Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>> In my view, the goal is 1) to elect the best of
>> the viable options, with respect to particular
>> issues that matter (stem-cell research, etc.);
>> and, FAR more importantly, 2) to elect somone
>> who will increase the odds that the two-party
>> system will (eventually) break down, in order
>> that the conditions for the solution to the
>> SUBSTANTIVE problem will finally come about.
> If that's possible, I can't argue with that
> goal--my vitriol is directed at those
> (all-too-common) reporter who think one should
> _always_ vote for a viable candidate,
> not those for who such a
> vote might be rational for other reasons.
I'm definitely with you there. The press contribute
to/participate in the problem big time.
> > > A voter who chooses to
> > > shirk that duty by hiding his true prefence
> > > among a sea of conformity, despite there being
> > > no possible benefit to him or anyone else in
> > > doing so, is not worthy of respect.
> > Hm.... okay, well, I suppose there's little point in discussing
> > this further then.
> If you think I'm non-persuadable just because
> I'm vocal, you are mistaken.
That's not it. It was more your rash charges of idiocy and such.
But your recent post was well-argued. I'm unfortunately
commencing an email vacation at present. But I'd be interested
in seeing a working-through of this issue by Extropians. It's
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:37 MDT