Mock the Vote!
There's nothing special about 50% plus one, writes David Heleniak.Truth and justice cannot be determined by a show of hands. We are not the government. Voting is not a sacrament. And as it stands today, when we're only given a choice between two Establishment-approved candidates, voting is a joke. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (52)
"Truth and justice cannot be determined by a show of hands."
Agreed. For a lively discussion on epistemology, I offer this question: How then are truth and justice known or determined?
Great article, by the way.
Published: November 3, 2008 8:44 AM
Just like most political pundits, all criticism and no suggestions. Please just one suggestion to achieve justice. There are options: vote Libertarian to make a statement.
Published: November 3, 2008 8:53 AM
We can rant against the form of government all we want, but as Mises wrote, those in power must conform to the wishes of the people eventually. The problem is not so much with the form of government as with the ideas that citizens have. Americans are heavily socialistic and that’s why we have the government we have. If they were libertarian in thinking, as they were at the founding of the nation, we would have limited government. It would be impossible to force anarchy, or even limited government on citizens who worship the state and want socialism above anything else. You can find evidence of such worship in the fact that many Obama supporters call him the messiah while a few opponents refer to him as the anti-Christ.
Published: November 3, 2008 9:09 AM
Brent: “How then are truth and justice known or determined?”
The natural law tradition that the West followed for almost a millenium used reason and it worked quite well.
Published: November 3, 2008 9:19 AM
It's not so much who's at the helm; it's the sheer size and power of the ship of state that's the fundamental problem.
Tell me again: What is it we're supposed to do when the "government becomes destructive of these ends," the ends for which it was formed?
Sorry -- gotta go vote, get my little sticker...
Published: November 3, 2008 9:27 AM
Norm,
I've tried "making a statement" by voting Libertarian since 1988. I don't have doodly-squat to show for it; my "statement" had as much effect as breaking wind in a tornado.
I've actually had better luck interacting with people one-on-one. I've been able to get a few of them to question the State. Granted, not all of them come to conclusions that I desire. But getting them to think on it rather than just swallow what they see on the television is progress.
Articles like this one are helpful at least to me, in helping me learn. This in turn helps me when I try to persuade others. I think that is more helpful than a vote that nobody will hear about.
Published: November 3, 2008 9:44 AM
A thought provoking article, yet I would add a few "disclaimers" to the idea of religion as an opiate for the masses. To me the greatest damage that was ever accomplished to true freedom occurred at the Council of Nicea when a group of select men decided upon the official definition of God. They decided upon consensus how God should be understood by Christians as the "Trinity". True, in Christ's life the elements of the Trinity can be clearly seen, He declared Himself God and His Spirit was just as easily seen as the Holy Spirit. But Christ also said that His Words were Spirit and Truth and He died upon the cross indicating a separation between Himself and the Father. In the "perfect" definition of the Trinity how can you have a separation of the Godhead? Yet that is exactly what happened or you have to either deny the divinity of Christ or create some kind of idea that it was just the man Jesus who died on the cross (see Hyper Calvinism). To me the Council of Nicea married the church into the world and from that point on allowed for an inseparability between church and state, everything else is just smoke and mirrors. Words, especially Christ's Words should be the foundation for true belief not man's interpretation of Christ's Words - that is religion.
Published: November 3, 2008 10:03 AM
That's the second article here in defense of non-voting. It feels so strange and disturbing here, under the very banner of not giving in to evil, but proceeding ever more boldly against it. How to achieve that by staying home is way beyond me.
Published: November 3, 2008 10:23 AM
Southpark on voting:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103888/
Published: November 3, 2008 11:00 AM
Ireland,
One way in which non-voting is helpful in standing up to evil is that one's time is not wasted on non-productive thrashing up a blind alley.
Published: November 3, 2008 11:05 AM
I voted, for Ron Paul on a write in which did make me feel better and so was worth the 43 cents to send in the ballot.
But I like the wrestling analogy of Jesse. That really is what they do it seems.
So, we have Killer McCain in one corner, and the Black Knight in the other. And behind the scenes, I bet they've already split up the plunder.
Published: November 3, 2008 11:18 AM
Please vote. VOTE! It is the right thing to do.
Apathy ensures control in the wrong hands.
The more people vote the more people there are who care to hear other arguments.
But you can't just vote for the underdog and expect a result. You have to provide funding to your favorite candidate, canvas some if that is in your blood and talk to people about why you agree with a particular candidate. Exposure for the candidate grows (e.g. Ron Paul) and ideas start to sneak into the other candidates' policies (more competitive pharmaceutical market).
You may have to look for that candidate. Some have so little money you have to find them.
Over time, more people will become better informed and over time you can start to sway minds.
And guess what, maybe a new Congressman/women or Senator gets in there and slowly the balance is shifted. With a few more staunch economist/capitalist/libertarian/constitutionalists in there you can make headway on blocking the nonsense.
And small successes lead to more air time, more coverage; success builds on success.
Apathy is useless.
-r
Published: November 3, 2008 1:01 PM
redshirt, did you even read other people's comments?
Not-voting is NOT apathy.
Not-voting is a recognition that elections serve only to legitimize dictators and as such are useless for the purpose of changing society for the better.
Not-voting is a statement that you will not turn to officials to resolve your problems, because you understand that they would only end up creating more problems.
Not-voting is a first step in taking reponsibility for your own life, and a pledge to stop interfering in the lives of others.
Not-voting is the moral choice.
(Ron Paul is OK insofar as he directs his effort to destroying the system from within, which is an alternative strategy that does present some valid arguments)
Published: November 3, 2008 1:24 PM
I don't concede authority over my life to any man, and I refuse to exercise authority over the life of any man. If you want to make a difference, use the time you'd waste voting and go build something, write an essay, buy a gun, DO something. Voting isn't action, it is pretending to be involved, pretending to change things, faking action, and stealing the rightful authority of others to run their own lives. Stop adding the credence of your participation to this fraudulent violation of everything wonderful about humanity. I resent it, so follow the Golden Rule: I would never vote on your life against your will, and all I ask is that you respond in kind.
Published: November 3, 2008 1:35 PM
Fantastic! The best critique of democracy I have read on the web this year.
Published: November 3, 2008 1:36 PM
redshirt: "Apathy ensures control in the wrong hands."
The article suggests contempt for a fundamentally flawed system, not apathy.
... and btw, thanks for making my life worse at the polls.
Published: November 3, 2008 1:38 PM
Democracy is not a system conducive to protecting property rights. In fact, democracy inevitably leads to massive property redistribution. Take Hoppe's example: Suppose there was one world democracy. Hoppe predicts that a China/India coalition would arise. The Chinese/Indian citizenry would vote their leaders into power. The Chinese/Indian leaders would notice that people in Europe and the US are far too rich while people in India and China are far too poor. To assure their reelection the Chinese/Indian leaders would implement a massive wealth redistribution program. The property of Europeans/Americans would be given to the Chinese/Indians.
The same process currently occurs in individual countries like the United States. The majority simply votes away the property of the minority. Democracy cannot uphold property rights.
The best critic of democracy is Professor Hoppe. I highly recommend Hoppe's lecture on democracy, especially during election season.
http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/MU2005/MisesCircle-Hoppe.mp3
Published: November 3, 2008 2:25 PM
Please just one suggestion to achieve justice.
----------------
Norm, we'd have to define justice first. As a reluctant post-modernist, I've found justice is merely a word without meaning; in practice it's often just an excuse for the commission of atrocities (forced redistribution of wealth, imprisonment, capital punishment, war, et al).
Published: November 3, 2008 2:27 PM
Rothberg did not invent the "court intellectual." While others may have done it sooner than Nietsche, Nietsche did it pretty convincingly in "Geneology of Morals" nearly 100 years earlier.
Published: November 3, 2008 4:02 PM
Cosmin
I disagree. You cannot live your own life without interfering with another. It is impossible. Even if you are a hermit someplace, you are using resources that someone else could be using.
Democracy represents an attempt at improving on the overall social systems that inevitably arise. Information feedback about what is possible only happens if people can work together on common goals.
You want people engaged with the voting process so that they are listening to the possible ideas and ultimately arriving at better decisions. It takes time and effort.
...
And we all "concede authority" of our lives to others the instant we are born. Our lives are fraught with trust for others, implicit or otherwise. We can demand the sky be green, but it is blue most of the time. Democracy gives us the opportunity to do things a better way.
Liberty is an elusive goal within the democratic process but it is there nonetheless.
-r
Published: November 3, 2008 4:03 PM
Rothbard did not invent the "court intellectual." While others may have done it sooner than Nietsche, Nietsche did it pretty convincingly in "Geneology of Morals" nearly 100 years earlier.
Published: November 3, 2008 4:03 PM
Democracy is not sacred, there's nothing special about 50% +1. But we need some system to decide certain things, so what's the alternative? Spontaneous groups which may or may not form and may dissolve for any small disagreement don't seem to be viable, even at a town hall level.
Plus not voting seems to be a way of complaining about anything the winner will do: don't blame me, I chose not to vote!
Published: November 3, 2008 4:05 PM
I don't think anyone said he invented the term court intellectual. He did identify the kind of person the term denotes though.
Published: November 3, 2008 4:16 PM
Democrat files suit against Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfIV1ntYggc
Published: November 3, 2008 4:17 PM
redshirt, the free market will best determine how scarce resources are to be employed. Did you even browse this site that we're on?
As for authority, it is only virtuous when it's natural authority, earned by demonstrating expertise and trustworthiness, not by suffrage. Natural authority is never imposed through force, because it simply needn't be.
http://www.panarchy.org/bakunin/authority.1871.html
Published: November 3, 2008 4:32 PM
I wrote a parable about voting where I argue that if you, as a sheep, vote for a wolf, it makes you a lunch target: http://piquanttactics.com. Ireland, please read it. 'Apathy' undermines the very system and isn't sowing seeds of doubt about the very criminal nature of the system our responsibility? By voting, you implicitly support the wolf gangs.
Published: November 3, 2008 4:42 PM
Great article!
However, I'll have to out myself as a "conspiracy nut" as I think that there is evidence that the official 9/11 story is seriously deficient. As such I don't think that we should write off Ventura's remarks re 9/11 as lacking sense.
Like Rothbard said, we should ask 'who benefits?' and then look to the evidence. We cannot merely ask 'who benefits?' and then draw conclusions from the answer to that question, but we should not just say 'that's too unlikely' (as Chomsky does) and then move on.
So, am I crazy? Is there no evidence? Is a 'conspiracy' beyond the realm of possiblity? Are all inquiries into such conspiracies lacking in sense?
Published: November 3, 2008 5:27 PM
I know of people around me who are otherwise very intelligent, graduated with honors with degrees in engineering and physics. But when it comes to economics and politics, they turn retarded pretty quickly. When it comes to defending their candidates they become very emotional and very shallow in thinking. If you can't get many of the smart ones to make rational voting decisions, you know there is something inherently wrong with the system to begin with.
Published: November 3, 2008 5:56 PM
I don't believe any government is competent enough to pull of a massive conspiracy like the 9/11 truthers believe and the fact the law of unintended consequences has not kicked in reinforces my scepticism. But, if the current corrupt system is ever replaced then I'll change my mind and laugh and laugh and laugh; and then cry because it would mean that death is so inconsequential to them.
Published: November 3, 2008 6:15 PM
David Heleniak:
Enjoyed your article of 11/3/08. While I agree with everything you wrote, I believe this election may be different.
Usually, those running really seek only power and wealth, i.e. the ability to take as much wealth from citizens, and work toward absolute power.
If both candidates were nothing more than the usual oportunist, I would not be that concerned. However, if one is a Marxist ideologue, instead of the usual thief, the damage he could do to the country is frightening.
The National Socialist economy (Fascist) adopted by the Republican Party (from FDR, who adopted it from Mussolini), still worked, because market forces still exist although with huge ‘boom & bust’ distortions, as we see today. But, as you know, a Marxist economy is rendered impossible, because market forces are negated altogether. Obama’s ideology can cause total chaos and cripple the economy altogether. We will then have the ‘equal sharing of poverty,’ as Churchill once called socialism.
So, I will vote for the lesser of the two evils, because the outcomes could be vastly different.
Vince
Published: November 3, 2008 6:15 PM
Frank Gas,
I'm not saying that 'the government' pulled it off (if there was gov involvement I would imagine it to be by some secretive segment of the leviathan). I am merely saying that there is sufficient evidence to warrant questioning the official account and that we should not merely write off questioners like Ventura as crazy or lacking in sense.
Your objection relies merely on intuition (and conflation of government as a whole with segments of government) without consideration of the evidence. This is just the attitude towards inquiry that I object to.
(sorry, don't mean to derail discussion)
Published: November 3, 2008 6:38 PM
This non-voting sentiment is certainly new to me. I have been advocating intelligent and strategic voting.
However, after more investigation, I have come to appreciate the non-voting viewpoint. To my fellow libertarian newbies or pro-voters, read the below article for yet another thought-provoking view on the subject.
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4632
Published: November 3, 2008 8:40 PM
Cosmin,
Agreed. Free market forces are at work all the time doing the right thing by default and government intervention is problematic.
But I think we forget that natural human forces give rise to government. It wouldn't be there otherwise. There are people who make good leaders... we should dare to pick the right one.
I believe, contrary to your link, a good leader is someone who is able to pick other capable people to assist with the decision making processes. Like any good business would. The government is fallible just as businesses in the free market are... in the US the vote is the market feedback to the government nonsense. The process of individuals running a campaign business is to get ideas out there for people to read and hear. These ideas spread out and people start to make voting decisions (at all levels of government... not just the two big party Presidential candidates) that sway the make-up of the government.
We also have to remember more than the Presidency is being decided in these "elections" and the voting process is tomorrow, so for those people looking at referendums, etc. it may not be in their best interests not to vote.
-r
Published: November 3, 2008 9:34 PM
Perhaps it's just death by a thousand paper cuts over 200 years. Governments and politics are heavily cyclical and have been for thousands of years. I think most empires/societies that have collapsed without outside interference (read were invaded) died of a thousand paper cuts. Just look at the Romans. It took many small changes like Fed reserve system, income taxes, direct election of senators, etc, to get where we are now. I think it is too much to go back to the countries fairly libertarian roots in a short period time. That is unless there is great civil unrest, etc. Hence, I don't see the point in voting. It is only when the crisis is in full swing that the libertarians should and will come out full swinging.
Published: November 3, 2008 9:39 PM
David Heleniak, nice jab at 9/11 Truth in the opening sentence, you selectively (on the issue of 9/11) delusional coward.
http://www.infowars.com/?p=5721
As if it weren't already crystal clear from the previous videos, a new video has surfaced which clearly shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Building 7 was professionally demolished. In the video, you can clearly see that the central columns of the building were blown out at the onset of the collapse so that the building falls inward onto its own footprint so as to minimize peripheral damage.
This is what professional demolition teams always do when they demolish a building. If you go and watch a controlled demolition of any building, you will see that it mirrors the collapse of Building 7. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
To deny that Building 7 was a controlled demolition is akin to denying that Tiger Woods played the Masters this year but instead it was another guy who looks exactly like Tiger Woods and plays golf exactly like him.
The denial stops now. The deniers are completely intellectually bankrupt from this point forward...as if you guys weren't already.
Published: November 3, 2008 9:39 PM
David Heleniak, nice jab at 9/11 Truth in the opening sentence, you selectively (on the issue of 9/11) delusional coward.
http://www.infowars.com/?p=5721
As if it weren't already crystal clear from the previous videos, a new video has surfaced which clearly shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Building 7 was professionally demolished. In the video, you can clearly see that the central columns of the building were blown out at the onset of the collapse so that the building falls inward onto its own footprint so as to minimize peripheral damage.
This is what professional demolition teams always do when they demolish a building. If you go and watch a controlled demolition of any building, you will see that it mirrors the collapse of Building 7. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
To deny that Building 7 was a controlled demolition is akin to denying that Tiger Woods played the Masters this year but instead it was another guy who looks exactly like Tiger Woods and plays golf exactly like him.
The denial stops now. The deniers are completely intellectually bankrupt from this point forward...as if you guys weren't already.
Published: November 3, 2008 9:40 PM
Jesse is also on the ball about 9-11.
Vote for the NVP by not voting. All else is fraud.
Published: November 3, 2008 11:08 PM
Amen to this. What is the definition of insanity? Now look at what the American sheeple have been doing for the past several generations. Could it be any plainer?
As long as we have politicians supposedly running this country and the world there will be nothing but death & destruction.
God help us all! It sure isn't man that is going to save our rear end in this picture
Published: November 3, 2008 11:31 PM
At least Triple H was being sensible in saying that Monarchies come closest to real world private landownership. To say "let's dispose of the U.S. Governments at every level and slice the land up so every one gets their own plot" and to hope that everyone will stay a small private landowner is to be pro-antitrust. Libertarians have decried antitrust because there's no pre-defined mamimum limit for the size of businesses and businesses tend to get larger and fewer in a particular industry because it's usually more sensible to work for an established business than to compete with an established one from scratch. Private landowners would compete for landtenants by protecting them from rogue landowners and roving bands of criminals. Yet landtenants would also compete for the sturdiest landowner who is actually capable of providing safe defence from the nasties of the world. This sounds pretty much what Monarchies are all about. Hence in dissing Democracies I presume a lot here have the "I have the ability to run my own business therefore I'll be one of the private landowners or with be so productive that private landowners will be tripping over each other to hire me." Of course those who are marginally productive will find themselves in a position similar to Medieval peasants as they have little bargaining power and will pay the most private taxesrent and comply with most private regulations.
Published: November 4, 2008 12:18 AM
Mr. Heleniak,
I was shocked to discover in your article that I am not
the only one who has noticed the word 'democracy'
absent from the legal documents signed by the so
called founding fathers! I don't share the maudlin and
sentimental worship most 'patriotic' americans hold for
these men (mostly aristocrats as I have noted from
observation); you see, I'm a couple shades darker than
most of them (though J. A. Rogers the historian claims
in his writings that Alexander Hamilton was mulatto! )
at any rate, I don't think any of those gentlemen had
anyone looking like me in mind when they coined
those unctuous phrases about equality and all men
being born free and equal. Few Americans are aware
of the fact that not only did the framers of the consti-
tution abhor democracy, Washington's general staff
actually offered to storm congress and declare him
emperor! The imperialist wars south of the border
begining with the war with Mexico instigaged by
white male slavers (they referred to themselves as
Texicans often) a response to the freeing of all slaves
(African and Indian) by their second president Vin-
cenzo Guerro, himself a former slave, began a long
line of banna-republic relationships the karma of which today appears as a 'border and immigrant'
problem here. Mr. Hamilton's economic philosophy
gave birth to the central banking system which has
resulted in endless crises and financial problems.
I recall my U.S. history instructor in high-school repeating a reputed Hamilton quote in corresponding with a fellow aristocrat "the people sir are stupid and will do as we say". Several months ago I saw a reported quote on a History Channel Documentary by Adolph Hitler that sounded not unlike Mr. Hamilton's reputed quote "it is a wonderful thing for governments that the people don't think". When tallies are taken in
congress on bills such as the recent 700 billion
dollar bailout of last month and Republican and
Democrat votes are shown but not one independent,
the the truth of the previously quoted statements from Hamilton and Hitler ring true and indicates where the ultimate responsibility for a great deal of our problems in this country lie, with the people!
Erick Tippett
Chicago, Illinois
Published: November 4, 2008 12:45 AM
Mr, Tippett, I am probably darker than you. And there is no room for race-baiting. The founders recognized certain things about race that were common in the West and is still common throughout most of the world except the West after the 1960's. They abhorred democracy because they realized even people of Northern European ancestrry that were all men were unequal with each other. There is a bell curve Whites. And the equality notion that you mention, was just for legal equality and not natural/biological equality. Some of the founders incorrectly would never have granted legal equality to non-Whites, but America relatively to other countries was and is much better compared to most other places when it comes to issues of individual rights. And there were founders that were against slavery, but they made compromises. This is what happens when you enter politics. Even people like Ron Paul have to make compromises today of one sort or another.
Published: November 4, 2008 1:10 AM
Mr. Ahuja,
You would have to see me in person to verify your
being darker then I am. As far as race baiting is
concerned, I detest race baiting, racial pecking orders, or any other type of caste idealogy! I am aware of those who were against slavery, in fact Mr. Franklin constantly warned his associates that unless slavery was irradicated it would result in the undoing of the United States! I'm not clear as to what you mean by 'bell curve whites', and Northern Europeans being "unequal with each other". I'm not aware of how extensive your knowledge of history is, but Gannibal Petrovich a former slave and the adopted son of Peter the Great became a general and advised Peter on the modernization of Russia. His grandson Alexander Pushkin became Russia's greates poet. Alexander Dumas ,a famous Napoleanic General of African descent, was the father of one of France's finest novelist Alexander Dumas the second. When Roland Hayes, the famous concert singer made his debut in Germany, he was reluctantly acknowledged in this country only later. These were accomplishments rare in this country until the 1940-50's era.
Never assume a person is a race baiter merely be-
cause they happen to present historical facts that
some find unsettling or threatening to their view of
the world.
Erick Tippett
Chicago, Illinois
Published: November 4, 2008 2:13 AM
Don't corner me on who gave a Churchill quote criticizing socialism but he also said that democracy is the worst possible form of government; except for all others. This is interesting and sad. On the one hand democracy is sloppy and socially degrading over time. On the other hand... we have what?
I guess I don't understand the plan for libertarians. Is it to build a library of brilliant economic and political thought but don't try to influence anybody with it. I find libertarian thinking to be open and inclusive except for this one subject; should I vote.
This is why I'll never vote for a libertarian. The libertarian community is continually marginalizing itself. It's almost as if libertarians think their ideas can't win.
As I see it significant change comes in two forms; revolution or revival. I would rather be a part of revival rather than wait for revolution.
Published: November 4, 2008 2:22 AM
Jesse Ventura makes sense when he is asking questions about 9/11. What doesn't make sense are the multiple and constantly changing official explanations of what happened to 7 WTC, including the NIST report, and why there are no pictures of what hit the pentagon that reveal a commercial aircraft.
Published: November 4, 2008 10:10 AM
There's a fine line between making a political statement, engaging in conspiracy theory in which only heavy medication will help and disavowing ones own country. Quite honestly, many comments on this article make me sick, including those that support the very notion that an ex-pro wrestler, a person who earned millions acting like someone else and glorifying violence, makes any real sense and should be taken seriously. For those on this comment train that are so distrustful of our government, you can always leave. Seriously, you can leave. No one is keeping you here.
Published: November 4, 2008 4:04 PM
PutYourVoteWhereYourMouthIs wrote, "...and glorifying violence, makes any real sense and should be taken seriously. For those on this comment train that are so distrustful of our government, you can always leave."
Excellent, you understand the basic tenant of libertarian thought and action: The non-aggression axiom. It prohibits the use of initial violence. While, on the other hand, the state, enforces its actions through the use of initial force, or the threat of using such force. Militarily against other nations (war) and by throwing people in cages who don't wish to finance its policies, or act in an 'immoral way', or engage in any activities the state doesn't like. If you don't believe in violence, you can't consistently argue for the state. So which is it? Do you abhor all violence or only non-state sanctioned violence? Explain how the state can exist without using violence. Explain where the state gets its power to enforce laws that if an individual did, they would be breaking the law. You do not have the power to engage in violence, and collectively through the vote, cannot transfer a right you do not have, no matter how many of you there are. Exactly which nation state can someone who does not believe in violence move to? The age of the nation-state has divided the world into fiefdoms where states have seized a monopoly of violence over a territory. (That is the definition of a state.) Since this is the case, the only way to fight violence is where someone who hates violence lives by opposing their local state. As moving to a non-violent place, as you suggest is impossible.
Published: November 4, 2008 5:49 PM
If a private government arises from non-ceorcive business (such as a HOA) then it can use violence in a defensive manner. But in the world of Libertopia the plight of the propertyless would be of no concern of the property owners especially if all good land was already bought up.
Published: November 4, 2008 8:27 PM
Does anyone present have any good alternatives to propose? Or is all this just Quietism? Have you decided just to sit the real world out, and not interact with it in any way? If so, then do not ever vote. Continue muttering among yourselves on obscure web sites with no large readership.
Otherwise, you stipulate some sort of system where a small number of the powerful-- or maybe just one El Supremo-- make the important decisions, while the masses just get to vote their assent. Historically, this approach has been tried and found wanting.
My suggestion would be to join the real world, and form your own political party if you want to be heard.
Published: November 5, 2008 10:10 AM
michael,
your critical error is to assume that the only way to influence or interact with the world is through a broken and rigged political process. in reality, nothing could be further from the truth.
Published: November 5, 2008 10:27 AM
On the contrived political sea, all ships are rigged in one way or another, the solution is in the greater illusion...and snap the jaws close, the prey is toast or perhaps the brunt of a toast.
So on the human level, the big question is, how is it that so many are entranced by illusion. Mass hypnosis is standard fair. Mob mentality is still a viable tool of any crime group, regardless of what their title, corporate monogram or elitist empire.
It seems incredible that people actually are so entranced by illusion to a degree whereby they actually believe there was a choice granted "the voters"in the Prez debacle.
Just feed em propaganda, create division in the people , mix in some distractions, deny all truth and pour on the fear,,, and presto. The fools think they picked a winner.
In my experience the color outside has no correlation to the color of a mans thought, spirit or deeds. None nada zip!. This racisim crap is pathetic in the sight of The Creator.. But is sure creates drama!! and it can packaged and sold!
Granted there are different points of view in life:
Some creatures prefer the tide out and low,, others prefer the tide in and high.
Ebb and flow,, there is no seperate solution to "the problem". , Yeah of course there HAS to be a problem, we would be lost without one ,, thats the solution to "the problem", is there a problem here?
Published: November 6, 2008 6:15 PM
Michael makes a good point. The American Revolution succeeding because the revolutionaries understood only through brute force would they achieve their goal. If they stuck to writing unpleasant letters and creating British third parties then talk of 'republicanism' would mean the same thing as it does in Australia.
Published: November 6, 2008 7:43 PM
Gil:
The "Revolution" succeeded in-spite of force, not because of it. Mass support here and in England for independence was the result of much needed trade. A separation would have come about without war. The use of war resulted in the raising of a standing army which turned against the people to put down a tax rebellion(whiskey tax). The "American counter-Revoluntion" was successful without violence when the "Articles..." were replaced by the Constitution.
Published: November 8, 2008 2:50 PM