The only way to shatter the illusion of consent – the keystone of majority-rule “democratic” tyranny – is by making it obvious to nearly everyone that the Fuhrer (oops, “president”) has been selected by, at most, a minority of the voting population. That in addition to being a cretinous philosophy as such (i.e., mob rule) “democracy” is also a lie at its most basic level.
Because the majority doesn’t rule.
Consider: In a modern presidential selection, only about 50-something percent of the people eligible to vote actually do vote – thus, the “winner” is the one who gets appx. 26 percent or so of the 50 percent. In other words, a quarter of the voters determine who is selected Duce (excuse me, “president”).
For example, in the 2000 presidential selection, The Chimp received 50,456,002 votes. His WWF-style opponent, Captain Planet, received 50,999,897 (see here for more). Even though Captain Planet received 48.4 percent of the so-called “popular vote,” he lost the selection to The Chimp – who received 47.9 percent. But the key thing is that neither won anything close to a majority of the votes of the eligible voters.
In the 2000 race, the voting age population was 205,815,000. Go back a sentence or two and re-read the actual turnout numbers. Combine The Chimp and Captain Planet’s tallies. You get 101,455,899 . There is some dispute about the “fine print” – for example, The American Presidency Project claims 105,586,274 cast ballots in the 2000 presidential selection (see here). But the essential point remains: The American Caudillo (oh, yes, excuse me … the “president”) was selected by about 50 million Americans – about a quarter of the eligible pool of voters.
So much for mob/majority rule.
We in fact have minority rule in this “democracy.” Have had it, for decades.
Many people are unaware of this fact – which is carefully camouflaged by the MSM. Because the MSM – and the PTB behind the MSM – know very well that their gooses will be thoroughly cooked if the scam ever becomes common knowledge. Even the dullest of Clovers still buys into the “majority rule” essence of democracy. He feels he is “represented” – and that the government operates with the “consent of the governed.” This confers legitimacy on the government in the Clover mind.
Once you peel away the curtain of consent, it’s over.
But it won’t be over so long as enough people continue to play along.
Imagine if enough people did not play along.
If enough people simply stopped being useful idiots. If the number of people voting dropped below 40 percent – or even less. The “winner” thus selected by 15-20 percent of the country would be as obviously illegitimate as the “winner” of a selection in Uganda. It would be damn hard to maintain the illusion of “consent of the governed” – the shaky foundation upon which rests the entire rickety, corrupt and despicable edifice “democracy.”
Mob rule as a political ideal is vile – but it has traction in the minds of careless thinkers because of the seemingly egalitarian premise that underwrites it.
But what if the majority – the mob – doesn’t rule? What if the average American has about as much say over what is done to him – in his name – or in the name of a majority of his fellow Americans – as a Kazhak prole had over the doings of the Politburo in Soviet Russia? Don’t forget – they had regular selections in the old Soviet Union, too.
Of course, democracy is more cunning. Instead of a single leader representing a single party, democracies have plural leaders representing the same party – the party of government. You get to choose between them. Like choosing high fructose Coke vs. high fructose Pepsi.
Real soda – with sugar – is not on the table.
It’s a brilliant con – perhaps the most effective form of totalitarianism ever conceived. Because it keeps the masses quiescent. Because they believe they have a choice – and because the majority has ruled. It is time to disabuse them of this fantasy.
One way to really drive the point home would be to hold a nationwide “sit in” – or rather, stay home on Selection Day. Instead of long lines at the polls – the boilerplate story the MSM runs every year with depressing predictability – imagine if the MSM were compelled to report that most polling stations were as vacant as the “ideas” of Mitt Romney and Barry Sotero? That the next Jefe (pardon me, “president”) was in fact selected by a small minority of the voting public – a minority comprised overwhelmingly of tax leeches and assorted parasites casting ballots in what the magnificent H.L. Mencken searingly – because accurately – described as a “sort of advance auction of stolen goods”?
Ah yes! What then? Indeed!
The whole rotten thing would come tumbling down. People – enough of them, at any rate – would be disabused of the filthy lie that they are “represented.” It would be clear as the Berghoff’s famous plate glass window that what America has – and has had, for generations – is a kind of elected king. A king selected by a minority of the population – who confer upon him effectively unlimited authority to act in the name of a majority that never had a say in the matter.
That’ll sour the milk right quick.
I’ve suggested in previous columns that progress can be made in small steps – as evidenced by the successful efforts to roll back “gun control” laws (see here for my column about that). But imagine a more frontal assault. A direct – but peaceful – jab in the eye of “democracy” and “majority rule.” Now that might get something going. And we’d better start doing something soon. Peacefully or otherwise, change is coming.
Whether we can believe in it remains to be seen.
Throw it in the Woods?
As much as I agree with the “withdraw your consent” message, not voting is not the way to officially withdraw your consent. You withdraw your consent when you find and publish ways to help others avoid taxes, fees, and penalties assessed by the state. Telling others not to vote does absolutely nothing and is actually a net loss in the freedom movement, as those who actually care and would vote with caution, are now removed from the voter roles. You do much more good informing people how to avoid say the income tax, or avoid fees and penalties assessed by the state for things that have no victim, like speeding or not buckling a seatbelt, or any other victim less crime that the state assesses fines for committing. You will never help anyone by simply telling them not to vote.
But JJ, there is no realistic (legal) way to avoid paying income tax and I don’t advocate actions that are defined as criminal by this government, for the obvious reasons. Are you trying to bait me?
The several good reasons for not voting for the “less of two evils” have been explained already. Remove the illusion of consent – undermine the illusion of “democracy.”
You simply have to listen to this if you oppose the war on some people who use some drugs.
Yes this is based on true stories.
I have a story for you guys about all this – a personal story. It’s worth a thousand words or so. I’ll have it up one of these days….
thanks for posting brad
But a sorry cloud of tyranny has fallen across the land/
Brought on by hollow men, who did not understand/
That for centuries our forefathers have fought and often died/
To keep themselves unto themselves, to fight the rising tide/
That if in the smallest battles we surrender to the State/
We enter in a darkness whence we never shall escape./
So if ever a man should ask you for your business or your name
Tell him to go and fuck himself, tell his friends to do the same.
Because a man who’d trade his liberty for a safe and dreamless sleep
Doesn’t deserve the both of them, and neither shall he keep.
I vote. It is probably like a snowball in a certain very hot place as far as what my vote counts towards.
I also get picked occasionally for jury duty because I vote. Thought they made that illegal to use the voting lists for jury duty, but I guess they didn’t. I pity the person depending on my vote in a jury box. I am prejudiced that way. I think they are guilty until proven innocent. In theory it works the opposite way.
We always have politicians attempting to pick our landowners pockets for this project or that. Never mind that at least 10% of the homes in this area are now vacant and in foreclosure. Just because $20 difference in your mortgage payment a month is the difference between losing and keeping your house. Politicians are parasites. Parasites kill their hosts with greed.
So we all go down and say no to new levies on our properties. Kills their souls when things do not pass.
We don’t discriminate. We vote them all down.
When I see a levy fail by 49 votes, I am pretty sure it is because of people just like me.
There are worthwhile projects out there. But not if it kicks someone out of their home.
I remember how critical it was for me. I was newly divorced, paying child support, and working for nothing. I think I had $75 a month budgeted for groceries back then. I took the kids every other weekend as well on that money.
Every year it seemed, my name came up for Jury Duty. No lawyer in his right mind wants a Jury with hardship written all over it. Yet every time I had to make the calls.
I disagree with only one point. Too many times the vote is decided by dead people. You know the ones, they are still voting even though the obit is 3 years old.
Illinois is infamous for this, especially around St. Louis area. Say that is where our President came from, Chicago, Ill. wasn’t it. I wonder how many zombies put out a vote to get him into the White House from Chicago and St. Louis?
The electorial college often goes against the will of the people. That is how someone can be popular vote wise and delegate poor.
Here in Ohio, rumor has it that a Hacker programmer changed the vote during the last election of Bush. Suspicous that he died in an auto accident before anyone could question him. Perhaps the computers rule us more than we think.
I suspect the Zombie vote will reoccur this time around as well. I do think the election of either tweedle dee or tweedle dumb makes no difference to us poor folk.
I pity the person depending on my vote in a jury box. I am prejudiced that way. I think they are guilty until proven innocent. In theory it works the opposite way.
Are you serious? What on earth would make you act that way?
A lawyer spends 4 years in college, then 4 years in law school.
After a certain amount of internship, he or she may even become a judge. All of that training is to discern whether a person is telling the truth or lying in a court of law. That is what they are trained to do.
If someone is clearly innocent, a 3 judge panel will find innocence for a person right away. If his innocence is in doubt, then the best idea is to get 12 civilians with no legal training and convince them of his or her innocence. The dumber the jury the better.
One person no defense lawyer is likely to want on a jury is someone with people training. Someone that works in a news agency. Someone who has long experience in sales. Or any other career field where you deal with the public and can discern a lie from the truth.
That is why I am prejudiced towards a person requiring a jury trial.
Juries are far more rigged for the state. The government will stack them with ignorant law-is-the-law-obey-the-law-or-else types. (aka clovers) The judge will command the jury to do as he directs them. They become an extension of the judge and the state. This is one of the reasons for the high federal conviction rate.
The purpose of the jury, of having people serve on it, was to judge the law. The point is to stop the bad laws, not so that guilty people don’t go free. Of course judges don’t like this so they put jurors in jail if they judge the law.
Stopping bad law is orders of magnitude more important than guilty people going free by juries making mistakes regarding who is telling the truth. If the juries still stopped bad law the nation would be in much better shape today.
“That is why I am prejudiced towards a person requiring a jury trial.”
Dave, that means you’re prejudiced toward any person accused of a significant crime. Or against any person who asserts his right to a trial by jury – which means, you assume or incline toward guilt merely because the person is vigorously defending himself.
I find that troubling. Especially in view of the notorious and obvious corruption of “law enforcement” – cops and prosecutors and judges – who not infrequently set people up, suppress exculpatory evidence – and so on.
Also, as Brent says, “the law” is often outrageously abusive as such – examples including the war on (some) drugs laws and other victimless non-crimes. As a juror, I would never vote to send a person to jail or punish him in any way for having committed a statutory offense involving no harm to anyone.
Why would you assume guilt?
As for myself I would be a nightmare for another reason. I would never find someone guilty of a non-crime. You could count on a hung jury for any drug offense or drunk driving that didn’t include damage. Same thing for any “crime” that didn’t involve a victim.
Not that I have a chance in hell of ever being allowed on a jury, at least not in this county.
I would vote not guilty for anyone on trial because of the unconstitutional Drug War.
Along with Fully Informed Petit Juries America needs A Fully Informed Grand Jury in every jurisdiction. If Grand Jury Presentments cannot fix America then surely it is time for a revolution.
I would show no mercy for anyone responsible for the creation and perpetuation of statutes that violate the Principles underpinning the Unanimous Declaration.
Gawd how I love that scene in Dr. Zhivago where the mounted enforcers shot and killed the officer who ordered them to open fire on the crowd.
Right on! Pasternak ruled.
There is a scene in the Mel Gibson movie, The Patriot. A British officer and his men arrive at Gibson’s character’s home, where wounded from both sides are being cared-for. The officer thanks Gibson’s character for treating his men decently. Then, up rides Banastre Tarleton – an uber-asshole colonial-era version of a current-era BATF thug. He orders the house torched and the wounded rebels killed. The British officer is appalled, but does his bidding.
Here’s the clip:
That situation will play out again in the near future, I suspect.
The officers caving into those demands are what I consider the equivalent of an Oath Keeper. When have they ever been put to the test/torch? Never! If they have ever publicly and visibly been recorded as standing against Leviathan I have never seen nor heard of it. That’s why I put zero stock into anything those blowhards say. Come the day that they’re ordered to shoot fellow Americans they’ll do as they’re ordered while possibly begging forgiveness but the trigger will still be pulled. What good are they then?
LOCK AND LOAD. IF IT WORKS FOR THE US GOVERNMENT, KILL IT!
“We in fact have minority rule in this “democracy.” Have had it, for decades.”
Oy vey! There hasn’t been a democracy since the time of Aristotle! The KEY aspect of democracy is that public officials are selected BY LOT (randomly) from the citizenry at-large; not by election.
Don’t believe me? Look it up here…
What makes democracy democracy is that no one is elected!!!!!! All public officials are by and large regular people chosen randomly. A COMPLETELY different form of government than what plagues the world today.
Democracy to the ancient Greeks meant, “the people rule” and they meant it LITERALLY. Regular citizens held all public offices (except the generals who were elected by the magistrates). Athens had NO POLITICIANS! There are no politicians in a democracy.
What everyone *calls* “democracy” or “democratic states” are in fact all REPUBLICS!!! where public officials are ELECTED!!! Aristotle called republic a form of oligarchy because only the wealthy or those hand-picked by the wealthy could afford to run for office. Doh!!!
As long as there are elections for public office, there is NO democracy.
And pure majority rule was called ochlocracy by the Athenians which means “mob rule.” Athens was a constitutional democracy… not a republic and not an ochlocracy.
I’m not defending democracy, but what we have is OLIGARCHY (rule by the few) masquerading as republics… THERE ARE NO DEMOCRACIES! Selling oligarchy as democracy might be the single biggest CON JOB in world history…
The word “democracy” should be stricken from use. It hasn’t existed in thousands of years!!! There are no democracies anywhere in the world. STOP USING THAT WORD, I’M BEGGING YOU!!!
Call our form of government what it really is, OLIGARCHY… And NOT constitutional because the constitution never actually meant anything in the first place and never will with this type of state. Another fabulous con job… 😉
I understand what you are say Eric, but I disagree (though only barely). If you don’t vote, then the proles will say that only the people who care, vote. Thus they marginalise us, and no attention is paid. Would it not be better to have all those who are disillusioned with our federal politcal process to write in “None of the Above” on the ballot? Then it shows we do care, but we will not get sucked into voting for heads vs tails, lesser of two evils, whatever. The votes will be counted, and the “winner” will have a much smaller percentage of the votes cast. A nice thing about the phrase “None of the Above”, its acronym is NOTA, (sounds like “nada”, the spanish word for nothing, which is the true amount of influence we have in the electoral process).
One problem with “non of the above” is that in areas where there is no longer a paper ballot, this is not even physically possible. Just touch the screen – and choose!
I’ve no-voted in many elections. Done so with both the touch screen and the scan-tron like form.
I no-vote every D-vs-R election. If there is a third party that is somewhat digestible I might pick that. I’ll vote on very local stuff and for Ron Paul and for not retaining any of the county judges and that’s it. Unless there is something very local on the ballot in Nov I don’t think I’ll bother walking over to the sckool to vote.
The soapbox–considered irrelevant and restricted under the guise of “political correctness”. Google Dearbornistan
The ballot box–stuffed with dead voters, illegal alien votes and refusal of states to count absentee ballots from U.S. military
The jury box–nullification officially banned but still possible if jurors don’t reveal their “hand”. Contempt charges possible
The cartridge box–our “insurance policy” and the only thing we have left . . .
We (natural-born)citizens are pushed into third-class status by our so-called “leaders”. Even with o’bamacare, illegal aliens, muslims and other protected groups will be EXEMPT from the law’s provisions. Since “civil rights (for some)” laws don’t apply to whites, why should we bother obeying ANY laws. The freedom you take is the freedom you possess. Fly “under the radar”, keep your mouth shut, and TAKE the (God-given)freedom that you deserve.
If you run a business, accept gold and silver and offer a discount for CASH. Starve the leviathan government–go Galt . . .
As to firearms, trade like-type firearms with each other to snarl the (illegally held and unconstitutionally mandated) federal “paperwork” while private sales are still legal.
REVOLUTION is the only answer . . . by whatever means achieves results. It is time to “reboot” the country . . .
I read Eric all the time but, by the time I read the comments, usually, someone has already made a comment that parallels what I would have stated and, often, more than just one comment.
The only reason I still vote is Dr. Ron Paul. He is in an adjacent district so I have not been able to vote for him as my uSA Representative but I have been reading him for over fifteen years.
If we want to know how far gone we are into the rabbit’s hole, we need to go back to the day when the former colonies seceded from the Article of Confederation to reform under a new compact. That was in 1789; 1788 technically.
Regardless of the debates on interpretation/construction of certain “delegated” authorities, when the Committee of Style got their hands on the text, they discarded technical accuracy and chose flowery language. Hamilton lost the ideas battles but won the war through obfuscation.
Now, we find ourselves the result of “needing” nine “experts” to tell us what the text means. Revolutions through reinterpretation is what we’ve had. All “peaceful,” 1861 excepted.
The “living Constitution” is a “dead letter.”
The history of these uSA is on track with the histories of other republics, whose lifespans have been about 200 years. Not an exact science but accurate in outlines.
I have four children and they sense my pessimism. I am afraid that it has affected them in their drive to accomplish in life.
In the past, there was a chance to expatriate to a place with very little population and government; it was how revolutions and societal upheavals were kept in check.
In my opinion we are past the point of no return with no place to run.
This don’t vote nonsense needs to end. I understand that you hate voting or the idea of voting but the alternative is to ignore the problem, sit on your hands, and do nothing while the world goes to shit. Not exactly the way to get anything done. People who give up on voting remind me of people who faced with a problem thats hard, just give up, say its not worth it to solve it and go play a video game. Theres always more than 2 candidates on the ballot, you dont have to vote for blowhard 1 or blowhard 2 and theres more than just the presidency at stake. You can continue your little boycott of voting, let me know when you accomplish something, which I’m assured, will be never.
Hogwash. When the system is broken you don’t continue to prop it up by giving your consent. Governments rule by the consent of the people. Remove that consent and you remove their ability to rule over you and all you hold dear. If you continue to prop it up with your participation you have nobody to blame except yourself. You have in fact given them permission to be your master.
They do not have my consent and I won’t hand it to them by voting.
Let me know when you “dont have my consent” away your taxes.
When enough people wake up – and form up – that’s precisely what will happen. It has before. So it can again. Good luck voting for your “lesser of two evils.” Maybe you’ll only lose a bit less freedom this election cycle… and then some more next time… and the next… and so on.
You can continue your little voting, let me know when you accomplish something, which I’m assured, will be never.
If voting changed anything it would be illegal.
Losers are ones who give up. You are a loser. You will never accomplish anything with your “its all impossible” attitude.
I’d say winners don’t tilt at windmills. They pursue achievable goals. Losers stand like King Canute at the edge of the sea, commanding it to roll back….
give up on what? supporting worthless POS’s?
you should fight for things you value, but not everyone values the same things and to the same degree. like being a citizen of some fascist nation/state just because you came out of your mother womb while she was within an arbitrary political border, or the land they think they own.
someone like eric owns real acreage, that is something worth fighting for, my 2 bedroom townhouse with zero land, not worth fighting for.
the people here value their freedom, some see that the freedom needs to be where they were born and others just need it where they are presently located.
assuming everyone values exactly the same things is a clover-esque assumption.
Your argument assumes there’s a real choice. There isn’t. Not at the national level, anyhow. There is no meaningful difference between the Republican and Democrat puppets. Right now, for instance, we may choose either the author of ObamaCare – or its implementor. In the previous selection, we were given the option of Old Guy Warmonger – or Young Guy Warmonger. YGM was supposed to be the antidote to eight years of eviscerating whatever’s left of the Bill of Rights…and what did we get? The NDAA and presidential “hit lists.” The assertion by the YGM that the president may have Americans killed based on his assertion that they are “terrorists.”
Do you really believe Mittens will alter this course?
No, but theres never only 2 candidates to vote for. Its a big problem that people are of the mindset that they absolutely “have to vote for the winner”. Believe it or not, you fall into that category as well, but when the guy you would vote for doesn’t win, you pout and give up. Well there are other things to vote on besides president and if good people do nothing, it will get so bad that nothing short of an armed revolution will do anything. I get it, the presidency certainly is beyond hope for a decent person to win. I dont see it ever happening but there can be good congressman, good senators, sure there might always be more bad ones, but if everyone stops voting for the good ones, none will exist at all, and then what? Does “withdrawing your consent by not voting” do anything? Are you suddenly not underneath the government anymore because you dont vote? I think not. But its your choice and its your opinion. I wrote an opinion piece last year for my college English class on why people should vote for third parties. We had to read it to our classmates, and I was kind of shocked at what they had to say about it, they said things like “well if you’re not gonna vote for the winner, or someone who has a chance to win, why vote at all” This is the mindset you have fallen into. You dont want to vote, great, you want to encourage others not to, great, but let me know when “withdrawing your consent” means you somehow are immune from societies laws. The Ron Paul movement is making headway in a lot of states, sure the progress is slow but they are making a difference, should they all stop voting too? Real mass communication via the internet is only a few years old. Can this movement grow beyond where it has already grown? If good people dont participate, it has no chance.
I think you’ve missed the point I was trying to make – which is simply that the time has come rip the cloak of legitimacy from the system. If enough people stop voting for “the lesser of two evils,” then it becomes painfully obvious the country’s ruled by a small clique that cannot claim to have the “consent of the governed.”
And it is upon the sham of “consent” that the even greater sham – “democracy” rests. Kick the first one out – and the whole edifice comes tumbling down.
That’s the goal. Or at least, it’s my goal.
Has anyone ever consented to being governed by someone else in the history of mankind? Its always been coercion by force. Most people don’t vote now as it is. Only 130 million people voted last election and there are over 310 million in the US which is roughly 42%. How low must it go?
The core issue here is formally limiting the authority of the government over the individual. Go back 200 years – or even 50 – and the vote mattered less (in terms of the individual’s liberty) because the government was formally – legally – limited to certain actions only.
If there was no income tax, no property tax, no Obamacare (and so on) then voting – either way – would have virtually no negative consequences for the individual.
Today, there is no point to voting not so much because all the candidates are authoritarians – but because the entire system is authoritarian.
Puppets? That’s being generous to say the least. No, these are willing actors.
The ballot alone will never restore respect for the genuine Law of the Land.
So, you voted. Big fuckin’ deal. What else have you done?
“Don’t blame me, I voted for Fill-in-the-Blank.”
If that’s all you’ve done, you ain’t done shit.
Theres always more than 2 candidates on the ballot, you dont have to vote for blowhard 1 or blowhard 2
Yep! Sometimes there are three candidates and you can vote for blowhard 1, 2, or 3. Or, four candidates and you can vote for blowhard 1, 2, 3, or 4. They’re all worthless liars. Obama promised the most open, transparent administration in history, and had delivered the exact opposite. And we can’t even sue the asshole for breach of contract! If you believe there’s ANY benefit in voting, you’re deluding yourself.
Gerald Celente of the Trends Research Institute launched his “Second American Revolution” recently. Among other ideas, he strongly recommends that no one vote for any next President this fall.
Celente’s Revolutionary call to arms begins with a voter’s strike. “Stay Home, Don’t Vote” is his campaign slogan. “People have been conned into believing that if you don’t vote you’ve lost the right to complain. That’s political baloney,” fumes Celente. “The true case is exactly the opposite. This is a two-headed, one party system. Republican or Democrat, considering their track records, it’s clear nothing can be expected from either Presidential candidate other than the perpetuation of the destructive and criminal policies that have brought America to its current state of perpetual crisis and socioeconomic decline. Ditto for Congress.”
“What self-respecting person would cast a vote for a lesser of two evils?” asks Celente. “Not only is it immoral and undignified, it’s destructive. Lesser or greater, evil is evil. By supporting one evil or the other, the voter becomes an accessory to the crime. Only a true intellectual revolution can restore dignity, trust, morality, decency and compassion.”
“Anything else is just more of the same. Stay Home, Don’t Vote!”
[read more at http://lewrockwell.com/celente/celente100.html ]
Right on! I love how they claim if you don’t vote you need to shut the hell up. What a joke. They keep voting in the same over and over. They are part of this scam so why should they complain. They are actively taking part in this scam.
The “lesser of two evils” argument depends on a false paradigm.
It is one thing to say, “Well, I don’t agree with everything the candidate advocates – but we agree on many important issues, so he has my support.” That is reasonable.
What is not reasonable is being told one must vote for “the lesser of two evils” when each represents the antithesis of one’s values. Both the Democrat and Republican parties are fundamentally authoritarian at this point. Fundamentally hostile to the Constitution and the notions of individual rights and limited government.
How can anyone who believes in these things be asked to “vote for the less of two evils”? It is exactly like giving a man who’d like not to be beaten up the option of the club or the ball peen hammer.
Carp, I’m too wasted to read the comments here. )Looks like there’s some good ones,… with video even. I’m sure thast will change the world(
Tomarroww I will read them and feel not so alone while surrounded by a sea of People who want to be boss of you and I.
“Imagine if enough people did not play along.”
After hearing about the Obamatron verdict I half-felt like cancelling my insurance.
… For whatever that’s worth.
But if it’s anything like seatbelt obedience, … and they say the powers-that-shouldn’t-be are quaking in their boots?
Doesn’t seem like it.
They are a very long way from fearing the People. The People are too ignorant and divided to harm them and they know it.
Instead of torching the law schools with the profs chained inside, the People will continue to tell lawyer jokes. Why anyone would find a lawyer joke funny is a mystery to me.
Hey, America’s juris doctors have done Individuals and America great harm. Har, har, har, har….
May the next fool who laughs at a lawyer joke choke to death on his laughter.
Tinsley Grey Sammons (1936 –)
A bit off topic, but it’s hilarious to see an ad on here urging us to contribute to the Senate campaign of Elizabeth Warren. lmbo
If the genuine Law of the Land were consistently enforced it would hardly matter who holds office.
Eric, I empathize with the concept of not voting. Only problem is that the media will refuse to interpret our (lack of) action as our deliberate rejection of both candidates. The media will simply spin it as laziness or apathy.
Since we won’t have a “none of the above” alternative in this election cycle let me suggest something. We could select some very non political person to vote for, and make it clear that a vote for that person is really a rejection of both candidates. We’ll have to write that name in. But via internet, we could put together a lot of votes…..for the same name.
Who to write in? Someone who has a lot of non political good will. How about the pilot who landed his airliner in the Hudson…..Sullenberger (wasn’t that his name?) Jimmy Buffett? (He’s kind of liberal, but I bet he’d sign on to this “None of the above” concept.) Or any similar person who wants to lead this movement.
If we can’t agree on any one figure, then vote third party…..ANY third party. I won’t vote for Ron Paul because I think he betrayed us. But if you’re still liking him, write him in.
The message that cannot be misinterpreted is the total number of votes “against” both Barky and Mittens.
So one way or the other, I think it would be more effective to vote….against BOTH of them.
. We’ll have to write that name in. But via internet, we could put together a lot of votes…..for the same name.
A worthy idea. When I was a kid, writing in Pogo was advocated. But, if I’m not mistaken, election rules were changed as a result (it is, after all a pain to copy a write-in name to some official form). Someone please check me on this, but I think that, while write-ins are not completely gone today, only names that are on some list of approved write-in names are counted.
Each state has it’s own set of rules regarding write in votes.
As for me I won’t be voting and I will be very vocal as to why.
actually when voting for presickdick, voting takes on a whole new reality. write in votes are trashed forthwith. why? well for a number of reasons the first being: you do not vote for president or the candidate. when you pull the r or d or l or what ever lever you are voting for someone that is pledged to be an elector. said elector doesn’t even have to vote for the candidate he is representing. so when you write in a vote with no elector you might as well file the ballot yourself in file 13.
Slightly off-topic, but I just got an “American Community Survey” form from the Census bureau, along with various warnings that my response is “required by law”. It demands answers to a huge number of incredibly nosy questions (see http://www.census.gov/acs/www/about_the_survey/explore_the_form/ ). So I went online and ordered a big red rubber stamp emblazoned with the words “NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS”. When the stamp arrives, it will be put to good use.
What’s particularly galling is that the accompanying letter includes “reassurance” that any information I supply will not be used against me, citing some federal law. What kind of maroons do we think we are? Everybody knows, or should know, that the government used Census forms to round up Japanese-American citizens during WWII. Exactly how many people were punished for breaking the law when they did that? I think we all know the answer.
Those miserable government THUGS need to hear the word NO, and I intend to do my part.
How do you feel about de facto Drug prohibition?
De facto? Drug prohibition is de jure, though I’m guessing you’re referring to the illegitimacy of drug laws. I believe that anyone who allows the government to dictate what he may put into his own body will accept any sort of tyranny. If anything, this choice is even more basic than freedom of speech.
I would argue that any thug who attempts to enforce a drug law should be met with as much force as is necessary to stop his aggression.
Of course, as a practical matter, if a dozen criminal cops are breaking down my door, shooting at them is probably not going to effect a good outcome (for me or my family). But that would be the ONLY reason not to.
Thank you. It’s just a Litmus Test that I apply to determine whether or not a person is really worth a shit.
You passed. The Legalize Pot wimps and phonies do not.
Glad I passed! 😉 Of course, this issue goes much deeper than using drugs for pleasure. People who are in the grips of a fatal disease are prohibited by the government from gambling on new experimental therapies. I still experience a sense of unreality [“this must be just a dumb nightmare; can I wake up now?”] when I realize for the millionth time that a majority of people support intrusions into such intensely personal decisions.
Don’t be a Babbit and go up the ladder because Catsello tells you to. Get away from his as soon as you can, he’s your enemy.
Trying to be a Catsello and using force on others is no better in the end. Tweety gets the best of you too.
What you should do on Selection Day and every other day, is learn to be a Tweety; that is your best option in this cartoon world of ours.
The resources now squandered on elections would be better applied to an effort to enforce respect for the genuine Law of the Land.
WE hold these Truths…
Tinsley Grey Sammons (1936 –)
Eric – I am going to limit my argument to strictly whether to Vote or Not Vote and whether that choice is helpful or not.
Your article actually makes a pretty good point as to why one should vote – mainly because the POTUS IS ELECTED (putting any conspiracy theories aside) BY LESS THAN A FULL MAJORITY OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS. Your argument has actually folded back into itself and come full circle – observing it from a purely intellectual standpoint.
The current political situation has primarily come about OVER THE YEARS due to the happy and ignorant masses prefering to stay home and not vote because all is “well” in their lives and it is so much easier than having to actually educate themselves and take any responsibility. “Everything will be alright” attitude.
Sure over the years there have always been a few folks who are educated on the issues who choose to sit out the vote for “other” reasons.
So anyway the point is that we as a nation have arrived at the current political situation due to non-participation by BOTH ignorant and educated folks.
So anyone wanting to know at least part of the cause of the current political situation need only to look in the mirror to find the answer.
Basically FREEDOM is a RESPONSIBILITY that can not be avoided – it requires constant attention – and WE – ALL OF AMERICA – have been asleep on the job for way to many years and it is time to take back this country, but sitting on the sidelines is not the answer.
IF all eligible voters voted then the issue of the POTUS being elected by less than a majority goes away. Granted we may not like the outcome of who gets elected – but at least the winner will be legitimate.
Perhaps what we need is another lever on the ballet that says “ABSTAIN” and that would also be counted in the election and thereby provide legitimacy or not to the winner. (If Not – then that opens up another whole can of worms in the process – but that is an argument for another day).
I will leave you all with one other point to ponder – and I am just simply playing Devil’s Advocate here – BUT, what if we did require everyone to vote like Australia?
Give that some thought for awhile…
You are making one very big assumption. You assume that we pick the dogs in this fight. I don’t believe we do. What you get is your choice of the candidates already vetted by the parties.
You start out with a handful of candidates, possibly a couple of them are not vetted. The media quickly tells the clovers who their only choices are (clearly not Dr. Paul. Then you get to choose from the ones left over that are all deemed sufficient by the party leaders.
Why do they even allow someone like Ron Paul to run you might ask? Well that is fairly simple. He gives malcontents like us a person to cheer for and that keeps us engaged. Why do I support the good doctor? Simple, I hope that someday they miscalculate and his message or another like it reaches too many people for them to stop it. I also believe that we are headed towards a collapse and I hope that enough people will choose liberty over fascism to change the outcome.
When I say “they” I am talking about the Crony Capitalists who own both the government and the media.
I am a computer system’s engineer. all electronic (sic computing) erections are rigged. it is simple and easy to do. why because no one will take the time to force the state to hand over the erection results with the voting rolls so an independent audit can be done. My take is we are the 1% with any sense and the 99% are just plain stupid.
It’s been admitted to, under oath, by computer programmers.
The clover majority will continue to vote, no matter how clearly the whole process is exposed for the sham that it is. Why? It’s simple: clovers, in admitting that the system is a fraud, would be admitting that everything they’ve been taught to believe in for their entire life is also a fraud. It would force them to start thinking critically, something that clovers are genetically incapable of. Because this is lethal to a clover, they will continue to believe in The Big Lie and will do everything they can to force their compatriots to do the same thing.
In the end, the only thing that exposing the truth will do is enrage the clover majority to the point where they do even more stupid and destructive things than they usually do. Where truth is concerned, clovers wear dark opaque glasses and have their ears crazy-glued shut.
It’s the same for everything. Wars, drug wars, bailouts for billionaires etc. It’s all about denial. If they ever had to actually admit the truth to themselves they wouldn’t be able to handle the fact that they, who they think of themselves as good people, have been taking part in pure evil! Furthermore, they don’t want to wake up because they actually believe they are getting something for free. Most of them never consider the cost of their support for government imposed destruction.
Nothing to do with genetics…Clover is a weak and stupid little brat that refuses to grow up and be a man. It is a lazy runt that demands everyone else live for it…Just like a spoiled brat child. Government schools and TeeVee are the major causes. It is a form of mental retardation – psychological.
Yup, Ostrich Syndrome is running rampant in our country. The rest of the world can see it with 20/20 vision. Not our pathetic fools. They will deny, deny, deny to the day they die.
I don’t even see the point in voting for local ballot issues. For instance they wanted to levy a tax for 911 services. Our county voted it down. Not much point in an area like ours. Everyone knows where everyone lives anyway. (one stoplight in the entire county) What did they do? They just ignored us and added a tax to people’s phone bills instead. The people voted for a coal fired electric plant that would have brought in tons of jobs. Our dumb ass governor ordered the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to deny the permits. The funniest thing was that the plant was going to be built in the middle of an old limestone quarry. So WTF were they going to hurt?
I saw it mentioned the other day about the DNR not needing a warrant to enter your house or go on your property. That is the case in Michigan. All they need is probable cause.
Just another stupid story. One of the farmers I know was dumb enough to call the DNR about elk poachers who were coming on his property, they were not taking the meat just the heads. They set up a sting and never did catch the poachers, but he did get a ticket for burning garbage without a burn permit. I guess that serves him right for being stupid enough for calling them in the first place.
Agree completely, Eric. One small quibble:
… – thus, the “winner” is the one who gets appx. 26 percent or so of the 50 percent.
The winner gets the vote of maybe 26% of the voting-age population, but 51% of the 50% who vote.
Eric you’ve given me an idea.
I’m going to stand outside polling places with some signs; some slogans I have in mind:
“Don’t vote. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil.”
“Don’t vote. It just encourages the bastards.”
“Don’t vote. It’s meaningless. They’re both lying to you.”
“Don’t vote. Figure it out–they’re THE SAME.”
Think I’ll be arrested?
How about “Will you vote Giant Douche, or Turd Sandwich?”
LOL I’m dying! Yes that could be one sign.
I’ll stand outside the polling place next to the shills for Tyrant A and Tyrant B.
I’ll have to try out my idea for tazer-proof clothing. The resistance across the chest is very large, in the megaohm range. I think an undershirt made of conductive material will prevent the worst of it. You’d have to fake a bit of course 🙂
Many places require that you must be a minimum distance from the polling place.
I would be interested in joining a group of people to do this.
Yes. Depending on where you do it, you might be Tasered, too.
I like the idea of having a choice of “None of the above” on ballots. If neither the D nor the R gets a majority, the parties would be required to put up new candidates. There would be elections ad infinitum until somebody put up a candidate who truly represented the will of the people. Or, unfortunately, lied well enough to make a majority of the people think they would be good. So, the system would not be perfect, but it would be better than the farce we have now.
Mike, the Demopublicans and Republicrats both know that this will be the outcome of your suggestion, which is why “None of the Above” will never be an option on any Amerikan ballot. Russia –you know, that backwards, evil, totalitarian hell hole– has had an “against all” option on their ballots for the last 20 years – and it’s worked! “Against all” (i.e., “none of the above”) has beat huge numbers of candidates in local provincial elections, essentially forcing the political parties to put non-kleptocrats on the ballots for run-off elections.
Needless to say, the powers that be in Amerika aren’t about to let this hint of “real” democracy anywhere near the process that entrenches them in power.
I’m afraid you’re right, liberranter. That was just wishful thinking on my part. lol
Thank you for the info about Russia…I didn’t know about that. And I like it.
well you know that john ashcroft lost to a dead man right? LOL! chimp appointed a man that lost to a dead man to be the AG. LOL! the dumb and the dumber.
How funny. And a real eye opener no less. Thanks for giving me more ammunition.
Here, have something good.
I uploaded a clip from the political satire “Moon Over Parador.”
Vote! It’s a Free Dictatorship.
The film contains this scathing indictment of the hollowness of “free and fair democratic elections.”
I cited Fair Use: Political Commentary. Let’s hope YouTube doesn’t make me take it down.
So many people still believe with all their hearts and souls that there’s some difference in checking the box next to the D or R. After the SC decision on Obamacare today my mother-in-law told he how much her resolve to get Obama out of office was strengthened, even though she doesn’t like Romney, because Obama has done so much damage to our government and Constitution. It makes me want to sink my fingers into my own eye sockets and rip my brain out before it hurts any more.
Since RP is a no-go I’ve decided to just stay home on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. For some reason this throws people into a state of mania. Since going public with this I’ve been told I’m an idiot, that it’s the worst thing you could possibly do (somehow?), that I’m “part of the problem” which doesn’t make any sense at all, and of course that I have no right to complain about the result.
Trying to explain that this is the way to withdraw your consent in a popular system doesn’t penetrate the skulls that come up with crap like that, and the few that do get it are taken aback that you could actually want to withdraw your consent to be ruled by the sexiest, most awesome, benevolent and American friggin McGovernment on the planet. They put me on the shelf once they realize I’m “one of those Ron Paul crazy people who hate the military, love the terrorists and want the sharp-dressed little Iranian man to get the bomb.”
I just don’t get these people. But it was the same way in high school when I didn’t vote in the ASB elections. Some teachers actually threatened me with punishment over that. Don’t dare go against the grain or ask questions! One day it will be the same with voting. BrentP is right about that. Sooner or later it will be “the law.”
McGovernment. Now that, TOG, is a quotable quote 🙂
McGovernment – Word of the Day – good one!
Start asking people why you should vote for their candidate. 9 times out of ten I’ll bet the answer is going to be “because we can’t let the other guy win.”
When they tell you that you’re throwing your vote away voting 3rd party or that staying home is unpatriotic, tell them that you’d rater vote for someone who you’d like to see in office, not the guy you think has “the best chance” of winning. You’re not trying to beat the spread on the Superbowl, after all.
“When they tell you that you’re throwing your vote away…”
Republican “friends” criticized my voting third-party in 2000 and 2004 thusly: “If too many people vote as you do, we’ll lose everything!”
My reply: “The problem is not that too many people might vote as I do. The problem is that not enough will!”
That’s exactly what they say. I will not endorse someone with my own name simply because they’re the lesser of two evils. It’s sad how many don’t get that; they’re putting their name behind the actions of these people. That means something to me. Even when I was terminally Republican I didn’t cast a vote for GWB either time. The man wasn’t worth it in my opinion.
I espouse a number of nominally conservative personal opinions and when people get comfortable with me and then hear that even though I’m personally opposed to drug use and abortion I don’t support legislation banning either, they don’t know what to do with me. Same with the leftists that I know who don’t get why I don’t want to use the government against the banks. Live and let live is long dead. It really is true that people view government simply as a lever to use against other people. Don’t believe anything else.
Americans themselves – most of them – are mean-minded busybodies, Babbits and control freaks. Very few believe in – let alone practice – live and let live. The government does represent “the people” in this respect.
Well put, Eric.
Exactly. Absolutely correct. Said much the same many times myself.
Could not agree more.
And this is nothing new in human history.
Most people have never cared about freedom or reason or justice.
They want what people have always wanted, and what dictators, potentates and pooh-bahs have manipulated quite handily for centuries, and that is the following:
1 – To be fed.
2 – To be entertained.
3 – To exercise petty power over their fellow man.
Are you an aspiring authoritarian? Give the masses those three things and they will never give a lick of trouble.
Bright spots in history of reason, enlightenment and liberty are few and far between, and almost always brought about by the efforts of a minority of people, who just don’t give a shit what “mainstreamers” or, what you folks call “clovers”, think any more.
[Reply to Anti Federalist]
Very succinctly and clearly put, and (unfortunately) very true.
In the face of this truth, perhaps the best that can be done is to try to become a “porcupine”. That is, to display a big enough carrot (“leave me be and you’ll benefit by trading with me”) and stick (“mess with me and, though you may kill me, you’ll be hurting”) that the would-be intrusive thugs will decide to leave well enough alone.
Yes…You know as well as I do that public school and TeeVee has turned most Americans into stupid and bratty little psychopaths that refuse to leave normal and productive people alone…In fact the little psycho-runts want to live off of our backs and use terror state Democracy to steal from others. The terror state is in fact their Representative…What did you really expect from Democracy? The Nobel Peace Prize psychopath Obombya is their representative – which is why the thing will win a second term.
For that, you can thank mass war. During total war, a mean-minded busybody becomes a “model citizen vital to keeping up morale on the home front.”
And all the mean-minded busybodies know it.
That’s why the war trope is their favourite trope. Whether it be the War on Solvency (oops, “Poverty”) or the War on Civil Liberties (whups, “Drugs”), or other ways to wage War on Other Citizens, they know very well that war legitimzes them.
Speaking of the War on Civil Liberties, its favourite weapons are being folded into the War on Terror. Sorry to be Danny Downer, but the damage to civil liberties is unlikely to be reversed even on the slight chance of the War on Drugs being legislatively kiboshed.
In closing, a “useless” question. If they hate us for our freedoms, why didn’t they hate us even more virulently fifty years ago when we were much freer?
I always vote for the dead guy myself. I always 1 ask for a paper ballot. that fucks their mind up to no end. takes about an hour to find one. then i vote for a dead guy. you know one that really can’t hurt anyone. then i fold the ballot where everyone and god can read it! yeh, it is a waste of time but i love screwing with the statist at the voting polls.
Know what i find funny? for jesus being the peace guy his temples sure do support the state at the 4th of july and erection time.
my 2 FED devalued cents and proud of it!
I totally agree. I’ve been oh, so fortunate to have rabid Republicans on my paternal side (the churchy, dogmatic warmongers who truly believe that you must obey the government not matter what … unless, of course, that government is run by democrats)and then my maternal side… bleeding heart PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS (Yeah, they love the idea of SickCare and would still vote for Obomber, simply to spite the Republicans). These people have been fully informed by me. Fully. Their response… my sources are no good. Yeah… they actually tell me that regularly. They know that MSM is bought and paid for my the same corporate elite that run the world, but no matter. To them, MSM is the gospel truth. I’m so tired from trying to explain these things to my family members, whom I do not want to be blindsided by the coming collapse. They are 100% resistant. Just when I think I’ve gotten through, they will have talked to a like-minded (to them) individual that convinces them otherwise.
What really gets to me is… since I awakened nearly 2 years ago, I lost the 150 lbs that I could never lose while I was asleep. I took a nasty cocktail of psychotropic pharmaceuticals that, once ditched, enabled me to THINK. They watched me transform right before their very eyes, yet they still cling to conventional wisdom. It sucks that that such a life-changing experience for me isn’t a good enough example for them. I feel totally betrayed.
At any rate, these people are great examples of the normalcy bias. It frightens me that a good majority of the U.S. population thinks in this way. They both feel the need to tell others how to behave and whom or what to spend their money on. Just leave me the hell alone, I say!
It’s weird – scary – isn’t it?
Like you’re the only sane guy in the nuthouse… .
People all around you – deliberately oblivious; they just don’t care. Or they think it can’t possibly affect them.
I’ve lost at least one good friend over this. He’s a died-in-the-wool Chimponian (Republican-snuggling, flag-humping, Bible-thumping, warmonging Babbit). I found it impossible to be around him – and he, me.
But as Washington once said, “it’s better to be alone than in poor company”!
This is why I keep bringing up the zombie metaphor; it’s disturbingly accurate.
Between the fluoride, the vaccine-induced brain damage, the psychotropic pharmaceuticals, and the incredibly sophisticated mass-media brainwashing…not to exclude the natural human normality bias…they’re lost.
It’s like they’re in a trance, asleep–and they don’t WANT to be awakened.
It’s too painful.
But it pisses me off; the selfishness and laziness of the act. I’m awake, I’m suffering the reality-hit; it’s not that bad. It’s invigorating.
I’d say “go ahead and stay asleep”, but for every sleeper there’s that much more chance this thing will progress to absolute hell on earth.
It especially hurts me when intelligent, educated family members roll their eyes (my neurosurgeon sister) and “there he goes again, crazy brother!”. Fuck that. I’ve tried every angle, even trying to convince her to spare her children from the vaccine holocaust; we studied the same conventional medicine, and I can whip out five detailed biochemical reasons why aluminum is neurotoxic. In detail. With the redox reactions, diagrammed. Why would you put that poison in your baby’s body?
But she won’t listen.
My conclusion: people are going to get hurt, real bad, before they might wake up.
Why does it require that for some people? Did ya’ll have to get hurt before you woke up?
@ Eric- I’ve lost numerous friendships over this. I pretty much alienated myself when I began posting this stuff on FB. LOL Needless to say, I’m off of FB.
@Methylamine- Sad thing is these very people who talk shit are going to be the ones beating our doors down when the shtf. That thought really gets under my skin.
I expect the rift we’re seeing now is not unlike the rift that was developing circa 1840s and 1850s. There’s no consensus anymore; and much less common bond.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. That thought, though I totally agree with it, did not originate with me. If I could remember who first said it, I would certainly attribute it to them.
That response only elicits an eye roll for me from my loved ones… but I totally agree.
“The lesser of two evils is still evil” is my favorite response to the question of why I don’t vote for the ‘other guy’ in any given election. Clovers just cannot grasp that concept, simple as it might be.
i refuse to call what happens on the days the MSM call thug selection an election. I call it an erection, they erect another thug to power. a spade is a spade and A is A.
Dear That Other Guy,
Did you make that up yourself?
Way to go!
Be sure to check out the 14 second clip I uploaded from “Moon Over Parador.”
It bears DIRECTLY on this very issue.
It’s a great concept because as the vapid evangelists of “Democratic Peace Theory” never tire of preaching, “Democracies never go to war with each other.”
The corollary is that “No two countries with McDonald’s franchises ever go to war with each other.:
Not quite true of course. But to the extent that it is, it’s merely a case of “pod people” not fighting “their own” a la the “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” franchise.
RE: your clip…sometimes it gets difficult to tell if life is imitating art, or the other way around. I feel like I’m living in a neverending satire.
Here’s hoping the empire’s various McGovernments around the world don’t have the same staying power as the burger franchises that never go under. Although I have actually seen a McDonalds close up shop. It gave its life for condos. Which became a better deal to the landowners because of the Fed-driven housing bubble. One could read a lot into that as well…
It sure does. Is life imitating art? Or is art imitating life?
Remember “Wag the Dog?” The movie came out. Then not long after, Clinton virtually plagiarized the script!
One of my favorites. And apparently the Pentagon’s as well; seems like they keep borrowing from it. I didn’t see it until after the Pentagon-authored Jessica Lynch screenplay hit the big screen. I remember wondering if they ripped of the idea from that movie’s Woody Harrelson character.
Wonder how many people have seen it and don’t see the parallels. Sad.
People do know … but they just don’t care. The Lynch thing, the Pat Tillman thing… all publicized. Most Americans don’t give a damn. The game is on tonight! They also don’t give a damn about rendition, presidential “kill lists,” the whole thing.
The die has been cast. We are headed for a shit storm. Only the outcome remains to be seen, not the event itself.
Yeah, could be!
I always assumed they ripped off “Saving Private Ryan.”
But either works for me!
“Democracies never go to war with each other.”
The only reason why that notion gained credence is because those “democracies” are typically tied together through alliances, whose hub is the good ol’ U.S. of A. A more realistic way of phrasing that supposed law is, “American client states don’t go to war with each other.”
But don’t tell the neoconservatives I told you that 🙂
LOL! So true. I have to laugh otherwise I’d be crying all the time.
Between now and November, I will mull over two alternatives for my presidential voting prerogative.
1) Not voting at all, per the rationales presented above and elsewhere.
2) Voting third party for the sole purpose of thinning the math of the two-major-party vote total. With this objective in mind, it will not matter if I actually support the third party candidate for whom I cast a ballot (I seriously doubt there will be any whom I would actually support).
I can see merit in both of these approaches, which is why I have not yet committed to either.
Keep going Jay – you are almost in the light with #2.
Those who choose #1 will not lend or deny legitimacy to the process because they will not even be considered – they are simply spectators and have no bearing on the outcome of the game – they are not players.
Yes – the game may be somewhat rigged – but so was project GunRunner and it only took one patriotic “player” to stand up and question “orders’! How many “spectators” even new what was going on? (i.e. – none, so they couldn’t stop it).
The Libertarian Party–as flawed as it is–is running Gary Johnston, and he’s very, very good. Not quite Ron Paul…but then who is, besides Thomas Jefferson?
I think I’m still going to do my no-vote protest. But if you do 3rd party, Gary on the Libertarian ticket is a good choice.
Eric, I guess I must have somehow intuited the the direction you were taking from some of your earlier articles and comments, I heartily agree America i not now and likely never has been an elected Government “by and for the People” in the sense many understand from their state indoctrination classes.
The argument that will be used of course is that America was never meant to be a Democracy, but in fact a Republic. A Republic functions exactly as America does today; under the rulership of an elite who are nominally responsible to the general population. So there should be no complaints concerning the status quo in the US; everything is as it should be. That the general population don’t understand they live in a Republic should be of little concern to anyone with intelligence that would challenge a potato chip.
The problem of course isn’t the *form* of totalitarian rule we suffer under, it’s the fact that we are ruled. Educating the masses about liberty, freedom and self-rule is beyond the capacity of a mostly disorganized group of people who, frankly, detest organization. I’m afraid you and I are doomed to live amongst folks who just don’t get it and never will.
When our society is ready for freedom, it will just happen. There won’t be any fanfare, no bloodshed, no revolution. Like enlightenment, liberty is the “gateless gate”. Before you can be free, you need to understand you already are.
If the Founding Fathers only wanted the minority to vote then America is still on track.
That is a twisted assessment of the founder’s intent. I think they intended that individual rights be upheld first and foremost, legislative power be limited to enumerated powers in Article 1 section 8, most power resides in state governments which are closer to the people, and that people select decision makers that will elect the president (electoral college). This system worked pretty well until congress circumvented the constitution by passing an income tax and enacting the Federal Reserve Act. (I don’t want to get into a Fed discussion….)
You know Gil, I think they did.
Even Jefferson seemed to be of a mind that direct democracy was a poor idea, I think he mentioned “tyranny of the masses” a few times. John Adams was an elitist too. They were republicans and most felt that government should be the domain of landowners at the very least.
Given that, how can we ask for a “better” Republic? It’s my opinion that if you’re going to suffer a Republican form of government, the best you can hope for is a better Republican. We apparently come up short by that measure.
But that really isn’t my point. Republican, Democrat, even Monarchist all acknowledge the need for an authoritarian government that enforces its doctrine with the barrel of a gun. If we accept the premise that rule by force is necessary, then all we can really argue about is the quality of that rule, the form s mostly irrelevant.
I think you’ve mentioned a few times that you believe Government is necessary and you’ve given examples along the lines of “what do we do about rapists and murderers”? It’s a good question because in the end, even a libertarian will agree that the principal of non-aggression only applies to instigating aggression; a moral person is always allowed to defend themselves against force. But people can’t always defend themselves. They often need help and that begs the question, “Who has the authority to act on their behalf”? n other words, who gets to use a gun against aggressors that have not done them direct harm?
This is where the Libertarian argument and the principal of non-aggression sinks into the swamp.
“initiating”. Should have been “initiating aggression”.
Scott, A monopoly can’t do jack without state protection. If an established monopoly can only be removed by the state, why do monopolies always seek ever greater protection from the state?
Insurance, health insurance, is already regulated into a nice little cartel. But that’s not enough, they need the state for more. They are using the state to push out alternatives. The monopoly needs the state. It can’t go without it. It always needs more from the state.
Take away the state and the monopoly will find itself behind and unable to react. It hasn’t competed except politically through the state for ages. Once confronted with competition, without the state to make the competition illegal, it won’t know what to do.
Monopolies are constantly using government to squash competition as it comes up. Even static laws make the monopoly vulnerable. Because without constantly changing the laws to block competition someone figures out how to compete within the existing framework.
The monopoly competes through the political process. Take that away. It dies.
Could a high capital start cost monopoly persist awhile? Sure. But all that it buys is time.
The problem with clovers is their aggression. They only harm themselves without it. Nothing has to be done with them, only dismantle institutions which are allowed to use force legally. Most of them won’t risk their own hide and the rest can be dealt with as violent aggressors.
Scott–no no no, the NAP (non-aggression principle) works just fine in the defenseless-victim case.
Readily available private security services would vastly improve security over today’s lazy, thuggish, steroid-addled pigs.
Wise people would carry weapons, which of course would be totally unregulated.
And bystanders, probably armed, would rush to the defense of a true victim–with a clear conscience, and unburdened by the silly idea that chivalry might be punished by the unruly State.
Bystanders stepping up to the defense of a victim does not violate the NAP–they’re defending their neighbor. They did not initiate the force.
But Methyl, you must see that what occurs is an organized defense? Either one privately purchased or one that forms spontaneously?
What we have now in the way of security forces result from the classic “tragedy of the commons” in that no individual takes responsibility for the actions of the police and everyone lets them ride roughshod with an expectation that “someone else” will take care of the problem. Unfortunately “someone else” s usually gone fishin’. I don’t see an essential difference between a town police force, paid for via mutually agreed upon taxation, and a private police force paid out of pocket, except for the way the force is paid. One way or the other, we’re going to end up paying people to use force against those who initiate force against us.
Perhaps you could make this clear for the audience? I know I’m begging the question, but I hope you’ll indulge me with the answer I know you have.
I just want to apologize for the performance of the “i” key on my keyboard. It comes and goes seemingly of it’s own accord. Then again, it could be a fingernail problem…
“One way or the other, we’re going to end up paying people to use force against those who initiate force against us.”
Whoah! Not the same. Not even close.
Yes. We probably will pay. But paying one way is not the same as paying the other way.
The first way is coerced, by a monopolist. That’s what we have now, with “The Government.”
The other way is freely chosen, from among any number of PDAs (Private Defense Agencies), each of whom is competing against others in a context of freedom.
No, no, no. Not the same at all. Very, very different.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer to this one. I’ve been asking the same question here for months.
There’s no magical distinction between people with guns being paid to point them at others out of public coffers or private. Sooner or later they’re going to figure out that they’re organized violence in an unorganized world. The result will be largely the same.
The incentive for subscription cops is also to keep their subscribers out of jail rather than put them in there. This is the biggest problem.
“Government” is the group of people with the most guns. The way they start out being paid is immaterial. They all end up being paid the same way in the end.
Re: keyboard problems
Get a mechanical keyboard instead of the commonly used membrane keyboard.
The initial cost is significantly higher. But the former will outlast a dozen of the latter.
And the quality of the typing experience during all that time will be far, far superior.
Besides, if an individual key malfunctions, it can be individually replaced. Try that with a membrane keyboard.
I myself use a “Ducky” brand mechanical keyboard MIT (Made in Taiwan.)
I will never go back to using the flimsy membrane keyboards again.
Let me make sure I’m not misunderstanding you.
It sounds like you’re saying free market anarchism would be no better than what we have now.
I hope this is a mere misunderstanding.
is that really what you meant to say?
No no. I don’t think it can be more than temporary without some kind of barrier to entry though, because such a state of being will be torn down by the least common denominator, like all else.
My point in my previous comments is that I don’t think law enforcement will respond to market incentives because it’s not a product that people demand, like a toaster, car or computer. Private security is not the same as law enforcement. The former is defensive while the latter is offensive.
Private security exists to protect the interests of its subscribers. It does not exist to uphold the law. There’s another word for this. It’s called an army.
So to cut to the chase, you agree with Ayn Rand on the issue of “law enforcement” and the need for only one “law enforcement” entity within a given geographical region?
I don’t want to put words in your mouth. But that really does sound like what you’re saying.
If it’s not, and I have unfairly characterized your actual position, then by all means, feel free to clarify.
I’m not familiar with Rand’s position. Mine is that competition in law enforcement will not work.
To my mind, the fundamental is neither the cops nor the laws. It is the people who comprise a given society. If these people are non-Clover in outlook; if they believe in liberty and the use of force against people only when people commit aggression or overt harm (as opposed to group-based “mights” and “what ifs”) then the problem solves itself. The laws are few – and benign. Cops are peace keepers – and a non-threat to everyone except the few who breach the peace.
So, our task is to change hearts and minds – minds most of all. To challenge – and undermine – the immoral basis of Cloverism: That it is right to threaten a person with physical violence who has harmed no one by his actions. And to tout its opposite: That the only moral basis for threatening or using violence against another is in self-defense, or to redress a real harm done.
TOG you had me there for a minute with the army vs. police distinction, but after consideration I kind of figure the difference between “protecting the interests of its subscribers” vs. “upholding the law” to be sort of vacuous. What are “laws” other than a codified description of what the subscribers want?
It all comes down to the size of your tribe. If you want to live by your own rules you need an army bigger than the guy that wants you to live by his. Nothing changes by making the negotiations private. It’s the FBI vs. Al Capone. No difference. Never has been.
And I know YOU know the answer! But let’s be clear.
The PDA is paid for voluntarily; I subscribe to my PDA, you subscribe to yours…or mine, whichever you think offers the best service at the best price.
And you answer the question of force right there–you pay people to use force against those who [first] initiated it against us.
One other objection I’ve heard from a friend whose mind is somewhat addled by the statism inherent in earning a law degree is:
To which I answered “Well what the fuck do you think we live under NOW??”
To which he replied with laughter. But that’s not the end of the discussion, because indeed government today IS the biggest, most successful criminal gang in history. However there are key differences:
1) Starting with PDA’s, the customers (society) are aware they’re paid-for services, and are not an entity with god-like powers, a divine right, or heavenly imprimatur. Governments have convinced citizens that somehow, they’re different, and it’s OK when they initiate force.
2) PDA’s are businesses hired to protect customers. When they get out of hand, they’re to be sued, de-kudo’ed*, and possibly defended against by other PDA’s. They do not have a “legal” monopoly on force.
No one PDA could “take over”; there’s too much competition for that. Nor could a rogue PDA long operate, for it (and its customers) would soon ratchet down their Kudo count to an unsustainable degree.
* “kudos” would be the rating score attached to any entity–individual or company–kind of a reputation summary or credit score. These would be managed by separate private RA’s (reputation agencies) that keep track of the overall trustworthiness of people. This replaces the small-town network of trust based on everyone knowing everyone else; in a large city, RA’s would be invaluable in deciding with whom to do business and who to shun.
Anyone wishing to do business with me, say, would need a Kudo score in the top 20 percent, ’cause I’m fussy that way. My 90th percentile Kudo score makes me an attractive business and trading partner; naturally I wish to transact with others of similar high ethics and standards.
Others with lower scores would/should aspire to raise them; but they’ll still find agencies to represent them…just fewer and fewer, until they get their Kudos back.
That was precisely Ayn Rand’s position.
Incidentally, I have good news for you. I’m assuming you genuinely want freedom to work, but are bummed out because you think it can’t.
If so, you will be happy to learn that free market competition in “law enforcement” not only CAN work, it HAS worked, and can work again. The free market anarchist system in Iceland worked for 300 years, longer than the US has been in existence.
If you don’t mind my saying so, I think that counts as “working” in the real world.
Free market anarchism is not just a theoretical construct. It is an historical reality. It actually existed. It actually worked. It is not “utopian” wishful thinking.
Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government
December 25, 2002
by Thomas Whiston
I don’t mean to be impolite, but I’m genuinely surprised you didn’t know about Rand’s position on this issue.
You said you had been waiting for months for someone on this forum to provide you with an answer about how free market anarchist PDAs would work.
But Rand’s minarchist position has been the focus of controversy in countless minarchist vs. anarchist arguments over the past decades.
When someone insists that a private free market condition would lead to single entity taking over I challenge them to describe how a monopoly can remain without the assistance of the state or the establishment of one.
A free market cannot sustain a monopoly in anything unless that monopoly is willing to produce the best value for the money to its customers every day. The moment it stops doing that, competition appears. Now lets say instead the monopoly power uses its size to dump goods on the market to drive its new competition out of the market before jacking prices back up. Well, eventually it will hit a wall as new ideas make the losses unbearable. Or people figure out they can start a company make a killing for a short while then close up as the monopoly starts dumping avoiding losses. Then repeat the cycle after prices increase again. Eventually the monopoly will fail.
Only through the use of legal violence can a monopoly which does not give customers the best bang for the buck every day endure.
@BrentP: “I challenge them to describe how a monopoly can remain without the assistance of the state or the establishment of one. ”
Brent, isn’t that a little like saying “I can take you with one arm tied behind my back”? Ask me to explain how a monopoly can remain without the assistance of a large group of heavily armed people? Well, that’s a no brainer; I can’t.
I’m sorry but the initial conditions you present defy argument. Which is, perhaps, why you are still waiting for an answer to the question?
Absent superior force, a monopoly will do exactly as it pleases and it will seek to sustain itself. Take away the “state” and you pretty much obviate any chance of overturning an established monopoly.
This doesn’t settle the question at all. There is likely not a more homogenous society on the face of this planet than Iceland. I don’t mean to be impolite, but I would expect it to be painfully obvious how the example of medieval, agrarian, ethnically and religiously homogenous Iceland doesn’t apply at all to the reality of contemporary, multiculturalist America. This is the mother of all apples-to-oranges comparisons.
I do not live in Iceland. I live in a census block that is 40% Hispanic, 40% Caucasian, and 20% other with a sizable and growing portion of that other being composed of East African Muslims. If you threw millions of Mexicans and Somalians into Iceland in the year 1100 I guarantee you they all would have formed their own security apparati that would quickly have been at odds, and the place would have degenerated into a quagmire.
I’m 29 with a new family, work, and a house to keep up. I’ve been at this subject for less than five years. I read when I can. I like to discuss issues and concepts because I value the opinions of people living in the current times. I feel like I get more from the articles and people who comment here. I don’t need to read Rand to have valid questions and opinions.
This brings us full circle back to my original question.
Why are you demanding answers from the free market anarchists on this forum if you think they have no answers?
Do you want them to talk you out if your minarchist position? Do you want them to admit anarchism is impossible? What do you want?
Since you “know” that free market anarchism is impossible, even though it actually existed in Medieval Iceland, why are you wasting your time talking to us?
I was sitting here asking myself much the same question…what am I driving at with this? When people bring me to question or reconsider my own convictions and opinions I feel touched by them in a way and am grateful, because I believe that it improves me as a person.
On the flip side of that, I find it satisfying when I can bring someone else to question, reconsider, revisit their own opinions, because I feel like I’m making a difference if I can help them sharpen and improve their opinions and convictions. Sometimes I’m ineffective, run up against a stubborn person, or am just plain wrong, my own stubbornness gets the best of me, and I end up focused on having to be right.
People here have plenty of answers and aren’t shy about giving them to you. I find it noteworthy when they don’t. It just doesn’t feel to me like there’s a good one for this question. Scott’s comment about “this is where it sinks into the swamp” really struck a nerve with me because I feel the same way. From what I gather, Eric does too, but I’ll let the man speak for himself.
The way I see it, the point of discussing these topics on forums like this is that we’d like to see these things become a reality some day. I’m not a scholar; to a layperson like me its more important to consider how such a society would work if we got a chance to implement it tomorrow.
That’s why I’d rather participate in or just observe the discussions that go on here than read Rand. I feel like I get more out of it. These are the people who are going to have to make anarchy work. Many times I just read what others say because I feel I don’t have anything to contribute. Even after so many months my mind is still blown by what I learn here.
Eric often asks: what do we do about the Clovers? This question needs an answer or we can’t go forward. I fear that there’s no way to answer this in keeping with the non-aggression principle. This is what troubles me.
Though not perfect in its realization, the first 74 or so years of the American republic largely kept Cloverism in check. There was very little the government – and thus, Clovers – could do to a person insofar as regulating his life, interfering with his business, or limiting his rights. The average person could go his entire life without being hassled by a Clover. Property ownership was real. There was no tax on income. No Federal Reserve. No government-organized police force, even. Etc. No one could tell you how to live, micromanage your work, dictate with whom you associate/do business.
It wasn’t perfect, of course – but it was much closer, probably, than has ever been realized to the an idea society than had ever been realized anywhere else.
And it proves that it’s possible for men to live in society without pervasive government – without Cloverism.
This ended up in the wrong place:
The problem with clovers is their aggression. They only harm themselves without it. Nothing has to be done with them, only dismantle institutions which are allowed to use force legally. Most of them won’t risk their own hide and the rest can be dealt with as violent aggressors.
@Methyl – “To which I answered “Well what the fuck do you think we live under NOW??”
And that would be my concern. We talk about “the state” and its monopoly on force, but what is “the state” if not a collection of people larger than the one being oppressed? Taken to its extreme, a minority of one is faced with the monopolistic tyranny of the many. I can’t see how privatizing that relationship will improve the situation. I suppose you could make the public education argument and ask the state to recognize your right to “home secure” but that’s sort of playing the game.
Rich people hire their own personal security forces and with luck their jurisdiction gets some respect from the public thugs, but they still live in a box.
Arguing “the many” should not have the right to form a standing army that infringes the rights of “the few” is going to go over like a lead brick. Until people personally accept the idea that its not OK to use force against others in order to get them to do what you want them to do there will be opposing forces and the bigger, better equipped one will win.
I think you missed the part of my replay after the “do you think we live under NOW??”…
In which I explain, the “greater-gang” theory of government arising from the largest most powerful PDA is not inevitable at all.
They are in competition. They do NOT have a monopoly on force, nor do they have greater rights than citizens; they are comprised of citizens with the same rights–just as our cops are, but have forgotten.
Moreover, their customers are citizens, too, with kudos-ratings to maintain.
When the PDA goes rogue and tries to become government, its customers’ ratings fall, its ratings fall, and other PDA’s take action.
I think where you’re not seeing the true vision of multiple PDA’s is that it necessitates the absence of the state entirely–there is no State in this vision.
There is no one “blessed” entity with a monopoly on force and coercion.
In fact there is no force or coercion allowed; that is precisely the point of the PDA’s, to protect their customers from force and coercion.
Anyone becoming forceful and coercive becomes a target of other PDA’s.
It’s a giant Mexican standoff.
There can be no State; 98% of people (2% being sociopaths) want to live peacefully and go on about their business. Give them the chance. Remove the State, and suddenly peace and prosperity can flourish.
To fend off the 2% who won’t leave them alone, let them defend themselves, and hire PDA’s to do the job.
What we have today, instead, is the 2% who are sociopaths pretending to be the protectors!
You’re so bright, how am I failing to explain it to you? Because I blame myself; it seems so intuitively obvious that the smart people on this site should grok it instantly.
@Methyl – “how am I failing to explain it to you? Because I blame myself…”
No, there’s no blame. While I’m not being intentionally obtuse, I’m also not being honest; It’s not that I don’t understand your argument that plurality of service and a lack of supporting “legal” infrastructure will prevent the formation of abusive monopolies, it’s that I don’t believe it will work in practice.
Think of it this way; in the beginning the USA provided just such a social environment and there were written rules adopted as law that were intended to do exactly what you propose. Over the course of years those laws were undermined, corrupted and slowly dissolved by the corrosive force of power grabbers. The process was slow and insidious but it worked and today we are where we are.
I charge you with idealism Methyl, not with being incomprehensible. I understand your point but if it really worked then the USA would be having its ass handed to it on a platter by a collection of nations (or other organized groups of people) for doing exactly what your plan would proscribe.
In the end, I’m arguing Lord Lytton was wrong, the pen in fact is *not* mightier than the sword.
Your idealism is admirable and it points the way towards a more highly evolved society in my opinion, however it has been my experience that groups will form for the purpose of enslaving other people and they will ultimately use force to do it. In that event, the only recourse is superior force, the “peace through superior firepower” doctrine.
Until people learn that it’s a property and human life preserving behavior to simply not fuck with other people, this cycle will repeat. It is sad, nevertheless I feel it’s true.
It’s not idealism; it’s worked in the past…in Iceland a thousand years ago, and in America, for example, with one big caveat.
That big caveat is the Constitution; good as it is, it’s riddled with loopholes, and it assumes minarchism can work. It still creates a government.
Funny, I’m having the same debate with my criminal-defense lawyer friend right now.
Here’s my reply to him, re: the cyclical nature of the beast:
Oh ye of little faith!
The pendulum’s not a pendulum. At each stroke, it shifts a bit toward freedom.
The Greeks; a temporary plateau, crash.
The Romans; another slightly higher plateau, crash.
And then, America.
Each time a clearer recognition of power structures and their relationship to the individual; the American experiment was quite clear on the primacy of the individual; it just didn’t adequately denounce/constrain the State.
Admittedly, the original intent was that a minority of the citizens would vote for the elected officials and things were set up that way. However, that minority had “skin in the game” or a “dog in the hunt” – they were educated (really educated) and usually property owners. Today the voters are likely to be voting for those who promise them the greatest amounts of OPM…in other words they want to eat the dogs in the hunt.
We have gone so far away from how the founders’ intentions when it comes to the voting process it’s sickening.
1) We vote for our representative, and the number of reps in the House would be tied to the Census, not some arbitrary number of convenience. Of course, this would reduce the power of any given representative, so it will never happen without a true uprising.
2) State legislatures would pick the 2 senators. How they are determined is up to the states themselves, not a federally mandated popular election. While in some cases this leads to pure politicking, if that’s the guy they want, that’s the guy they get.
3) While there’s a popular vote taken for the Executive branch, you are really just telling your representative who to vote for. The popular vote has no bearing other than at the district level. The states each get two votes in the electoral college, via their senators.
Remember, our first President was elected by the Continental Congress, not popular vote.
The key to the whole thing is to get more congressional districts. Having 1200 or so house members could easily break the 2 party system. Sure it would also make the speaker and committee chairs more powerful, but it would also mean a greater need for them to achieve consensus to get anything done.
And, if the media would stop treating it like a sporting event, maybe we could break the mindset of voting for the guy more likely to win, instead of voting for the guy we want in office.
Oh, I forgot: the whole House of Representatives being tied to the census and a fixed number of people/representative was debated extensively. In fact, it was the main driver of the census act. However Alexander Hamilton and his wrecking crew put the kibosh on that, knowing that the House is where the power is.
If not voting catches on I suspect we will be forced to vote. That’s how it has worked in a variety of totalitarian nations. History is full of despotic rulers who got 97%+ of the vote. I am not sure why it’s always in the high 90s percent wise instead of 100%. It’s almost like they didn’t count the votes and picked a number out of their butt instead.
US elections have about as much meaning to our lives as a professional football game. The same agenda always marches forward regardless of who is in office.
I don’t think I’ll bother voting. Ron Paul won’t be on ballot and voting to fire all the judges doesn’t seem to ever do anything.
People get sick and can’t make it to the polls. Otherwise it might look “suspicious”
Forced voting will help to further delegitimize this illegitimate system. So, I welcome it. The fraud – the coercive nature of the system – will be exposed.
I’m betting that the clover uebermajority will also welcome mandatory voting. After all, these creatures consider coercion in all things to be the Golden Rule, and most of them will consider the act of herding people to the polls at gunpoint to be a way of ensuring that “everyone does their ‘civic duty.'”
Just what I was going to say liberranter. The clovers won’t see any problem with forced voting. To them it is just part of the “social contract”.
I didn’t see the two comments above before I posted my reply to Eric. You’re right, apart from one thing – it isn’t just speculation, that’s how it really works.
I’d like to see them try. Just like they can “try” to make me purchase sickcare, er um, Obamacare.
This – Obamacare – is a line in the sand for me. I have bent over backwards practicing avoidance; doing my best to steer clear of confrontation. But I will not submit to Obamacare – or pay the Obamacare tax. If that means they send the stormtroopers my way, so be it.
Not to be flip about it, but it really is better to die on one’s feet than live on one’s knees.
Well said, Eric. I only wish that half of the gun owners in this country knew exactly why they are able to bear arms in the first place. It certainly isn’t for hunting season. I’m a firm believer in the non-aggression axiom… but that doesn’t apply to a corrupt government that means it’s citizens harm. I would love to believe that this revolution will remain intellectual in nature, but the minute shelves in the grocery store go empty, its gonna be on like Donkey Kong.
This is a line in the sand for me too.
But how to avoid it? The fuckers will literally reach into your bank account and TAKE the money.
I haven’t looked into it yet, but are HSA’s* compatible?
This might be an end-run around it.
Some states are blustering about nullification. I’ll believe it when I see it; even Texas pussied out at the last moment with their anti-TSA bill.
*HSA = Health Savings Account; it’s like an IRA tax-wise, you can save 5 or 10K/year into it. From it, you pay all out-of-pocket medical expenses, and for anything over 5K/year you buy a very high-deductible health insurance.
I just read that the IRS will be doing the collecting of the penalty-tax. But refusal to pay will not be treated like income tax. They cannot seize (at least yet) your property to pay for the unpaid amount, they will have to sue you and the max they can sue for is 2X the amount they say you owe, per the bill’s equations (2.5% of your income).
So a way to gum up the works is to not pay and clog the system, but then they will likely speed up the “judicial process” to handle the increase in business. With it being over 2500 pages, it is likely the SWHTF before we comprehensively undertand it.
eric wrote: “Not to be flip about it, but it really is better to die on one’s feet than live on one’s knees.”
Eric, not wanting to be a one-track poster here, but there is a part of the Second Amendment that people tend to overlook, and it is what’s necessary to the security of a free state.
It’s great that you have a line in the sand, but do network and plan with like-minded others. When push does come to shove–or ideally just before it–the best defense is a good offense. We’re going nowhere if all we can muster is a million one-man stands, each going out in a ‘blaze of glory’.
Thinking of changing my name to Jim Smith (two very common names) or maybe Alan Alan (very common first and first as last name). Need to know if its possible for a dead man to sell me his identity **smiling**. Then I’m going to go live in a gypsy commune, and not purchase any sort of telephone but use the common communal wi-fi network. This way I can write all kinds of articles how I hate the turds coming up with these laws and not be afraid they are going to repossess my RV (laughing). Sure the IRS can take me serious here but I don’t want their product (neither ObamaCare or supporting the rich politicians), hence I politely tell their salesman I’m not interested in them or their god in low caps…But wait there is more should I also get a citizenship somewhere else while I can still drive the RV somewhere else, I think so! I’ve got an idea how to avoid taxes like in Amazon for statehoods, but I’m still wondering whether to invests in capital equipment, more bullets, dry food, or a car with better tires and extra gas tank. I still haven’t figured it out but I like that some on here actually suggest we stop feeding this monster.
I like your style!
My weakness (well,one of them!) is that I’m attached to my “stuff.” I like my old cars, my old bikes – my garage full of tools. My land. Our animals. It took me a long time to be in a position to obtain these things – and dammit, I really would like to enjoy them in peace.
But if I were younger, not married, just a kid starting out… well, then I’d be in the RV right behind you! Or something along those lines, anyhow.
Solzynitsyn was right, of course. A man who has nothing is free.
Based on the great values you promote and your success at waking up so many people with your website, I’d never doubt you are the mentor here Eric so I’m particular thrilled you understand my plight to stay light. However, and not having to say the obvious as you are a smart creature and don’t need advice. I have to say that if I were going to own land and stuff I’d advocate the poison pill approach. Basically you put your crowbar in my machine you are going to get gears on the floor and nothing of value. Now in the days of my grandparents and parents it was the moral, wise, and intelligent high card to pay with everything in cash. Hence their values still impress me how not to be an indentured slave to the banks. But I’ve seen particular bad business men who have so much debt that the bank is particularly interested in not losing to a sunk cost and keep the businessmen afloat with ever larger loans. My opinion is the banks are the government. Since, I speculate that property equity is the sweet honey for parasites, I’d advocate that nobody goes into real debt on land but rather have the means to pay off whatever they do get a loan on with real value investments. There are many safe investments that are “hidden”, some are as simply investing in that trustworthy old uncle’s non indebted business, or putting your Cessna in his name. Maybe its buying 100 spools of copper wire and diggin with a backhoe a trench on your property. Then laying a concrete pad over the top of that. My favorite investment is making products to sell on the internet, buy the 3-D printer to make products (engineer complex items that aren’t easily duplicated and have a natural monopoly) then sell them worldwide to everyone. This kind of investment can be taken to any place and any country. A recurring income of capital investments is of course the best hidden investment. It can be as hidden or visible as you like and if you can keep the secrets of how to make them then nobody can steal that easily. Or possibly vintage cars kept out of prying eyes, that can be driven off/ towed in transport off the property while the lean is placed on the visible items like the land. Point is I think to make the banks a majority owner in the visible stuff to walk away from, so that they will stick around to fight with the other jackals who want the real stuff (sweat off the back). I realize that my oversimplification all sounds easy to beat and its not, as farmers are probably the most likely targets and are needed beyond the rest of us. Kind of makes me think more about neither lender or borrower be and to put our treasures where they do not rot. Nothing here is too perfect and fool proof however. Nothing short of another flood to wipe out the majority bad guys will make this place any easier to keep what we work for as honest men. Best Regards.
That’s not how it worked out here in Australia. Here, compulsory voting is talked up by the establishment as civic virtue in action, much as compulsory jury service is in other places. As I see it, the main harm (other than the compulsion itself) took place over generations as local parties lost even more touch with their grass roots, since they no longer needed low level activists to get the vote out.
In Aristotle’s Politics he mentions a city state that had compulsory voting enforced by fines, only they were waived for the poor as a “favour”. He considered this a “fraud on the public”, since it helped keep the rich in power while seeming to help the poor. Guess what – there is a similar waiver for the old here in Australia, at least de facto, and guess what – it was introduced by the Australian Labor Party that they were less likely to vote for.
If voting entails the disposition of other people’s property, then only people who possess property – or pay taxes – ought to have the vote.
It is insane to permit people, via the vote, to simply take other people’s property – because there’s no limit to it once the idea enters their heads and no incentive whatsoever for them – or the demagogues – to keep their depredations in check.
It means the inevitable end of civilized society – its degeneration into a free for all of looting.
Eric you know I’m there with you on the not voting thing, why should I vote as its a waste of time anyway. The problem I see though is that its most likely the tallies are all lies anyway. I’m in no defense of democracy, but I suspect that the whole thing is rigged even the worse. If this is true then it matters not how a person votes or even if they vote as the tallies are and will be rigged by both the government and their other estate (news media).
I think however there are three fronts that will destroy these totalitarian governments. 1. Technology 2. People like you who are the real journalist and serve truths against the lies 3. Eventually people are going to be so broke that even if the government is able to take 100% of what they have it will still be a broke third world country/world. A final world war purge should send the governments back to the stone ages along with us unfortunately, but at least then we might sleep easier (those that survive).
The last condition is not that soothing to me but then it raises the question how do we preserve what we have when tyranny becomes more prevalent and their are more haven’t(s) wanting somebody elses cake. In essense I feel you are totally right about not voting but I feel compelled to say that its because its a waste of time more than anything else. I’m bitter negative on politics to the point that even ignoring it isn’t enough.
I agree on the likelihood that the proverbial fix is in – has been in – for some time with regard to voting. Not only does the system ensure that only its candidates are on the ballot (above state-level office, at least) it also can “adjust” the results to suit via the electronic voting machines now in use. In my county, you touch the screen and the data – ostensibly – is stored in a secure hard drive to be downloaded later. But guess who owns the software – and controls the data? A private contractor who is under no legal obligation to disclose the “guts” of what goes on – and does not disclose what goes on. There is literally no paper trail – so it is impossible to definitively determine who actually voted for whom, as via a recount of the actual ballots.
George Carlin agrees with your sentiment.
Yes, indeed, one cannot get enough of George (may he rest in peace). This segment is one of his funniest –and most brutally spot on– ever.
A comic genius. I miss this guy!
I love that one. Carlin was a genius. I, myself, will pass on “Selection Day”. After all, “it’s a big club, and you aim’t in it. You and I are not in it.”. LOL… so why the heck vote?!
It’s like worrying about whether The Big Show beats Hulk Hogan in Wrestlemania….
LOL… so true!