If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal

[The following is the text of a leaflet entitled "The Folly of Voting" published by Freedom Press in 1904.]

I shall not vote in the coming general election.

I am fully aware that this will be of little consequence so far as the result of the contest is concerned, and that is one of the reasons for not voting.

But I have other reasons, chief among them being that I do not believe in government by the majority, nor the minority either.

I do not believe in government at all.

The ballot system of government is a dismal failure, even supposing it, for a moment, to be right in theory.

Thus, some of those who seek election do so either for direct emoluments they hope to gain, or indirectly to advance their own interests and satisfy their vanity. Such men will not sacrifice their own ends for the public weal.

Many candidates are, however, in the beginning, fairly honest in their motives and intentions. But a man who enters the political world soon finds out that, fraud, cunning, hypocrisy, and trickery, are freely used by his opponents, and to successfully cope with them he must adopt their tactics.

He thinks he is justified by expediency in doing this, and perhaps honestly believes that he can use these weapons to gain victory for an honest cause. But he is mistaken. Fraud and falsehood can never serve a righteous end. The man who uses trickery, even to vanquish wrong, is already a trickster and is no better morally, than he who uses trickery for avowedly dishonourable purposes.

But, unfortunately for the honest candidate, zealous for the public good, who refuses to sully himself with deception and fraud – all the political forces are against him. By refusing to be all things to all men, and failing to pander to popular prejudice and ignorance, he fails to secure the favour of the mass and the unscrupulous demagogue, who makes many vain promises, wins.

The really honest man who falls into the snare of politics ever figures as the unsuccessful candidate.

Political corruption and dishonesty is so notoriously apparent that even believers in government, advocates of the political action, are fully conscious of it. Yet they go on voting, with the faint hope that, in some mysterious way, conditions will be changed, and that, after a while, enough pure men will be elected to ensure an honest administration of public affairs.

Their hopes are never realised. New men are put in and new parties assume control, but the same results ensue. The real trouble is with the system, not with those who administer it. The very nature and principle of government, of human authority, is demoralising, corrupting, and wrong.

As long as human nature is what it is, we cannot expect men in power to disregard their individual interests, nor to escape the damning influences of power of their better self.

The man who votes, even though he votes for the defeated candidate, gives his sanction to the whole scheme, and process of election, authority, and coercion.

I do not wish to be governed, I do not acknowledge, and will not admit the right of any man, or body of men to rule over me; I do not wish to govern others. I know of no moral or social right that I have to do so, and consequently I decline to impose my views on others through the agency of the ballot, and thus set in motion; the whole paraphernalia of force and violence –policemen, judges, executioners, soldiers, tax gatherers, etc., used to coerce others into doing as I think they ought to do.

I want for every man, woman, and child, the right to govern themselves, to direct their own affairs, to live their own lives. This can never be whilst private property, the be-all and end-all of government exists.
Think, workers, and you will acknowledge that it is for the defence of property that all this electioneering, this legislating, this making and unmaking of laws whose name is legion, takes place. To defend the property you have created, the houses you have built, the food you have grown, the clothes you have made – from you, the rightful owners.

And you maffick and lose time and quarrel with one another and act like lunatics generally because your masters generously allow you to make a cross on a piece of paper; and if you have been good and voted as they wish you to, they throw you a crumb from the loaf you have toiled to make and which they have stolen from you and you smugly return them thanks.

Learn to be men, free men, who depend on no master, who feed no idle, gilded loafers, who cower not beneath oppression, but who assert their right to life, liberty, and all the pursuits of happiness.

I believe that you can become this; I believe you can if you will, attain a free life, socially, economically, industrially, that is why I beg you to leave off following the red herring of politics, and instead, to refuse to obey the dictates of the gabblers of St Stephen’s and to support the lazy thieves of the thrice damned trinity – landowners, capitalists, parsons.

He who must be free, himself, must strike the blow!

Tired Already

I am a political junkee. We are only two states into the Republican Primary and I am bleary-eyed from reading too much, viewing too much. It is like watching a train wreck in progress - I don't want to see it, but I can't seem to tear myself away. What's the point? It's not as if my observation will make a difference in the outcome. Any remedies?

The Serious Problems with a Ron Paul Presidency

Ron Paul has many ideas that appeal to conservative Republicans, as evidenced by his latest poll numbers. Some of those ideas appeal to me, including some in his book "The Revolution." However, recent developments have convinced me that Ron Paul is not presidential material. I know some readers of this blog (are there any left?) will disagree, which is fine. I encourage comments, and only hope that any disagreements will be expressed in civil tones.

As reported by the NYT and Reuters, Ron Paul has completely failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the provocative and racist content published in his "Ron Paul Survival Report." I won't go into detail here (click on the above link, and the links in the article if you're interested in further exploring the reports' contents) but suffice it to say that the views published in Paul's name have attracted enthusiastic support from white nationalist groups, far-right militias, survivalists, and Anti-Semitic/Anti-Zionists. Now, Paul conveniently disavows the newsletters' contents before abruptly walking out in the middle of the CNN interview putting him on the hot seat about them. However, he certainly didn't disavow them in the early 1990's as these things were going out and as he was profiting from their distribution (see NYT links). Nor has he done anything - other than his politically self-serving blanket disavowal, of course - to further dissuade the aforementioned support groups that he isn't their guy to champion the causes they feel are important. More is needed. Say what you will about Mitt Romney's flip flopping, but I haven't seen a 180 even remotely as concerning as this one.

Another troubling thing about Ron Paul is that he seemingly never ran into a conspiracy theory he didn't like, including the "truth" about 9/11. If he weren't a truther, why not quickly and emphatically reject this question's disturbing premise instead of merely saying he "couldn't handle the controversy"? It's an interesting world that Paul lives in.

I also have problems with his advocacy for the legalization of drugs ("hard" and "soft" alike) and prostitution. Strangely, he equates these activities with constitutionally protected activities such as the freedom of religion and speech. Paul's position also appears to rest on the fatally flawed assumption that even greater use, addiction, and the associated societal problems that flow from drugs and prostitution would not result if they were legalized. I reject Paul's misguided notion that there are no citizens in this country who refrain from these illegal/immoral activities precisely because they are illegal/immoral. Indeed, I am one such citizen. It is naive to assume that blessing these activities with the air of legality will not amplify their harmful societal effects.

My heart aches for the millions of women who have willingly "terminated" the lives of their unborn children since abortion-on-demand became legal in 1973. I wonder how many would have refrained were it not for a handful of men in black robes who decided that laws preventing this act of ultimate violence against the defenseless were unconstitutional? I have seen first hand the incalculable emotional and spiritual damage this "liberty" to engage in this lawful activity has done to at least one woman. With tears of deep regret streaming down her face, she related that had abortion been illegal she wouldn't have prematurely ended her helpless child's life. I'll never forget that tragic conversation, and I suspect these feelings are not exclusive to this one individual.

I agree with a columnist who noted, "Responsible, self-governing citizens do not grow like wild blackberries. They are cultivated in institutions - families, religious communities and decent, orderly neighborhoods. And government has a limited but important role in reinforcing social norms and expectations - including laws against drugs and and against the exploitation of men and women in the sex trade." For that reason, so-called "moral" laws are important. Without them, many people are too easily confused that just because the law sanctions something, it must be right. Without moral laws, societies too easily lose their moral bearings. As Elder Neal A. Maxwell wisely observed: "A society which finally permits anything will eventually lose everything!" and "Unless checked, permisiveness, by the end of its journey, will cause humanity to stare in mute disbelief at its awful consequences." (Ensigns May 95, 96)

There are other reasons why I will not be voting for Ron Paul this November, but they deserve separate posts. This one is already too long. Comments?

Social Justice

Deciding it is time to break out the defibrillator on this blog, here is an interesting quote I found:

"What do you call it when someone steals someone else's money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social justice."

From a recent Thomas Sowell column.

GOP Primaries: Is Perry a Serious Threat to Romney?

So while watching the news today I saw some intriguing developments in the GOP, or at least interesting enough to spur me to do a new post about it on here, at least. But then I was surprised to find, once I logged on, that there haven't been ANY posts about the GOP race yet! So basically I thought it might be nice to give everyone the opportunity to just share their thoughts about the race.

Just so you guys know, the latest development, which I alluded to earlier, is that Rick Perry has now (at least according to some recent polls) edged out Romney as the "official GOP front-runner." Seemingly in response to this, Romney shifted gears a bit (up 'til now he's avoided fighting with other GOP candidates) and directly attacked Perry (well, technically any "career politicians," but the consensus is that it was aimed at Perry) in an address to veterans in Texas



I was actually somewhat surprised at the commentary about this attack from the talking heads on CNN, basically agreeing that it was a good way to strategically contrast himself with Perry while simultaneously focusing on the most important issue, i.e. the economy. It also seems smart to me because the contrast also applies ESPECIALLY to Obama (I heard he recently fired his chief economic advisor, by the way). I believe this was smart for another reason: it’s probably the best way to unite his support from both mainstream conservatives/independents and from tea partiers, meaning that he’s arguably a better candidate to face Obama in the general election.

So all this got me to wondering: does Perry really have a shot at seriously contending with Romney, and (for that matter) how could he possibly have gotten ahead of him in the first place? I would think that John Stewart isn’t the only one who would be wary of voting for what seems in many ways like “George Bush on steroids” or “George Bush ++” (i.e. “what happens is Lex Luthor distilled down George Bush essence in a laboratory, and crossed it with gunpowder and semen from the finest thorough-bred in Lubbock, then shot it into the sun” … lol).

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Rick Perry Announces His Candidacy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

So how 'bout it: do you guys think he's really on par with Romney, or is he maybe still benefiting from all the hype from when he joined race? Oh, and feel free to comment about the race in general as well.

Sheriff Arpaio's Tent Prisons

Since there hasn't been anything posted here in a while, I'd like to find out everyone's thoughts on the controversial Arizona sheriff, Joe Arpaio. I've posted below a brief commentary on the subject from Brad Spangler of the Center for a Stateless Society which I'd also like to discuss:

Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio is literally roasting prisoners alive. Temperatures inside the tents at the prison camp the Sheriff operates are reaching 145°F. By way of comparison, a round of roast beef is said to be medium-rare when it reaches a core temperature of 130°F to 140°F.

Obviously, this is a horrific crime on the part of the Sheriff and all working for him. While it’s common to label such abuses under statism as an aberration, both the ovens of Maricopa County and Dachau are logical consequences of the perverse economic incentives of monopoly government.

The entire punishment-based approach to justice, including punishment for victimless non-crimes such as drug use or being Jewish, is an example of the Misesian calculation problem in the context of the state’s monopoly of law. Abuses such as Arpaio’s are an inevitable result so long as monopoly government is in place.

Market anarchists correctly recognize genuine crimes to be best understood as torts. Any genuine offense is an offense precisely because it’s an injury to someone else who did not deserve it. If some behavior could not be treated as a tort, it is injustice to treat it as a crime. No victim, no crime.

Flowing from the above is the understanding that justice is not punishment but compulsory restitution. Yet without a free market for adjudication of disputes, the monopoly state has no way to find rational price information for compensation of victims — no more so than Soviet central planners could figure out a rational price for a loaf of bread that would keep bread on the shelves without terror.

The state, any state, is in all cases economically blind and can’t calculate. As a result, the state must maintain the pretense that arbitrary punishment is justice, instead, and insulate those who carry it out from the liability costs for their criminal (i.e. tortious) actions that a free market would place upon them.

Any thoughts?

Tolerance, Moral Outrage and Weiners

With the alarming rate of high profile people getting caught in high profile sex scandals, I sensed that, like countless other moral issues that have become politically incorrect, many among us would eventually become numb to this one and begin to, first, "tolerate" it, then make excuses for it, then finally indulge it. Unfortunately, the latest reaction from the media to Weinergate is the latest illustration of this moral downward spiral.

For me, the only thing that has been even more disgraceful than this creep's "virtual infidelity" to his wife - by tweeting lewd pics of himself to strangers half his age and having "Facebook sex" with other strangers, then pathetically attempting to cover it up with a bogus story about his twitter account getting "hacked" - has been listening to the media make excuses and apologies for this "public servant's" behavior and lies.

"It's not as bad as when so-and-so did such-and-such."

"Everyone's doing it, he just got caught."

He didn't "do anything to violate the oath to his constituents."

This is just "between him and his wife."

Barbara Walters: "It may be that he took that picture and sent it to his wife to say 'this is how much I miss you.'"

I thought I had heard it all until I read an absurd Huffington Post article written by Alec Baldwin. Here are some highlights:

"My thought on Weiner is that he is a very busy man ... Like other politicians, he needs something to take the edge off ... For high functioning men like Weiner ... that leaves one tried and true source of a reliable high. The affirmation that comes when someone lets you know they want to sleep with you. Or even cyber-sleep with you.

This is sex for many people now. No time for Mateus and cheap spaghetti. No time for slowly moving toward one another with a combination of hope and caution, lust and integrity. One can push a button and get something beyond porn ... Appointment sex with your spouse doesn't always arrive when you need it most. A modern cell phone, loaded with contacts of willing fellow players, has a table with a red checkered table cloth ready for you at virtually any time. We tell ourselves that these devices help us communicate more effectively. What they actually do is allow us to bypass the person lying right next to us, across the room from us or at an airport heading home to us, in order to meet our immediate, even inconvenient, needs.

Weiner is a modern human being. So he ensnared himself in things that modern humans do."

What sad, tolerant, apologetic and seductive logic. Notice how, under Baldwin's definition, "modern human" = cheating, lying sleezeball. Long ago, Alexander Pope precisely cautioned against this very sort of moral relativism and decay:

Vice is a monster of so frightful men,

As to be hated needs but to be seen;

Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,

We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

Similarly, Neal A. Maxwell said that, "When something is wrong, increasing its commonality cannot really confer respectability ... In today's relativistic society, we see indulgence masquerading as intolerance. We see the primacy of the 'politically correct' substituting for righteous indignation and for moral outrage. Instead of genuine and pervasive concern for the public good, we see intense devotion paid to niche causes ... the new math of the new morality is even more disturbing than it is fuzzy."

It will be interesting to see, assuming Weiner doesn't step down, how many of the constituents of Queens, NY will want Weiner's continued representation on the next election day. How many will continue to "tolerate" this, or how many will be morally outraged?

Obamacare Waivers

Since its passage 14 months ago, the grand total of year-long Obamacare "waivers" doled out by HHS now stands at 1,372.

Last month, the Obama administration approved 204 new waivers. Of those, nearly 20% (38) are for upscale restaurants, swanky nightclubs and five star hotels in Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district - the same Nancy Pelosi who, as Speaker, infamously urged the 1000+ pg law's passage because we "need[ed] to find out what's in it."

Aside from the obvious political favoritism going on here, as one lawmaker remarked, "What does it say about the feasibility of the health care law when the administration needs to exempt over 1,000 health plans from its own law?"

Thoughts? Hopefully this will get more reaction than Bin Laden's death did.

Bin Laden Open Thread

I'm just curious to hear everyone's reaction and thoughts about this week's big headline. There are a lot of potential angles deserving of comment, so please leave your thoughts below.

Political Correctness to the Extreme

I thought this was a joke when I first heard about it, but apparently it's not. A Seattle public elementary school teacher wouldn't let a high school volunteer help out with the annual Easter egg hunt unless she referred to the eggs as "Spring spheres." So the third graders didn't have an Easter egg hunt, they searched for "Spring spheres."

Wow.

Though I wouldn't do it if I were an administrator, I could understand why others would remove the word Easter as a religious reference, although Easter eggs are also part of the Jewish tradition (verified by two of my orthodox Jewish colleagues). So would Budhist, Muslim or atheist third graders or their parents be offended by the Easter reference?

But calling eggs "spheres?" Seriously? Aside from the fact that that isn't even geometrically correct, the word "egg" has no religious connotation whatsoever. Either people are taking political correctness WAY over the top, others get offended WAY too easily, or the former is a function of the latter. In any event, the kids weren't fooled. "When I took them out of the bag, the teacher said, 'Oh look, spring spheres' and all the kids were like 'Wow, Easter eggs.'"

What does this story tell you about today's society?