One thing to check: is your manifest.json file *really* called "manifest.json" ?  It may seem like a silly question to ask, but this is a frequent error for many Windows users.

From a default Windows install, many users may actually be creating a file called "manifest.json.txt" even if it shows only "manifest.json" in Windows Explorer.

To check this, open a Windows Explorer, then click Tools menu > Folder Options > View, then CLEAR OUT/empty the option "Hide extensions for known file types".  Clearing this option makes Windows *always* show the file extensions.

Does your manifest.json file still properly have the name "manifest.json" ?

I think those who don't vote don't vote because they either don't know anything about the candidates or they don't support any of the candidates. This is however a terrible reason not to vote. To show this to you let me tell you a story.

I worked for a campaign once. This campaign was very small so I had much more responsibility than I deserved. The first thing I was tasked with doing was going to city hall paying $25 and getting a copy of all voter data. I was shocked that this list existed and I don't think most people know this. It is a list of all registered voters: Their address, name, sex, party affiliation, birth date and most importantly whether or not they voted in each election for the past 20 years. It doesn't say who you voted for just whether or not you showed up at the polls. The next thing I had to do was analyze that data. I put it in excel, broke it up by common demographic groups and scored each issue by it's demographic support according to polling data and how likely those groups were to vote on that issue. It turned out that (not surprisingly) In pretty much all cases we would be fools not to do exactly what the 65+ group wanted solely because they voted in every fucking election. Even the elections for school council. And they don't even have kids in school. (well maybe grand-kids)

So the only way for you to have candidates that actually support your view is to show up at the polls. But you don't even actually have to vote. Just go to the polls. When you enter they will mark off that you have voted and give you a ballot. You then proceed directly to the ballot drop off with an empty ballot. You have not voted but it looks like you did and you will show up on the list. Now next election due to the fact that you at least got off your ass and got to the polls you are more likely to have a candidate that you WILL want to vote for.

For those of you who do vote already remember this argument and tell it to others. I have never heard anyone make this argument in trying to convince people to vote but to me it seems like the best reason of all to vote. That list that shows whether or not you voted is the most powerful thing in this country. It is your declaration to those in power that you exist and you matter. If you don't show up there you are meaningless.

TLDR If you don't want to vote for any candidate go to the polls and turn in an empty ballot. Your name address and age are recorded and next year the politicians will be more likely to court your vote. Meaning next year you may actually have a candidate you like.

The libertarian philosophy has a strong appeal, especially to intelligent young people, and has had a powerful impact on American life through such public figures as Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan.

There is a lot to be said in favor of philosophy whose supreme value is the right of individual human beings to make choices and live as they wish, provided they do not infringe on the freedom of others.  If you have to have one supreme principle that outweighs all the others, that is not a bad one.

I was much interested in libertarian philosophy during the Reagan era, and I still think that deregulation and cuts in marginal tax rates were a good idea up to a point.

I don’t agree with Libertarians that governmental activity is by definition an infringement on freedom, and private business activity never is.  And I don’t agree that governmental activity is by definition unproductive, and that private business activity never is.  These things are sometimes true, but not always true.

When I covered business for the Democrat and Chronicle in the 1980s and 1990s, I never found anybody afraid to criticize the government, but I did find many people fearful of criticizing business, particularly major employers in Rochester. When I talked to employees of big companies such as Eastman Kodak Co., it was like what I imagined interviewing people in an Iron Curtain country would be like. Nor were people merely fearful of criticizing their own employers. In an era of downsizing, they did not want to say anything on the record that would brand them as malcontents.

Libertarians don’t all think alike, but a typical libertarian answer would be that there is no problem.  People are free to say what they think; employers are free to hire whom they choose. So long as there is no government coercion, nobody’s freedom is infringed.


The United States has a problem with deteriorating water and sewer mains, dams and levees, bridges and other infrastructure.  Paying taxes to the government to maintain and upgrade these systems would, in my opinion, do more to improve the nation’s productivity than investing in the stock market and just bidding up the price of existing stocks.

A typical libertarian answer would be taxation is coercion, for whatever purpose the money is spent, and that as many government activities as possible should be privatized and opened up to competition so I would have a choice.

One of the big libertarian dilemmas was the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Most libertarians were willing to agree that segregation laws were wrong, but they could not accept “forced integration.” If a white department store owner didn’t want to serve black customers or hire black employees, that supposedly was his right; if all the department stores in town were owned by white and wanted to bar blacks, that supposedly was his right.  So long as black people were not being coerced by government, their rights supposedly were not being infringed.

The libertarian solution to racial discrimination is the free market.  A business that is willing to serve any customer will have a competitive advantage over one that restricts itself to just one race, the argument goes; a business that is willing to hire any qualified applicant will have a competitive advantage over one that restricts itself to just one race. Economics supposedly will end racial discrimination without the need for laws.

I lived in the border state of Maryland during the civil rights era, and I knew several business owners, including the owner of the diner where I had lunch every day, who told me that they personally had nothing against serving black people, but they were afraid of the reaction of their white customers. Civil rights legislation gave them an excuse to do what they said they wanted to do.

Blake McKelvey, in his four volume history of Rochester, said Rochester’s largest employers did not drop restrictions on hiring black people until the labor shortage created by World War Two. Some of them did not hire Italian-Americans; that is said to be the reason so many Italian-American families in Rochester have Angl0-Saxon names.

It really boils down to a question of values. Which is more important, the right of the individual to be free of government coercion, or the right of the individual to be treated impartially regardless of race or ethnicity? My answer is, it all depends, but I don’t think the first right always outweighs the second.