backstabbers, liars, cheaters and the independently wealthy. We have to fix that before we can have a decent candidate to vote for.
08-14-2012, 10:34
KevDen2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10mm-man

I am not sure about the "more Evil" from voting lesser of two evils. Sounds to me like she was trying to sway the crowd to vote for Obama.

Let's just say we see Romney/Ryan as the lesser of two evils. How would we end up w/ more evil? Or even the reverse-Obama/Bidden?

I think the point is that if you keep voting for the lesser of two evils the person you are voting for is still evil, just not as evil as the other person. Nothing good really comes of it and therefore it is still evil. It's a philosophical statement getting you to think.
08-14-2012, 10:39
ScooterCO

Term limits for all elected officials is my soap box. The other is, the repeal of "I get a pay check for life".. how did congress ever have the ballls to get that thru? How did we let it happen?
I am getting very disillusioned with the whole system and on how it is operating in complete disregard of the people and common sense.
Less government is a better government!
08-14-2012, 10:42
Scanker19

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScooterCO

Term limits for all elected officials is my soap box. The other is, the repeal of "I get a pay check for life".. how did congress ever have the ballls to get that thru? How did we let it happen?
I am getting very disillusioned with the whole system and on how it is operating in complete disregard of the people and common sense.
Less government is a better government!

I would love to see the pay scale for the "paycheck for life."

Term limits are good if they are doing bad, but what if, just what if, they did a good job, they'd be gone after a few years.
08-14-2012, 10:53
Teufelhund

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scanker19

I would love to see the pay scale for the "paycheck for life."

Term limits are good if they are doing bad, but what if, just what if, they did a good job, they'd be gone after a few years.

Ask and ye shall receive: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscong...ongresspay.htm

This is an often repeated myth. I was mad about it too until I found out it isn't true.

Quote:

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

The amount of a congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

According to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.
08-14-2012, 16:49
mevshooter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danimal

1) Politicians are paid on a sliding scale after their term is up that is based on their general approval rating. So basically if you suck ass and have a 25% job approval rating then you get 25% of that positions standard salary. That way you as an elected official have a vested interest in doing the right thing by the majority of your constituent population.

2) Ban all political advertising. Give each candidate a specific forum to answer questions that are selected by the American people, then have those answers available for all to see prior to election. Formal structured debates would also be a good idea, but the most important part is getting the money out of election races. If they can not advertise, then they do not need 90% of their current budgets, which gets them out of the pockets of special interest groups. Make it illegal for any elected in office politician to accept money from any source other than their private business ventures (which should be closely monitored) and their pay as voted on by the people.

I don't think politicians should get anything after they are out of office. Most of them parlay their political status/fame into consulting firms, business ventures, etc (if they already haven't before they were in office) so I don't understand them getting ANY money at all. A guy serves in the military for 8 years and gets just about nothing when he leaves. Why should political office be any different?

And I agree with that second part. Political advertising is crap, and downright dishonest most of the time. And the fact that Obama received tons of money from foreign entities is INSANE.
08-14-2012, 18:04
spqrzilla

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pancho Villa

Yeah, Dr. Hsieh was all about incrementalism and the NRA is definitely a success story on that end. She just was pointing out that an attitude of "we need to vote in the guy who is not quite as bad as the other guy" is often counterproductive.

Well, your second sentence contradicts the first.
08-14-2012, 19:02
Sharpienads

Quote:

Originally Posted by spqrzilla

Well, your second sentence contradicts the first.

Well played, sir!
08-14-2012, 19:15
bogie

The year for abstainment, this is not.
08-14-2012, 19:25
Daniel_187

1 Attachment(s)

OP good write up. But right or left (see pic, and my pic skills are -19)
08-14-2012, 19:54
hollohas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pancho Villa

She pointed out that it used to be that the Democrat would be adamantly anti-gun (no guns / registration) in many places, with the Republican moderately anti-gun (supports the AWB, etc.) The idea was the Republican could be safely "moderately" anti-gun, and help pick up some independent voters, and what would the hardcore pro-gunners do? Vote democrat?

Actually, they abstained. And that tipped more than a few elections - until the Republican party started realizing that they were losing more votes than they were gaining with that sort of stance, and began to move in the proper direction or gun rights.

Edit: My favorite line of the night was "when you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, you end up with a lot of evil."

.

Regarding the part in bold. This took me a minute to understand (not being a smart ass, it did confuse me)...

She is saying that even if folks voted republican back then we would have still gotten the AWB? But by not voting for anyone the republican party of the time changed their ways? And therefore 10 years later the AWB went away and more republicans are pro gun? Is that what she is saying?

I thought that the pro-gun change happened when people actually DID vote..when they voted OUT the antis. Not when people abstained from voting.

Serious questions...not sarcasm.
08-14-2012, 21:58
Bailey Guns

I guess in order to believe that you have to accept the "lesser of two evils" premise. I don't.

I think that's become a kind of bumper-sticker slogan for a lot of people (not everyone) who really don't give much thought to what really happens in politics.
08-14-2012, 22:50
Irving

Quote:

Originally Posted by spqrzilla

Well, your second sentence contradicts the first.

How so? There is a stark difference between incrementally moving in the right direction, and incrementally moving in the wrong direction. Climbing up a rope one inch at a time, and sliding down a rope one inch at a time can both be classified as "incremental" movement.

In the example, the NRA is incrementally making movements towards a pro-gun America, where as voting the lesser of two evils is incrementally moving towards an anti-gun America.