TheVocalLibertarian Attemps to Debunk the "a Vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama" Fact

September 17, 2012

I’d like to give an analogy.

If you took your child into the doctor and were told he needed a type of treatment, and there were two options:

1) A shot that would cure the disease but would make your child have asthma for the rest of his life

2) A shot that would cure the disease but would make your child have autism for the rest of his life

What would you do? Would you choose, without question, the one you thought least harmful? I personally think most people would look for a second opinion. They would ask for any other alternatives.

Let’s say you ask the doctor if there are any other treatments. He tells you that yes, there is another treatment that can cure the disease without any harmful side effects but he doesn’t offer it.

Why?! You would ask in an outrage.

Because the two options he does offer are each funded by the two largest corporations in the health industry (perhaps because the “cure” ensures a life-long need of other medications, giving them lifelong customers) and the other cure is not. There is little to no funding for the other cure and he can’t purchase the treatment anywhere.

Would you sigh and say, okay, well since that doesn’t have a chance of ever winning against the other two, I’ll just give my child (A or B) instead, since it’s not as bad as the other one?

Or would you leave that office and do whatever you could to find that treatment? Would you start an organization to raise awareness and funding? Would you fight against both of those big corporations for you and your family’s health and right to treatment?

I know I would.

What if people told you that by refusing to pay for the treatment from option A, you are supporting the corporation behind B? That you should just give your child option A because it’s better than letting B be the only option for our children!

Would you give in and give your child a treatment that could cause a lifelong condition for them? Just to keep the other treatment from being the only option? Or would you do whatever is in your power to get funding and support for the un-funded option that has no harmful side effects? I know what I would do.

So don’t tell me I am supporting an evil corporation (or an evil candidate) because I am fighting for the lesser guy, because I am fighting for a change without any of those bad side effects. I am not settling for asthma OR autism. Put this into perspective and realize that your willingness to play into the control system they have is what fuels it.

I’d like to correct your analogy, because that’s not an accurate one.

The difference is that in your analogy, you CAN use the third medicine (you CAN elect Johnson)—just go to a different doctor (who necessarily represents a majority of voters, which gives Johnson the victory). Here’s why it’s a bad analogy: the reality is that that third doctor who wants to give you the third medicine does not exist. He represents a majority of voters, voters who are willing to vote for Johnson. But these voters don’t exist. A majority of voters want either Romney or Obama, not Johnson. So that third doctor (majority of voters) who is willing to give you that medicine (elect Johnson) does not exist.

So it still stands: a vote for Gary Johnson is another vote that does not cancel out an Obama vote, and therefore, in effect, is a vote for Obama.

(Source: thefreelioness, via theconservativerevolutionary-de)

2:57pm

(Notes: 25)