 |
 |
wföstudagur, október 29, 2004 |
 |
 |
 |

When I woke up this morning I had a few emails in my inbox telling me about The Economist’s support for Kerry in the US presidential race. I have a great respect for The Economist as readers have probably found out already but I can never agree that a Social Democrat (Kerry) is a less evil choice than a conservative (though I am far from being a conservative).
I agree with the The Economist that what has happened after the Iraq invasion hasn’t been admirable. However, like The Economist, I fully support the invasion and think the world is much better off.
Why is Bush bad? Because of the patriot act, he is against gay marriages, been flirting with protectionism on many occasions (steel tariffs) and he has increased government spending by leaps and bounds.
Being a libertarian I agree with Milton Friedman when he said: “My view has always been: Cut taxes on any occasion, for any reason, and in any way that's politically feasible”. That forces the government to decrees spending which causes my dream of a minimal state to become a reality. I thus fully support Bush's tax cuts.
Would I thus not vote for Bush if I had a vote? Again he is a better choice then Kerry and I think the world would be better off with Bush, and dictators and terrorists worse off with Bush. My first choice, if I had a vote, would be Badnarik (http://badnarik.org/). My second choice would be Bush. Thus if I had to choice between the two candidates in the coming election (like US voters have to do), then I would support Bush to prevent Kerry from winning.
A part from that I am going to open a take home exam after 1 hour which I have 24 hours to finish! That’s going to be fun!
By
Gudmundur at 10/29/2004 08:49:00 f.h.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|