Who to Vote For
"Who to Vote For" is a terrible piece of philosophical writing, yet is posted on Talking Philosophy - The Philosophers' Magazine Blog. It is not terrible because philosophy should stay out of politics. Quite the contrary. Political Science is the fourth branch of philosophy after ethics. "Who" is a terrible piece of writing because any reasoning high school student with no background in philosophy--or 18th Century American History--could have written it.
One way to answer the question of who to vote for, says the "philosopher" author, "is to take the approach espoused by a conservative friend of mine [who] typically says something like “why should I vote for someone who isn’t going to do what is in my best interest?"
The author then goes on to explain what things may be described as in one's "best interest." What he never gets to is that the "best interest" of any American is to stick to the Original Intent of the Constitution, throw the bums out, and elect someone who thinks in terms of 18 Century politics.
Instead, the author discusses personal best interests, as though the political table was filled with anything you might want to ask for, as if from a dessert menu, and without regard for whether or not it ought to even be on the "menu."
"The most obvious answer is that it is what you think you want and need. Of course, what a person wants and thinks he needs could actually be contrary to his self-interest," writes this "philosopher". "Another obvious answer is that what is in your self-interest is what benefits you. [ ] On a more philosophical level, [p]eople often regard their selfish wants as being what is truly beneficial and good for them. Hence, this would seem to indicate that people should vote in a selfish manner. [ ] However, acting in a selfish manner can be an error."
"On a more philosophical level, acting in a selfish manner can be an error"--
??? How many years of education did that take the author? The Founding Fathers did not fear selfishness, not in the face of Constitutional provisions protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Selfishness is the necessary virtue for the promotion and protection of one's individual sovereignty, and the Founders knew this.Individual sovereignty is abstracted from the Lockean concept of "common sovereignty," which Locke himself never got around to abstracting. But his idea of "common" sovereignty, i.e., popular self rule, was the impetus for comprehending that no man can give unto the "common" sovereignty what he does not posses as an individual. "Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." Joseph J. Ellis <>%20style="font-size:78%;">http://www.friesian.com/ellis.htm
There is no way to vote for a President, nor for most other candidates, on the basis of 18 Century thinking. Few candidates on the local level are even aware of what it is. To vote on this basis, you have to vote Libertarian or Independent for a candidate who promised to reduce the government to its original intentions.It cannot ever be, and should not be, reduced to its original size; there is just too much for the government to do based merely on Original Intent.
Posts
