Sunday, October 31, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Voter Apathy-- My Ass
We've heard that the root problem with our Democracy is "voter apathy".
I have yet to find anyone who doesn't care about what's happening in the world, who doesn't care what might be happening to our economy, to our Social Security, to our environment, or to the troops abroad. People DO care. They're just wise enough to know they're being played.
The argument of Left vs. Right, of Washington vs. Wall Street, of Conservatism vs. Socialism, is simply an argument over power. Politics is the art of cattle herding, and most people don't volunteer so easily for their little studio audiences.
Half of the people in America eligible to vote are not registered to vote. And half of those who are registered don't bother to vote. 13% of the adult population is all that's needed to retain control by one gang or another. Voter apathy is an ally to this process.
Sure, it's voting that makes democracy work. But what point is there to a Pepsi Challenge? When the choice is made for us, to choose between two representatives of special interest selected and controlled by a handful of financial backers, this is not democracy. It's an illusion. Most people aren't that stupid.
Each year, the Republicans and Democrats lose a small percentage of registered voters, and the Independents and third parties gain in registrations. This rising percentage--- millions of people-- isn't represented by the two-party system, and they aren't controlled by the money that represents that system.
Don't confuse voter apathy with a strong sense of caveat emptor. When media outlets refuse to accept political money, when campaign finances are restricted to donations from residents of the district, when political action groups and national corporations are banned from influencing the public discourse, maybe more people will regain trust in the democratic process and participate.
I have yet to find anyone who doesn't care about what's happening in the world, who doesn't care what might be happening to our economy, to our Social Security, to our environment, or to the troops abroad. People DO care. They're just wise enough to know they're being played.
The argument of Left vs. Right, of Washington vs. Wall Street, of Conservatism vs. Socialism, is simply an argument over power. Politics is the art of cattle herding, and most people don't volunteer so easily for their little studio audiences.
Half of the people in America eligible to vote are not registered to vote. And half of those who are registered don't bother to vote. 13% of the adult population is all that's needed to retain control by one gang or another. Voter apathy is an ally to this process.
Sure, it's voting that makes democracy work. But what point is there to a Pepsi Challenge? When the choice is made for us, to choose between two representatives of special interest selected and controlled by a handful of financial backers, this is not democracy. It's an illusion. Most people aren't that stupid.
Each year, the Republicans and Democrats lose a small percentage of registered voters, and the Independents and third parties gain in registrations. This rising percentage--- millions of people-- isn't represented by the two-party system, and they aren't controlled by the money that represents that system.
Don't confuse voter apathy with a strong sense of caveat emptor. When media outlets refuse to accept political money, when campaign finances are restricted to donations from residents of the district, when political action groups and national corporations are banned from influencing the public discourse, maybe more people will regain trust in the democratic process and participate.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Ron Paul 2012-- Let's Get This Over With
As a Libertarian, I am not a Ron Paul supporter. While I support many of his policies, including foreign policy, I cannot and will not support this national R-love-ution bullshit for 3 reasons:
1) his conservative, non-libertarian views on social welfare,
2) his conservative, non-libertarian views on civil rights, and
3) his conservative "anarcho-capitalist" view of property rights.
I wish to speak to the 2nd issue: The apparent "right" to refuse service. The Pauloids believe that true "freedom" is expressed in our acceptance of Lester Maddox's "right" to chase a black guy out of his diner, of the "right" for businesses to refuse service to anybody they wish on grounds of race, gender, or whatever bug is up their asses.
This is ideologically grounded to the view that property rights are "inherent" and not simply "privileges" of law. No serious discussion can be had with these pyschoids, no argument can be put to justify their claims to Title outside of "finders-keepers" or the "call shotgun" rule. This claim of allodial title, for no other reason than their CLAIM at gun-point, is not "libertarian" in any sense of the word.
One argument for the "right to discriminate" is based on this plantation mentality. The other argument attempts to argue that a "free" market should include the "freedom to discriminate" or "to exclude".
Liberty, on the other hand, is the freedom to access markets, to access rights of way, to live and trade without artificial barriers or threat of force. A person who offers goods or services to the public is bound to respect the rights of others. This is obviously not the case with those who discriminate or exclude.
A libertarian government should protect the rights of all persons equally. Limiting market access on the basis of race etc. is a violation of our responsibility to recognize the equal rights of others. It's pretty simple folks. Maybe Ron Paul can run for King of Idaho, but he'll never be my choice for POTUS.
1) his conservative, non-libertarian views on social welfare,
2) his conservative, non-libertarian views on civil rights, and
3) his conservative "anarcho-capitalist" view of property rights.
I wish to speak to the 2nd issue: The apparent "right" to refuse service. The Pauloids believe that true "freedom" is expressed in our acceptance of Lester Maddox's "right" to chase a black guy out of his diner, of the "right" for businesses to refuse service to anybody they wish on grounds of race, gender, or whatever bug is up their asses.
This is ideologically grounded to the view that property rights are "inherent" and not simply "privileges" of law. No serious discussion can be had with these pyschoids, no argument can be put to justify their claims to Title outside of "finders-keepers" or the "call shotgun" rule. This claim of allodial title, for no other reason than their CLAIM at gun-point, is not "libertarian" in any sense of the word.
One argument for the "right to discriminate" is based on this plantation mentality. The other argument attempts to argue that a "free" market should include the "freedom to discriminate" or "to exclude".
Liberty, on the other hand, is the freedom to access markets, to access rights of way, to live and trade without artificial barriers or threat of force. A person who offers goods or services to the public is bound to respect the rights of others. This is obviously not the case with those who discriminate or exclude.
A libertarian government should protect the rights of all persons equally. Limiting market access on the basis of race etc. is a violation of our responsibility to recognize the equal rights of others. It's pretty simple folks. Maybe Ron Paul can run for King of Idaho, but he'll never be my choice for POTUS.
Test Blog
If this thing actually works, it's gonna be a great tool to link with other communications options like FB and my website.
Testing, testing, crossing my fingers...
Testing, testing, crossing my fingers...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)