Thursday, August 12, 2004

Is Stax the Inner Me?

Stax replies:

"Who am I? I am the inner ^&%^ Hatcher coming out of the closet as a libertarian asking all to vote Libertarian or with principle during the next election. Bush and Kerry are the fast food hamburgers of political choice. They are the McPoliticos. Super-sized. I prefer the healthier organic breed of politican. Ones who aren't politicans at all. I want servants of the people as opposed to high cholesterol-mad cow laden-drooling villiage idiots serving as our lordes.

^%@& Hatcher closes with: "In the meantime, I'm voting against John Kerry." He leaves us hanging unknowing whether or not he'll vote for principle.This even though he precedes his closing quote with a great solution: "don't tell us whose running. When we show up in the voting booth, hand us a brochure that has the platform of the previously undisclosed candidates, and let the chips fall where they may."

Wonderful solution. And I in fact won't tell you who Stax is in the same spirit. I'll instead swear that I'm in fact the inner *&#$ Hatcher until he fesses up and indicates why we shouldn't vote Libertarian based on principle versus tribal allegiance."

OK, Stax, international man of mystery and intrigue, you left me hanging until late in the day before commenting obliquely on your identity, so I left you hanging for a day as well. But now I return to your challenge. In my own convoluted way, that last line - that I plan to vote against Kerry - implied that I planned to vote for Bush. To me, a vote for the libertarian would give more benefit to Kerry than the libertarian. So, despite the fact that I might actually prefer the libertarian to Bush, I think that I can still vote for Bush and be consistent with my preferences, if not my principles. And its a principled decision to the extent that my principles include not wanting a gold-digging Massachusetts windbag to be the Commander in Chief.

I'm sure that cleared up nothing. But if Stax is clinging to his comment that he is the inner me, just busting to get out and vote my true conscience, I can tell you confidently that he is not the inner me. I know this for two reasons: 1) the wonderful anti-psychotic drugs I take regularly to suppress the many inner mes that would otherwise post comments to the blog all day long; and 2) if the inner me were posting comments, it would go by the pseudonym MilkShake.

But part of the mystery surrounding Stax has been solved by the Hatcher, allaying the lion-share of my curiosity. Stax, you've outwitted yourself, because I know that you know something about me that you wouldn't know unless you knew me. You used my real name in your comment. A definite no-no, and not quite feasible for a libertarian who doesn't already know me. Sure, anyone who could drool with enough force over the keyboard could probably string together a few personal revelations from the entries and do some supplemental internet research to identify my true identity. But snooping into the background of an anonymous blogger is not exactly the modus operendi of a libertarian. Case solved! You're clever, Stax, but you got cocky.

I've redacted, obducted, and subtracted all reference to my name in your comment. You should have guessed that I am an under-cover operative of the vast right-wing conspiracy, and the release of such information could very well put me in danger. I'll let it slide this time. I still am a bit curious as to your true identity, but now that I know that you are either a direct involuntary subscriber or an affiliate of the same, I'm less intrigued. The remaining curiosity stems from the fact I can't think of one involuntary subscriber who would lean to libertarianism (OK, Bachenson, you accepted). I know some liberals, and some libertines, but not any libertarians.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hatcher you state you are an economist but yet you fail to mention that your voting actions are rational the primary tenant of economics. There is ample lit. that majority voting causes people to vote their preferences much more than unanimous voting. The analogy is clear if you are on a jury and 6 people want to convict and 6 want to acquit under unanimity voting one or two people can change their vote with impunity. Under majority voting if one person changes their vote the person changing their vote realizes the “bad outcome.”

You are voting Bush because you believe your vote counts. Good for you Hatcher, that is the idea behind civic duty.

6:35 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Sign up for my Notify List and get email when I update!

powered by