Why I Didn't Vote

As I mentioned in a prior post, I've only voted once. Generally when people ask me if I voted, I tell them the truth, and I get basically the same response an atheist would get from a churchgoer. ("You didn't vote!? Why not!?" vs. "You don't believe in God!? Why not!?") To that I usually say something about the probability of my one vote deciding the election is almost as high as my chances of winning the lottery. "But what if everyone did that?" I used to say that I don't decide for everyone, just myself; I now realize that answer doesn't cut it, for a very important reason. The question itself is a version of the Categorical Imperative, and it's important because in the course of my research I've discovered that the state of mind in which one performs an action can have an effect on others, so the Categorical Imperative is probably a good idea.

With that in mind, I have a new personal policy toward elections: I will only vote for a candidate if I know the candidate's philosophy and agree with it. This policy satisfies the Categorical Imperative because I would highly encourage everyone else to follow the same policy.

First reason: it would send a more accurate message to the candidates. CNN says that 53% of the population voted for Obama. I'm pretty sure that at least some portion of that 53% voted for Obama because they didn't want McCain to win, or for the opportunity to make history. How many? We have no way of knowing. If everyone followed my policy, we would know, and people wouldn't claim mandates that weren't really there.

Second reason: everyone following this policy would create a space for third parties. Obama and McCain together got 99% of the popular vote. At least some of that 99% actually would prefer a third party candidate. A third party winning, or getting enough votes to cost of the the two major parties the election, is a good thing. More competition would give the major parties incentive to improve, and provide an influx of new ideas.

Third reason: the people who followed this policy would have the personal benefit of knowing that they voted for what they wanted instead of against what they didn't want.

So, anyway, that's my new policy, and I would encourage the rest of you to follow it as well.

Recovering Materialist Politics

After a recent argument with a couple of friends over why I wasn't voting for Obama (or anyone else), I started thinking about my political philosophy, and the fact that it hadn't been updated to reflect what I've learned in the past few years. The first concept that comes to mind is the Taoist idea that people who are living right don't need laws. An obvious corollary is that if everyone is living right, laws become irrelevant. I'm sure there are other applicable ideas, and if you happen to think of any, please leave a comment.

Now, why am I not voting for Obama? The same reason I didn't vote for Clinton or either of the Bushes. I won't vote for anyone unless I know their philosophy and agree with it. The "lesser of two evils" or "at least it's a step in the right direction" will happen just as well without my help. At least 30 percent of the population will think it's the wrong direction anyway.

Thinking about the argument raised an important question: how do we deal with others who we think have suboptimal beliefs or behaviors? This seems to me to be the central question in politics. A possible answer is the use of force, and if you're in favor of laws against "victimless crimes" or mandatory anything, this is your answer. Another answer is that we leave them alone and insulate ourselves from the results or their beliefs or actions as best we can; this is the Libertarian philosophy in a nutshell. A third answer is the use of persuasion. Can you think of any others? Again, please leave comments.

An Alternative Election Day Activity

I noticed recently that there are apparently some people who can't decide between Obama and McCain. My first thought was that people who really can't decide between them really shouldn't vote for either. For those people, and for anyone else who for whatever reason has decided not to participate in the election day festivities, I have an alternate activity: infecting the Matrix.

You see, a couple of years ago, I came to the conclusion that conspiracy theory was not so much wrong as irrelevant. I'm not saying that there aren't groups of rich and powerful people making plans for us. I'm saying that the driving force is actually a network of ideas and beliefs. The technical term for this network is the "noosphere", and the ideas and beliefs are referred to as "memes". I like to call the network "The Matrix", and if you've seen the movie, you may understand why. An example of a meme would be: "regulation is necessary to prevent the greedy and power-hungry from taking advantage of others." People who have the meme tend to favor government regulation, and since the greedy and power-hungry are more likely to want the regulator jobs, you can imagine the result.

So this election day, instead of voting, why not inject your own memes into the Matrix? Here are some suggestions:

• People who are living right don't need laws.


• What would society be like if everyone lived according to the precepts of the Sermon on the Mount?


• What would society be like if everyone read A Course in Miracles?


• Bring earth to heaven, and heaven to earth.

You get the idea, so try it. You'll make at least as much of a difference as you would by voting.

Eve Hubbard in '08: A Possible Foreign Policy

I've written a couple of posts about a character from the Schrodinger's Cat Trilogy named Eve Hubbard who runs for President and has some unique policies. I don't remember seeing anything in the book about her foreign policy, so I'm going to nominate myself for her Secretary of State and tell you about what I would try to implement.

First: our soldiers should be defending our borders and our citizens. If there is a threat to another nation, we can help, but they should pay for it. Playing world policeman is right out.

Second: trade embargoes restrict the choices of our citizens. While they certainly affect the livelihoods of citizens of other countries, they rarely make life difficult for the leaders of those other countries. So embargoes are out too.

Third: as with most things, the principle of correspondence applies here. Problems getting along with other nations on a world level reflect problems getting along with our neighbors on a local level, and vice versa. Some of us complain about perpetual war, but how many of us can even drive to work without getting annoyed at one or more of the other drivers?

Are We Ready for Obama?

I have noticed in the liberals I have known a firm belief that everything would be fine if only we could get the right people into office. From what I've heard and read about Barack Obama, he seems to be one of the "right people." When Obama won the nomination, my first thought was that the liberals would finally get their wish, but that it wouldn't work. The current system is too firmly entrenched for one person to change it, assuming he actually tries to do what he says he will do, which would be a first.

What I believe now is that electing Obama will work if we work. I'll explain shortly, but first I have to cover a couple of terms that may not be familiar to everyone: microcosm and macrocosm. A good literal interpretation would be that microcosm means "small universe" and macrocosm means "large universe." Now to the point: America's current situation, with the economy, war, environment, and so forth, is a macrocosm. The situations of individual Americans are corresponding microcosms. I use the word "corresponding" because the doctrine of correspondence ("As above, so below") is one of the basic tenets of hermeticism. Simply put, in order to fix our country, we also have to fix ourselves.

As an example, let's talk about the economy. You can blame greedy speculators if you want, but the major cause of our economic problems is that the government has been spending more than it gets for years. This has caused a drop in the dollar's value, and a corresponding increase in oil and other prices. This corresponds to the main problem of many Americans (including myself): we are in debt up to our eyeballs. Both problems must be addressed in order to fix the economy.

I think you get the point, and I'm starting to sound preachy, so I'll stop. The bottom line is that if Obama wins, he's going to need lots of help. We can help him by doing the right thing for ourselves. I'll get off the soapbox now. Thanks for listening.

Eve Hubbard in '08: Her Crime Policy

At the time of this writing, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are still battling for the Democratic party nomination. As I mentioned in a prior post, my candidate of choice is a character from Robert Anton Wilson's Schrodinger's Cat Trilogy: Eve Hubbard. Today, I want to talk about how she would deal with crime.

Her policy would divide crimes into three classes.

1. Crimes against convention. This includes all of the "victimless" crimes like gambling, non-violent drug possession, prostitution and the like. These crimes would not be penalized, but if enough people complained, the perpetrator would be encouraged to relocate somewhere more fitting to his habit.


2. Crimes against property. These crimes would be addressed by restitution. The perpetrator would pay the value of what was stolen or destroyed, or work off the debt.


3. Violent crimes. A relatively low-population state would be allocated for use as a prison. Violent criminals would be sent there, where they would only pose a danger to each other.

Sound good? There's one problem with this policy: we are nowhere close to being ready for it. There are far too many of us who believe that the country would go to hell in a handbasket if we stopped the drug war or legalized prostitution or allowed gambling outside of licensed casinos and lottery stations. Never mind that all these things happen anyway.

So what could we do in the meantime to improve the situation? My suggestion is simple: reserve prison for violent criminals. Only violent criminals should go to jail, and they should stay there until they are no longer dangerous. The other types of crimes can be dealt with through restitution or "community service" to the extent that they need to be dealt with at all.