How to vote using evidence and logic

We elect representatives for 2, 4, or 6 years at a time, and more if we reelect them.

We can’t predict the specific issues or events they’ll face in the years following their election.

But we DO know that reason is the slave of the passions.

So the question is, which sorts of passions should we trust with our vote?

There are two options.

Option One: The passions that follow from the one-foundation moral matrix, which have a proven history of being unmoored  from the realities of human nature, which in turn leads to epistemic arrogance, pathological altruism, and outcome-based positive liberty, equality, (social) justice and fairness, through which is achieved more harm than good.

Option Two: The passions that follow from the all-foundation moral matrix, which have a proven history of being grounded in reality, which in turn leads to epistemic humility, parochial altruism, and process-based negative liberty, equality, justice, and fairness  through which is achieved more good than harm.

For anyone who understands human nature and human history – students of the work of Jonathan Haidt, for example – and who believes in empirical evidence and common sense logic, option two is the only possible choice.

To understand human nature and human history and to vote liberal is to be logically inconsistent; oxymoronic.  It’s a self contradictory, self-defeating, non-sequitur.   Understanding human nature and voting for liberals are mutually exclusive concepts.

All the noise and bickering about and between Trump and Hillary is just that; noise. It’s much ado about nothing   It’s petty sniping by our inner press secretary riders stomping the ground and making faces like a nation-wide Maori Haka Dance.  It’s fiddling while Rome burns.

You either vote Republican and slow and possibly reverse the long slow slide into chaos and anomie, or you vote Democrat and hasten it.

It really is that simple.