Open letter to the atlas forum

[Xing]

How about we go for accuracy in polling, rather than artificially inflating Johnson's numbers, just to improve his chances of appearing on stage?

[Miles]

[Lyin' Steve]

How about, on the very off chance that you do get polled, you just tell them who you're actually backing. If Johnson had enough support to deserve a spot on the debate stage, then he would be getting the required polling amount without people having to lie about their preferences.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It would definitely be pretty interesting to see a debate with more than two candidates for once, so I sympathize with the intention. However, I'd be lying twice (first by claiming I'm able to vote and second by lying about how I'd vote) and I'd rather not eve if it's to an anonymous pollster.

[DavidB.]

My name is no
My sign is no
My number is no
You need to let it go

[Mr. Morden]

How about we go for accuracy in polling...?

I'm not sure that accuracy in horserace polling is a good thing, to be honest.  More uncertainty in polling-->fewer voters thinking their vote is wasted because the outcome of the election is already known.

[Oakvale]

Stop trying to skew you polls you traitor

[Leinad]

I suppose I appreciate Wulfric's request to a degree, but I'm afraid I agree that lying in poll results is a rather silly thing to do.

The thing is, Johnson should be in the debates already based on ballot access to a majority of EVs worth of states, not an arbitrary number in media-based polling. There is no objective reason why the Republican and Democratic parties are more serious/real/deserving-to-be-heard than the Libertarian party.

"Oh, but Leinad, they've had so much more historical success, while the Libertarians have won nothing!"

Yes, that's what happens when the media paints everything as a two-party race and any other vote--if they even address other options--as "wasted." Duh.

"Oh, but Leinad, the Libertarian Party is a joke!"

And the Republican Party isn't? Besides, if the party was given a chance to win, it would have many more "serious" people involved in the process. I agree that there are many flaws in the party, but we're picking from <1% of the population--the "true believers"--which is why we lack in badly needed pragmatism, moderatism, and political expertise.

"Oh, but Leinad, libertarianism itself is a joke!"

How is it any more ridiculous that the corporatist liberalism of Clinton's party or the nationalism of Trump's party?

Probably the second biggest evolutionary flaw of humanity is our irrational love of assumptions and familiarity. There is nothing less rational about libertarianism--especially a broad definition of the term, which would be the case if it was allowed the same exposure and thus growth as the major parties--it's only that people view it as less rational because it is so radically different than the ideologies we've been exposed to ad nauseum the rest of our lives, and it smashes our comfort zones by actually looking at politics in a different way.

To address SMilo's point, Ayn Rand actually got a lot of things wrong. The idea that greed is good and charity is bad is wrong--greed is an undeniable truth of human nature, which is why capitalism is the only workable economic system, and charity is something that must thrive for any capitalistic system to succeed.

One of the most horrid assumptions that we've been conditioned to believe is that government is an extension of ourselves, and that if something is wrong, government should fix it. Also that if we oppose government doing something, we oppose that action being done at all, and vice-versa. Understand that there's a difference between "this should be done" and "this should be done by government" and libertarianism doesn't sound crazy at all. Radical, maybe, but that's not always a bad thing.

And to say it's as bad as Hitler is enough to be sent to the re-education camps.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm reporting this thread to the aforementioned networks so that they know Atlas posters are skewing their polls.

[DINGO Joe]

Did you see what you did?  You made Miles get all saucy.  You should be ashamed. 

[Clark Kent]

Yeah, I'm not putting someone nearly as bad as Hitler on the debate stage just to get diversity of opinion. Very dangerous direction for American discourse

Too late. You already put Orange TinyHands up there.

[Enduro]

I suppose I appreciate Wulfric's request to a degree, but I'm afraid I agree that lying in poll results is a rather silly thing to do.

The thing is, Johnson should be in the debates already based on ballot access to a majority of EVs worth of states, not an arbitrary number in media-based polling. There is no objective reason why the Republican and Democratic parties are more serious/real/deserving-to-be-heard than the Libertarian party.

"Oh, but Leinad, they've had so much more historical success, while the Libertarians have won nothing!"

Yes, that's what happens when the media paints everything as a two-party race and any other vote--if they even address other options--as "wasted." Duh.

"Oh, but Leinad, the Libertarian Party is a joke!"

And the Republican Party isn't? Besides, if the party was given a chance to win, it would have many more "serious" people involved in the process. I agree that there are many flaws in the party, but we're picking from <1% of the population--the "true believers"--which is why we lack in badly needed pragmatism, moderatism, and political expertise.

"Oh, but Leinad, libertarianism itself is a joke!"

How is it any more ridiculous that the corporatist liberalism of Clinton's party or the nationalism of Trump's party?

Probably the second biggest evolutionary flaw of humanity is our irrational love of assumptions and familiarity. There is nothing less rational about libertarianism--especially a broad definition of the term, which would be the case if it was allowed the same exposure and thus growth as the major parties--it's only that people view it as less rational because it is so radically different than the ideologies we've been exposed to ad nauseum the rest of our lives, and it smashes our comfort zones by actually looking at politics in a different way.

To address SMilo's point, Ayn Rand actually got a lot of things wrong. The idea that greed is good and charity is bad is wrong--greed is an undeniable truth of human nature, which is why capitalism is the only workable economic system, and charity is something that must thrive for any capitalistic system to succeed.

One of the most horrid assumptions that we've been conditioned to believe is that government is an extension of ourselves, and that if something is wrong, government should fix it. Also that if we oppose government doing something, we oppose that action being done at all, and vice-versa. Understand that there's a difference between "this should be done" and "this should be done by government" and libertarianism doesn't sound crazy at all. Radical, maybe, but that's not always a bad thing.

And to say it's as bad as Hitler is enough to be sent to the re-education camps.

*slow claps

[dead0man]

indeed, excellent post.

[Kingpoleon]

I suppose I appreciate Wulfric's request to a degree, but I'm afraid I agree that lying in poll results is a rather silly thing to do.

The thing is, Johnson should be in the debates already based on ballot access to a majority of EVs worth of states, not an arbitrary number in media-based polling. There is no objective reason why the Republican and Democratic parties are more serious/real/deserving-to-be-heard than the Libertarian party.

"Oh, but Leinad, they've had so much more historical success, while the Libertarians have won nothing!"

Yes, that's what happens when the media paints everything as a two-party race and any other vote--if they even address other options--as "wasted." Duh.

"Oh, but Leinad, the Libertarian Party is a joke!"

And the Republican Party isn't? Besides, if the party was given a chance to win, it would have many more "serious" people involved in the process. I agree that there are many flaws in the party, but we're picking from <1% of the population--the "true believers"--which is why we lack in badly needed pragmatism, moderatism, and political expertise.

"Oh, but Leinad, libertarianism itself is a joke!"

How is it any more ridiculous that the corporatist liberalism of Clinton's party or the nationalism of Trump's party?

Probably the second biggest evolutionary flaw of humanity is our irrational love of assumptions and familiarity. There is nothing less rational about libertarianism--especially a broad definition of the term, which would be the case if it was allowed the same exposure and thus growth as the major parties--it's only that people view it as less rational because it is so radically different than the ideologies we've been exposed to ad nauseum the rest of our lives, and it smashes our comfort zones by actually looking at politics in a different way.

To address SMilo's point, Ayn Rand actually got a lot of things wrong. The idea that greed is good and charity is bad is wrong--greed is an undeniable truth of human nature, which is why capitalism is the only workable economic system, and charity is something that must thrive for any capitalistic system to succeed.

One of the most horrid assumptions that we've been conditioned to believe is that government is an extension of ourselves, and that if something is wrong, government should fix it. Also that if we oppose government doing something, we oppose that action being done at all, and vice-versa. Understand that there's a difference between "this should be done" and "this should be done by government" and libertarianism doesn't sound crazy at all. Radical, maybe, but that's not always a bad thing.

And to say it's as bad as Hitler is enough to be sent to the re-education camps.

Ah, but then who's paying for that? Judging by the rest of your post, I'm guessing libertarian charities.

[Ebowed]

'Libertarian charities' are generally pyramid schemes FYI.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

'Libertarian charities' are generally pyramid schemes FYI.

Is "charity" even compatible with "libertarian"?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

'Libertarian charities' are generally pyramid schemes FYI.

Is "charity" even compatible with "libertarian"?

Seeing as how libertarians actually tend to be the most charitable people on the whole, yes.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

'Libertarian charities' are generally pyramid schemes FYI.

Is "charity" even compatible with "libertarian"?

Seeing as how libertarians actually tend to be the most charitable people on the whole, yes.

"Libertarian" billionaires, or just libertarians because this requires a citation beyond the Koch's and Thiel (and I'm not even sure they are).

[SWE]

Yeah, I'm not putting someone nearly as bad as Hitler on the debate stage just to get diversity of opinion. Very dangerous direction for American discourse

Hitler was authoritarian, that's the opposite of libertarian.

In what sense is Gary Johnson not authoritarian?