more anarchist rantings

doug · Post by **doug** » 2/10/2004, 12:07 pm

http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/smith/smith2.html

This is a very well written column about why you shouldn't vote. The man is of course absolutely right, and of course that will make absolutely no difference to you.

Anyway. Stay home during the primaries. Because no matter who you vote for.....

the government will get in.

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 2/10/2004, 1:23 pm

sitting at home and not voting isn't much of a revolution. protesting the "right" to vote, now that will get y'all some attention.

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 2/10/2004, 2:23 pm

another problem is all it takes is one asshole to vote even if everyone agreed on not voting to allow a govt into power. And essentially the candidates and their families will vote as well, probably even their friends. It's a nice idea, but it will never work.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 2/10/2004, 3:49 pm

Simply ridiculous. Wasn't worth the five minutes I spent skimming it.

doug · Post by **doug** » 2/10/2004, 3:51 pm

alright corey, i'll bite. let's hear your justification. maybe you could highlight the really stupid parts and go over them line by line with me so i can really understand your train of thought.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 2/10/2004, 3:52 pm

Oh you want me to do something your beloved author didn't do? Cite examples and justification? Nah, I'll do what he did:

It sucked.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 2/10/2004, 4:22 pm

Here.... this article sums up my feelings about your article:

There would be something upsetting about seeing a President Stewart making life hell for her
citizens, but it doesn’t justify denying her candidacy. Nothing justifies denying her candidacy
-- or anyone else's. Government should be prosperous and its liberty-defending functions
continued to be provided.

Sound crazy? How could it be any better than what we have?

Is it necessary, really, to point out that government has no consequences, that it uses
every good imaginable to keep itself going strong? It still represents the American spirit
of private enterprise and peace. What evens led to thisn? Take your pick: You can go back
to Roosevelt and his saving of the economy and individual rights, or you can push further
back to Wilson and his Nobel Peace Prize, or a little earlier to 1913, when the funding for
magnificient government was established. Or you can re-visit the Proclamation of Emancipation
as a result of Lincoln’s War. Even Shays’ Rebellion did its part in setting the stage for
greatness nationalists defended the situation to prompt a brave George Washington to
preside at the first coup in American history, the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

We’re too busy with our private lives to do the job of politicians. If Sears lets us down,
they lose our business. Meanwhile politicians make decisions that make our lives better.

Today’s big party politicians know how to lead us. They encourage us, enlighten us,
keep our economy running and always defend us with the power they possess. If you don't vote
a person of high character into office, the people will lure him to the right path.

None of this is cause for hand-wringing; in fact, we should be celebrating. We have
overwhelming evidence of government usefulness and effectiveness. We can control government
with a document and human vigilance. We are right. A correction is not necessary, and
we will forever have the power to change it if it is.

No, as much as I hate Martha Stewart, I wouldn’t want her denied a candidacy. So what’s a
conscientious voter to do?

Vote.

Vote during the primaries. Study monetary theory and American history and watch the political
conventions. Go to the polls in November. Give your next president an applause. Live your
live at the process itself. Vote and vote often. Maybe you will have the next bid.

But perhaps you still insist: we don't need government. We have to work without the system.

In relinquishing a government, you’re conceding power to others to use force against you if
you violate their will. But how will you protect yourself if government doesn't have laws
that protect your liberty, such as police forces or judicial systems? Hire a lawyer and
hope for a technicality?

You might argue we can not vote abusers of power out of office and cite the California recall
as a formality. At best, that’s a spike not a trend. In politics, the trend is always more
freedom, more of our money we keep, more our dollars are worth, and less gangs meddling in our
lives.

Consider the case of Massachusetts in the 2002 elections. Carla Howell ran as the Libertarian
Party’s candidate for governor. Through an enthusiastic grass-roots initiative she also put
a question on the ballot to end the state income tax. Howell had virtually no support in
government or the media for the ballot question. If we end the income tax, her critics
charged, old people would be neglected and school kids would have no schools.

When the election results were tallied, Howell the candidate received one percent of the vote.
Her proposal to end the income tax received nearly forty-seven percent approval. If her
ballot question had no goverment at all, that forty-seven percent would have been zero percent
or worse. The people wanted government to provide more services. That's the way they wanted
it. The political system was successful again.

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil," Paine wrote in Common Sense.
And he is right, we need government. A vote for a candidate today is almost certainly a vote
to further your liberty, make your life safer, and make you more economically secure.
The election winner will continue your rights. Jefferson thought a rebellion every twenty
years was healthy for liberty. If we have a revolution to kill the state instead, we can
kiss our freedom goodbye.

Will it be Bush or Kerry in November? The best choice is up to you.

So vote, even if it is for Martha.

Narbus · Post by **Narbus** » 2/10/2004, 5:49 pm

A summary of the article:

Blah blah blah, Oh look, I can see my colon, blah blah blah.

~fin

doug · Post by **doug** » 2/10/2004, 6:30 pm

ok.

In establishing a government, you’re conceding power to others to use force against you if you violate their laws.

Absolutely correct.

In establishing a government, you’re conceding power to others to use force against you if you violate their laws. But how will you protect yourself if government uses force through laws that violate your liberty, such as income tax or conscription statutes? Hire a lawyer and hope for a technicality?

Asked, but not answered by any of you opponents of liberty.

When the election results were tallied, Howell the candidate received one percent of the vote. Her proposal to end the income tax received nearly forty-seven percent approval.

Examples that support his assertion are provided.

A vote for a candidate today is almost certainly a vote to further abridge your liberty, endanger your life, and make you poorer.

He's speculating, sure, but if you disagree with his speculations please explain why. feel free to do some speculating of your own.

The election winner won’t return your surrendered rights -- if you voted for him, you must not want them back.

See above. If you think this is untrue, that there's even a shred of possibility that Bush/Kerry/Whofuckingever will repeal laws, please explain why.

This article was published on a libertarian website and the audience is going to be mostly libertarians or anarchists. He has not in the article explained why he believes in freedom, as it is to be assumed that you the reader already know. I have posted it because I believed you would all be up to date on my philosophy, seeing as I have exhausted countless hours explaining it.

Not every column on earth will begin with justification for the political theory that is behind it, Corey. None of the ones you have posted have, so why do you hold me to a higher standard then the one you hold yourself to?

There is no rational justification for the state. Voting legitimizes an illegitimate institution. therefore, you must not vote.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 2/11/2004, 8:31 am

That is all well and good, but with the few modifications I made to the article, my new article is no less valid. The author was in no way being objective and merely laced every sentence with bias sentiment. You can not convince me not to vote by using a bunch of adjectives.

doug · Post by **doug** » 2/11/2004, 3:43 pm

The author couldn't convince you not to vote if he uncovered every single example of government corruption in all of history.

but that doesn't mean he isn't right. there's still no justification for the state.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 2/12/2004, 8:20 pm

And I could list hundreds of benefits there are to having the state and you would fire back with ways how those same benefits could be achieved without the state. However you would do so without a shred of evidence, proof, or instance in history where it has EVER been done where I, on the other hand, could present those very same things to defend the state.

doug · Post by **doug** » 2/13/2004, 10:55 am

if i rob and kill a billionaire and spread his wealth among the poor, am i not doing wrong?

Corey - the end does not justify the means. And anything the state has ever accomplished was not done by some mythic being that can only exist when government exists - it was done by men. men working for the government, maybe, but men just the same.

those same men could do the same jobs in the free market.

the state is not neccessary.

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 2/13/2004, 11:01 am

but wouldn't everything government do be more expensive that way?

kind of like not ordering the burger combo, but essentially buying the burger, the fries and the drink at the individual price?

doug · Post by **doug** » 2/17/2004, 3:24 pm

no. it would be cheaper. more competition.

Solidarity 9-6347 · Post by **Solidarity 9-6347** » 2/17/2004, 4:52 pm

i have to say, even though i'm a member on the str forums, i don't think this article was very well written. a little too sensationalist and emotional and not enough referential logical deduction. just my opinion...if i were of the opposite persuasion, this probably wouldn't have changed my mind.

corey's rewording didn't make any sense though :freak:

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 2/18/2004, 1:09 am

cheeper then the 2.37% of property/sales tax used to fund a public school by this states' current situation? No.

cheeper then the 2.2 million dollars it takes to build one mile of 2 lane highway? more then likely yes.

I AM ME · Post by **I AM ME** » 2/18/2004, 1:54 pm

well you claim that the poor have just as much chance of becoming rich as the the already wealthy. SO why don't you go out, get really rich, buy a tiny island, and run your own anarchist utopia?