You go to the store and find another cereal, made by a company you’ve never heard of, that is similar to your old cereal.
Which would you place in your cart when you shop for the day?
I would unhesitatingly buy the one that suited my own preference, and those who like the changed cereal would buy that.In the marketplace I “vote” with my own money for the production of the things which suit me, and my “vote" is effective in giving the manufacturer credit for providing what I want, and keeping that company in business making that product. And the fact that other people support the manufacture of products I don’t want is largely irrelevant.
The difference in the two cases is that unless you succeed in seceding from the union, the country will have only one president, and you are lucky if your vote helps the least unacceptable candidate win. Democracy is utterly incapable of providing a principled way of selecting among more than two candidates. In any multiple candidate case in which only a plurality exists, the second or third place finisher might be more acceptable to all than the first place finisher is.
A vote is a blunt instrument, especially in comparison with a market.
“A vote is a blunt instrument, especially in comparison with a market.”
It works the exact same way. You’re trying to convince others to buy the crappy new cereal.
See, what happens with you is you buy the exact same cereal, even though you hate it and find it disgusting. Then it sits on your shelf, goes bad and you buy it again!
And again!
You are telling the market that you WANT marshmallows and sugar! And we are supposed to be surprised when we get marshmallows and sugar!
I don’t spend money on things I don’t like, and I certainly vote for the candidate that best represents me. In this case, the candidate closest to me is Virgil Goode.
Since the Republican party made a terrible business decision by going with Romney I am punishing their terrible business decision by rewarding Goode.
If they want my support - nominate a prolifer.