I'm altogether fed up with the way our general elections are held. I would go either for proportional representation or voting for a particular party to govern and a particular MP (whether of the same party or not) locally. The winning party would form a government from within its ranks and the constituencies would be represented in parliament by their chosen candidate from whichever party he/she happened to belong to. That way, whichever party the most people had voted for would actually get to represent the majority which would be nearer democracy than the system currently extant.
Having said all that, Nigel Farage seems to me like the best candidate (of those offering themselves) to represent those of us who believe in liberty and a government which renders service to the people rather than being served by us.
Interesting piece, Charles. I find voting so difficult, honestly. The ‘minimising injustice’ argument is indeed difficult to apply with each party having so many contradicting policies. Although, Rothbard would definitely not be keen on Farages Pro-Israel stance.
If a party was to only increase the personal allowance threshold, that would be easy to pick them. George Galloways party was also increasing it as-well. To some, voting for him may be better to align with foreign policy views as-well (Palestine), at the cost of domestic economic policy of course.
Though, once we get into quantifying who has the least ‘rights violations’ we start sounding utilitarian. It’s situations like these I’m reminded of Roderick longs mention of voting being an ‘endorsement’ of the use of force. Perhaps that means in certain situations not voting may be the most moral thing(?).
~The trolley is going to hurt people anyway, so some would say choose the one with the least harm~ But switching the trolley is still an ‘endorsement’ of who is harmed. I, for one, would not vote reform- due to feels and vibes.
I'm altogether fed up with the way our general elections are held. I would go either for proportional representation or voting for a particular party to govern and a particular MP (whether of the same party or not) locally. The winning party would form a government from within its ranks and the constituencies would be represented in parliament by their chosen candidate from whichever party he/she happened to belong to. That way, whichever party the most people had voted for would actually get to represent the majority which would be nearer democracy than the system currently extant.
Having said all that, Nigel Farage seems to me like the best candidate (of those offering themselves) to represent those of us who believe in liberty and a government which renders service to the people rather than being served by us.
Interesting piece, Charles. I find voting so difficult, honestly. The ‘minimising injustice’ argument is indeed difficult to apply with each party having so many contradicting policies. Although, Rothbard would definitely not be keen on Farages Pro-Israel stance.
If a party was to only increase the personal allowance threshold, that would be easy to pick them. George Galloways party was also increasing it as-well. To some, voting for him may be better to align with foreign policy views as-well (Palestine), at the cost of domestic economic policy of course.
Though, once we get into quantifying who has the least ‘rights violations’ we start sounding utilitarian. It’s situations like these I’m reminded of Roderick longs mention of voting being an ‘endorsement’ of the use of force. Perhaps that means in certain situations not voting may be the most moral thing(?).
~The trolley is going to hurt people anyway, so some would say choose the one with the least harm~ But switching the trolley is still an ‘endorsement’ of who is harmed. I, for one, would not vote reform- due to feels and vibes.