The "right" to vote? What is that, exactly? Does this mean that I can insinuate my voting right into any other person's life? If this person refuses to listen to me, can I sue for damages? How is this right violated? How is it maintained? How is it asserted?
Oh, I can only use it in terms of elections organized by the state? Can I use my voting right to help pass legislation? No? I have to be an elected official first? I thought you said this was a right? Why would I need the state to define when and how I could use it? If the state determines when and how I use it, is it really a "right"?
Can I use it in any election? No? I have to be registered first? It needs to be on the ballot in my voting district? If I have been incarcerated, does the state guarantee that I am available and able to vote in my district's elections? No? So, it has been revoked? Can I vote down martial law if it is imposed? No? Revoked again, I assume.
I'm sorry, but this sounds less like a "right" and more like a state-granted entitlement and an extremely weak, tightly controlled power to influence the state and impose its will on others, assuming those in office magnanimously grant it.
How has this ruse not been seen for what it is, sooner? The vote is not "majority rule," it is not "Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner," it is hardly even political power, in any meaningful sense of the word. It is a fragment of a bone, offered as a bribe to the population at large, to convince them not to revolt, or to interfere with the day-to-day operation of the State. It is a cheap pacifier for the all-but-powerless.
It's definitely hard being a true-scotsman 'libertarian' in this world and I wanted to share something I read that really struck a chord with me and motivated me to slam around a bit on my keyboard...
"... I have no sympathy for weeping democrats. We libertarians live every day, every election, seeing horrible people get elected, and good ideas shot down. We are always the minority, we always lose, our rights are always trod upon. The democrats who are weeping crocodile tears because they have to live under Trump's Presidency for 4-8 years -- suck it up -- that's how it feels to be a libertarian all the time." -- N. Stephan Kinsella, author of 'Against Intellectual Property' and contributor to C4SIF
Of course, it's one thing to 'have no sympathy for weeping democrats' and another entirely to engage in a thorough bout of Schadenfreude, but I think it's well-deserved. Progressives have been, hands-down, one of the greatest threats to advancing and protecting liberty for as far back as libertarians can remember. During the past 8 years, SJW culture (the abominable love-child of Progressivism and political correctness), has relentlessly tried to shame and silence any and all dissent into this madness, using every social and economic tool at their disposal at both an individual and collective level. One might try to argue that they're just using social pressures to try to get their way, and 'at least they're not using the state' -- but it would be a trip into self-delusion to think that institutionalizing their ideas into the state and imposing them by the force and consequence of law is not the end-game, here.
The 'Referendum Creep' on Progressivism
Luckily, the election of Donald J. Trump as the President of the United States (no, that still hasn't quite sunk in, yet), along with the continued majorities in the House and Senate and safeguarding the SCOTUS likely for generations (along with the implications this has on past, present, and future law), has been an unbelievably devastating upset of a defeat that they may never recover from. Particularly so, when you consider the 'decimation' noted by The Washington Post regarding not just the presidency and congress, but of state legislatures and governorships throughout the country:
"We tend to focus on the loss of the presidency as the example of Democratic failure. That's blinkered. Since 2008, by our estimates, the party has shed 870 legislators and leaders at the state and federal levels -- and that estimate may be on the low side. As Donald Trump might put it, that's decimation times 50."
Stated differently, there has been an ongoing kind of 'referendum creep' on the Democratic Party for the past 8 years and it just recently culminated in the election of Donald Trump. Progressivism hasn't been in such a weakened position in many, many decades, but we can't let ourselves get too complacent and comfortable about all of this. This was a grave mistake they made and one of many reasons why they lost -- they were so easily duped by bullshit, skewed polling, smug talking heads and other political hacks, that it resulted in a thick fog over a vast rift between political reality and their delusional perspective of it.
A Black Hole of Identity Politics
Identity politics, despite its vacuousness of actual ideas, has been a mainstay of Progressive, SJW, and Democrat strategy for a long while, now, with Hillary and her surrogates doubling-down on this, thinking it would secure the presidency. Identity politics obviously didn't secure her a win, so maybe it can excuse her loss? Van Jones, et al, want to paint an early narrative that this all was some kind of racist 'whitelash'. Ah, of course -- this is the great revenge of the slave-owning white man! Isn't thatright?
"Or maybe not. The exit polls are remarkable. Would you believe that Mitt Romney won a greater percentage of the white vote than Donald Trump? Mitt took 59 percent while Trump won 58 percent. Would you believe that Trump improved the GOP’s position with black and Hispanic voters? Obama won 93 percent of the black vote. Hillary won 88 percent. Obama won 71 percent of the Latino vote. Hillary won 65 percent. Critically, millions of minority voters apparently stayed home. Trump’s total vote is likely to land somewhere between John McCain’s and Romney’s (and well short of George W. Bush’s 2004 total), while the Democrats have lost almost 10 million voters since 2008."
Okay, well... men are obviously threatened by a woman leading the country. Even though women did the right thing of voting with their vaginas, men did the wrong thing of voting with their penises, right? In the articulate words of Donald Trump, "Wrong".
"In fact, Trump beat Clinton among white women 53 percent to 43 percent, with white women without college degrees going for [Trump] two to one."
Fine, so it wasn't the 'white male patriarchy', but what about those nefarious third parties? If not for their election spoiling and the irresponsible, short-sighted, liberal non-Hillary-voters voting for them, Hillary would have dominated, correct? Nope -- Wrongagain.
"CBS News' exit poll posed the hypothetical question of who third party voters would support if the race were only Clinton and Trump, and both Johnson and Stein supporters appeared to support Clinton over Trump by about 25 percent to 15 percent. But 55 percent of Johnson's supporters would have just sat out the election, as would 61 percent of Jill Stein supporters. According to New York Times exit polling, a whopping 63 percent of voters who declined to cast their ballot for the two major party candidates said they would have not voted at all in a two candidate race."
Conclusively, simply not enough people were willing to turn out to vote for Hillary and her Democratic Party, and that fact cuts across sex, race, and class. The 'referendum creep' struck in her loss and it struck again in all of the contrived excuses for her loss. Identity politics is an abject failure in every meaningful way and the people have come to recognize that -- so much so that they have handed the Republican party almost complete free reign to do as they please (remember, they still don't have a super-majority).
In light of recognizing the political reality of this 'new normal', some Progressives in the fourth and fifth estates have taken this all better than others. Some have engaged in a well-deserved deep reflection of their journalistic failures (see here, here, here, here, and here) whereas others think they should retreat further into their anti-intellectual swamp of delusion and dishonesty (here, here, here, here, and here). Even the November 11th episode of 'Real Time With Bill Maher' shows Bill actually starting to understand and articulate a part of 'what happened' and their inability or unwillingness to see it. Unfortunately, his entire panel regularly drowns him out, retreating back into their swamp, dragging him along with them. Sad!
Yet, while I'm sure there may be some genuine feeling from these kinds of folks regardless of how they're rationalizing the news, I do believe that both approaches of self-reflection and self-delusion serve different tactics of self-preservation (likely depending on the political environments they work in) and, thus, should be taken with a giant heaping of salt.
That salt, of course, should be harvested from their tears.
So Where Do We go From Here?
It's important to note that while Progressivism as an ideology may be much more 'hardy' and take a couple more knock-out hits before going down for the count, SJW culture has still been in its infancy. As such, we need to turn the tables and do what we can to strangle it in its crib while it's in such a weakened state and while we still can. It's not a serious threat (and even less so after the election), now, but if and when such a movement were to mature and place its hands on the levers of state power? The consequences and slippery slopes for protecting, let alone advancing liberty, will be dire.
As Sun Tzu said, 'opportunities arise as you seize them'. So how do we do this? How do we 'turn the tables' on SJWs and Progressives to maximize this opportunity? Apart from actually going out and voting (and getting as many others to vote as possible), one thing I've found that they always used much more consistently and effectively than anyone else has been shaming, ostracism, and boycotting. This has been their primary social tactic and it, all too often, has shut down debate and silenced the opposition of good ideas and counter-arguments. It's high time we put an end to it. No more having to go on the defensive from dishonest charges of 'racism', 'sexism', 'hate', and other such nonsense. It's all an intellectual retreat, and they know it. We're smarter, more knowledgeable, wittier, and we have reality on our side. We've allowed them to be shameless with their dishonest tactics for too long, having overplayed their hand and rendered toothless and virtually meaningless some very important concepts to signal legitimately bad people in society. So while we must continue to intellectually destroy their arguments, we should especially focus on helping them rediscover their shame and turn their charges around on them at any and every opportunity we find. We should take a page from their own playbook and they should be mocked, shamed, and boycotted back into that brain-dead and dishonest swamp they crawled out of.
I definitely don't support Trump. With that being said -- I most certainly prefer him over Clinton.
Why? Well, for the most part, I actually find both of their politics to ultimately be mere inches apart -- a trend of recent presidencies that show Republican and Democrat nominees for federal office (less so at the state level) have been moving closer to 'the center' from either side, with constituencies and the hoi polloi moving increasingly to the margins of progressivism and libertarianism. I actually think this recent phenomenon is due to the distillation of ideas due to the (sometimes crude, but still effective) purification process from the internet -- but that's a discussion for another time.
However, we do have some important differences between these two that are factors in my preference...
The SCOTUS, Obviously
A big one and definitely a contender for the most important issue, is that of the next Supreme Court Justice to be appointed for life due to the recent passing of Antonin Scalia. There are a fewother SCJ's getting a bit longer in the tooth, and with likely two full terms for the next president (which has been another trend for decades, now), we're looking at more than enough time for another SCJ or two to leave empty seats. SCJ's have not, in the history of the United States, broken more than 90 years of age, leaving fairly high chances for some more to be replaced within the span of the next eight years.
Plumb-line, true-scotsmen, small-l libertarian SCJs are of course most preferable, but the least likely. That leaves us with 'liberals' (which at this level and in this day and age seem to be more Progressive leaning as opposed to 'liberal', anyways) and Conservatives -- which really just means that leaves us with conservatives, since 'liberals' and especially Progressives are much more likely to centralize increased power to the federal government.
So imagine a Clinton Presidency, likely for the next two terms, and potentially two or three of her picks (likely during an inevitable flip of control of the legislative branch to the Democrats) bringing about an easy Progressive majority in the SCOTUS. Consider for a moment that this will thrust the SCOTUS to consistent Progressive interpretations of the Constitution and other laws for the next 30-or-so years and the long-lasting effects that will have on legislation in the past, present, and future and the entire structure of the US Government. Really, just let that sink in for a moment.
Right, I thought so. It is what it is.
Critical Mass
The other big difference is one of paramount importance and is, for me at least, a great silver lining in a Trump Presidency, unique to Trump vs the other possibilities throughout the primary season. Progressive heads will explode the world over when he wins. Actually, they've already lost. It's done. It's been done for weeks, if not months, now, and the writing is on the wall. Their ideology is completely unworkable, unrealizable, and incoherent. They're so out-of-touch with the American people that they're still nowhere near realizing it. A Trump presidency will not be a surprise to anyone but them. Their sad, washed-up vanguard is pushing a failed, desperate narrative -- and they keep pushing it and failing, regardless, even with the media above-and-beyond mostly on their side. The incessant hammering of politically correct social pressures has created some thick hides and rendered many immune to it. So many people are over the politically correct, third-wave feminist, SJW, whiny, entitled bullshit and they're not afraid, anymore -- they can't be shamed, and the shaming has completely switched directions. Progressives and their vanguard have overplayed their hand for far too long, and the final rejection of this bastardization of liberalism has finally reached critical mass with the campaign of Donald Trump.
Desperation
Again -- Progressives are a bit slow on the uptake for a lot of this. Naturally, they'll be the last to know, and all this flailing about we've seen from recently is to be expected. The unbelievable arrogance of trying to spin the recent DNC email leak and make themselves (and supposedly, the American people, by extension) out to be the victims of Russian agents and hackers to control the election in favor of a Manchurian candidate? Well, okay, then. Don't at all pay attention to the fact that they were the ones blatantly exposed for lies, corruption, and hypocrisy to their own donors, activists, and constituents -- whether it was even done by the Russians or the Chinese or a DNC leaker or martians is completely besides the point .
They're really starting to reach at straws, though. The sad new spin attempt today was actually quite an impressive coordination of "Quick, run to the phones!"-style, shameless, false propaganda. Following Donald Trump's recent Press Conference on Hillary Clinton, the shilling for ole Hillary reached great heights. Within the span of minutes, I suddenly saw dozens of extremely click-baity articles (a short list of examples here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) of center to left news pages (and even many supposedly non-political technology pages!) jump on claims that he essentially engaged in treason by explicitly and publicly asking the Russian Government and Putin to hack the US to get emails on Hillary. Of course, this was taken completely out of context, words were twisted to mean something completely different, and they tried (and failed) to blow it up into a much bigger deal than it was. All he said was that if the Russians do in fact have Hillary Clinton's missing 33,000 e-mails (and he didn't know if they did, and doubted they did), then he hopes they give them to the press. He never said he wants them to hack the US or a major party. He actually stated on Twitter (hours before the statements in the conference in question) that whoever has the e-mails, if they do, that they "should share them with the FBI." It's all right in the video, embedded below.
The fact that they're now using such weak and pathetic claims to try to control the narrative so cheaply, despite how easily debunked it all is -- shows how weak and tenuous they know their position has become. They're flailing and lashing about, like a small child who hopelessly knows he is not about to get his way.
And really, you gotta hand it to the guy... The sheer cojones to take unfiltered questions from a very hostile press, who are all or mostly very clearly trying to prop up Hillary -- and happily stump them... Just totally epic.
He truly is 'a nimble navigator' (hat-tip, the_Donald Subreddit). I suggest watching the whole thing -- he's very good at dealing with the press on his own, he doesn't hold back much, and it's really quite entertaining, to boot.
When reality finally hits them -- it will all be absolutely delectable. And it couldn't come soon enough.
The British people tipped the first domino this week as, in a nominally shocking outcome, they have voted in favor of leaving the EU in a public vote.
Image courtesy of www.frenchentree.com
This is of course a purely "advisory" vote from the public, and carries no particular legal consequences for the oligarchy whom rules over them. Parliament has the power to ignore the vote if they please. With that being said, at least one of them must see the writing on the wall. Britsh Prime Minister David Cameron resigned after learning the consequences of the vote.
Image courtesy of www.economist.com
We don't pretend that Brussels and its counterpart oligarchs in Britain will just roll over and die just because the majority of British people expressed an opinion contrary to what their masters recommended. This is just the beginning of a long political process, a catalyst of events to come. This vote will have far-reaching influence in the EU. There are already movements underway in six other European countries for a similar referendum. The winds of change are blowing, and Europe is once again front and center stage.
The people are stirring. They are beginning to sense there is something wrong. Their friends and neighbors are suffering, and they wonder what happened to the Brave New World which was to come by means of social and economic engineering. Britain is just a symbol of the failure to accomplish this goal. Indeed, it is a symbol of the impossibility of attaining such a naive vision of utopia.
Governments around the world are approaching the limits of their abilities to influence outcomes. Their subjects are, for the most part, still too uneducated (by design, of course) to recognize why they are discontent, but they just know they are. Nature has its own way of sorting out extremes and other imbalances, and human nature is no different. Everything changes when the average person realizes their expectations for the future are false, and that's when things get unpredictable.
Soon people will be faced with a choice: liberty or totalitarianism. Only one of these is compatible with increasing social welfare. We only hope the people recognize which one.
So how do you pro-regressives and 'democratic socialists' like your precious democracy, now? How is that working out for you, exactly, what with Trump absolutely slaughtering his opponents in the debates and primaries, and the idea that he will most likely be your next President? This is democracy. This is the mob. This is how it works. Democracy is your 'God that Failed' (hat-tip, Hans-Hermann Hoppe). The idea that the 'sock in the wind' of 'public wisdom' can decide on good government representatives and policy decisions is one of the most absurd notions, ever, and history and this entire election reflect exactly that. The irony that 'democracy' ends up ushering in what seems like the antithesis incarnate of almost everything pro-regressives stand for is truly sublime.
But the vast majority of them don't seem to be getting it. Pro-regressives are so unbelievably out of touch and just not understanding why Trump is so popular -- with the Republican rank-and-file, with centrists, independents, and even some right-leaning Democrats. It has far less to with his 'policies' or how 'liberal' or 'conservative' he is (or isn't) than other factors, and attacking him over ignorant, incoherent, or flip-flopping statements that he constantly makes is actually counter-productive. A lot of it is an act, of course, and the guy is a social genius, whether you want to admit it or not.
In the end, the more people from 'the left' (whatever that even means, anymore), 'the right' (whatever that even means, anymore), 'big media', 'the establishment', et al attack him, the stronger his support gets and grows. His support is a referendum on big media, the establishment of both parties, the way politics is conducted, how support for presidential candidates is manufactured, and on political correctness in general. He says what a lot of these people are already thinking, and his support continues to grow because it only makes them feel empowered when they've felt so weak and so powerless for so long. It may all end up being short-sighted, but since when has the mob not been?
Yes, Donald Trump is the culmination of GOP policy and pandering and flame-fueling for years, now. They are greatly responsible for creating this monster. I won't bother getting into why, because that's already been widely established and talked about elsewhere, and it should be obvious in the first place.
But what further adds to all of the irony is that we can't just thank the GOP for this. We have to thank Pro-regressives in particular, and even some Democrats as well -- what with their ridiculous political correctness, elitism, condescension, fueling the flames of (arbitrarily-drawn lines of) 'racial' and 'class' tension, and constant, non-stop explicit and implicit personal attacks on those who have now become Trump supporters. These attacks have been the norm for a long time. They've felt manipulated and powerless and hopeless for so long, and he is tapping in to that -- which is exactly why attacks against them and him just make them that much stronger and rally and dig in their heels that much more fervently. Trump supporters are lashing out in the most angry and unified way, now, by supporting and voting for someone like Trump. They don't like the way the table is set (and has been set for a long time), and so they're flipping the table.
His supporters just don't care about 'the usual stuff' -- how liberal or conservative he is (or isn't), what his policies are, his 'substance' (or lack thereof), what he's said about people, who he's supported politically in the past or done in his life and how he got to where he is, et cetera. It's that he's a protest vote that can actually win -- and the outright disruption he and his supporters are causing among both parties really is quite a thing to behold. He can flip-flop on the issues all he wants, and it will barely hurt him -- if at all. It might even strengthen him by giving more people who hate Hillary some hope somewhere else. It's basically all a kind of political nihilism, which almost warms even my ice-cold, Vantablack void of a political heart.
Almost.
I think Trump is pretty damned horrible, policy-wise, but this is the reality we're facing. Barring any extremely ruthless (and short-sighted of their own) GOP shenanigans, he absolutely will be the GOP nominee, and he has a strong chance of becoming the next president, whether we like it or not. Dismiss and underestimate his chances at your own peril.
Basically, it comes down to this, as it always does. Democracy is the idea that the People know what they want. And they deserve to get it, too -- good and hard.
But enough of my rant. I don't entirely agree with him, but Louis C.K. seems to be one of the few Pro-regressives who (mostly) gets it. He recently gave a (mostly) good to maybe even great rant on Donald Trump, from his perspective -- as a kind of love letter to his supporters. It's one for the ages. You've got the typical overdramatic Hitler and Nazi comparisons going on (thank you for satisfying 'Godwin's Law', by the way, like every other head-exploding pro-regressive out there, recently), but hey, when are pro-regressives not overdramatic? Here's a snippet of this that I particularly enjoyed from him...
"And that voting for Trump is a way of saying “f--- it. F--- them all”. I really get it. It’s a version of national Suicide. Or it’s like a big hit off of a crack pipe. Somehow we can’t help it. Or we know that if we vote for Trump our phones will be a reliable source of dopamine for the next four years. I mean I can’t wait to read about Trump every day. It’s a rush. But you have to know this is not healthy.
If you are a true conservative. Don’t vote for Trump. He is not one of you. He is one of him. Everything you have heard him say that you liked, if you look hard enough you will see that he one day said the exact opposite. He is playing you."
Go read the whole thing, though. Seriously. Check it out, here.
Sometimes, I really love me some Camus (obviously, considering the name and theme of this blog).
"The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion." - Albert Camus
Political activism and even what I call 'anti-activist activism' is, unfortunately, completely fruitless and hopeless. Voting is worse, of course, but in most recent elections the majority of the voting population literally did 'vote for nobody'. Somebody got elected, anyways, and it changed nothing. In our alleged, so-called 'democracy', if, a) you can even call it that, and b) it being one of the worst forms of government available to a civilized population -- Obama was elected within a handful of points from Romney, and approximately 24% of the 'eligible voting population' (about 19% of genpop) 'decided' on who would be able to impose his will on the rest of us.
However, as long as we realize that 'not voting' won't change anything, neither, and that we need to engage in other activities outside of the system to enact gradual and slow change, or better yet, to enact meaningful change in your own life in spite of the system (which is what is most important), then I think 'not voting' is good.
However, the moment you believe or convince yourself that 'not voting', or voting third party, or voting for Mickey Mouse, or voting for a Republican or Democrat of any kind, et al, in and of itself can or will actually change anything in any meaningful way -- then you've, unfortunately, entered into the realm of self-delusion.
It is said that 'if you don't vote, then you have no right to complain'. Whoever says this has it backwards -- it's only because I don't vote, that I have a right to complain. With that being said, it is what it is, and mere complaining does nothing.
It's time to stop making excuses. We have to take control of our own lives. PS - I know this is direct contrast to an older post(s) I made in my more electoral, Ron Paul activist days. My views have changed on this, since then.
In *2011* the *voting age population* of the USA was 237,657,645. It's obviously even more in 2012.
61,173,739 voted for Obama.
58,167,260 voted for Romney.
That is 119,340,999 out of a total voting age population of 237,657,645.
That means that *more than half* of the population voted for *NOBODY*. Approximately 24.4% of the voting age population voted for Romney. Approximately 25.7% of the voting age population voted for Obama. Literally, about twice as many people of voting age voted for nobody as *either* Obama or Romney.
What does this mean? It means that *over half* of the voting age public (understandably) believes that it is not worth their time to vote for the options presented, or vote for the system at all. Some (rightly) believe that it is simply one big sick joke.
In any case, ultimately this means that over half of the voting population has completely rejected 'our' system of governance, or at the very least the system that determines who will run the system of governance.
It is particularly disturbing that only about *one fifth* (those of the total population who voted for Obama) of the population has decided how to dictate the lives of the entire population (312 million people).
I'm not a fan of democracy - as it is the tyranny of the majority over the minority. However, *this isn't even democracy* - this is the tyranny of the minority over the majority, backed by the aggression of the State.
We need to have a serious discussion about how we should vote if Ron Paul is not the nominee for the GOP. Between a likely outcome of either Obama or Romney, which is a more preferable outcome, and why?
Before I state who I'd rather have win - give me a second while I change my clothes...
/puts on flame retardant suit
Okay. That's better. Between Romney and Obama, I would rather have Obama win. Now, before I am labeled as a traitor and a hypocrite - hear me out.
There are at least five good reasons off the top of my head as to why we should all prefer this.
1) A divided, gridlocked government is certainly preferable to one that is mostly if not totally controlled by the Statist, militarist, hypocrite GOP (I think Republicans will probably end up taking control of the Senate as well as holding the House, or at least holding the House).
2) When the proverbial $#@! really starts to hit the fan under Obama - at least the dems and everyone can't say, 'See?! See what happens when you elect and institute free market policies?!'. Clearly, none of the policies would be free market ones, but we all know a Romney presidency will be painted that way, regardless.
3) The GOP establishment deserves the punishment of not having our votes and thus losing to Obama (while I wouldn't vote for Obama, I certainly won't vote for Romney) due to their heavy use of dirty tricks and treatment of Paul and Paul supporters... This will set in the reality that they need us, and that without us (independents, libertarians, constitutionalists, and old-school conservatives), they will rarely, if ever, win the presidency again. See my post 'Ron Paul Supporters are a Scourge on the Republican Party' for more context.
4) If the GOP wins, they will be encouraged to continue to do what they've always done.
5) It would make for good entertainment just to see the GOP establishment go apoplectic over a second term for Obama.
Remember, take this all within the context of Obama and Romney really being only inches apart. It's not like one is that much different than the other, anyways. Obama's rhetoric may be socialistic - but his policies are corporatist. Romney's rhetoric may be much more free-market, but his policies would be corporatist as well. They both support the drug war. They both support imperialism, militarism, war, and have talked about pre-emptive war with Iran and elsewhere (Syria, etc). They both ultimately support big, bloated federal government. They both support the IRS and income taxes. Neither has any plan for significant cuts, anywhere. They both support domestic welfarism and foreign aid. They both support the IMF and the UN. They both support bailouts. They are both owned and funded by the largest players on Wall Street and special interests. They both support the Federal Reserve. They both support massive deficit spending. They both support Keynesianism. They both support the Patriot Act, SOPA, and NDAA - deplorable violations of civil liberty.
NEITHER offer any real change and are mere inches apart on substantive issues.
Understand, I'm *not* saying we should vote for Obama. Absolutely not. What I'm implying is that you might think supporting and voting for Romney *over* Obama out of a more or less greater fear of Obama sounds like the best alternative between two crummy outcomes. Please understand that this sentiment is short-sighted and unproductive (and potentially destructive if the establishment GOP takes control of the executive *and* legislative branch - think of the Bush terms). This is exactly what the GOP establishment wants, and is far too often what it gets. Resist the urge. Try to look at the big picture and think of the long run.
So no, don't vote for Obama, but also don't vote for Romney. Vote third party (preferably Libertarian, since Gary Johnson, the LP candidate, will be on the ballot of all 50 states, and the LP is the largest third party in the US). Accept the very strong probability that Obama would win as a result of us voting this way - but realize the benefits of this happening.
[missing IMG link]
Write-ins (for Ron Paul) will be pointless. They will not be counted, only ignored. They certainly won't be reported. It might make you feel a little better, but practically speaking - a completely wasted effort.
Some advocate not voting at all - as some form of protest. This accomplishes (and has accomplished) nothing, in and of itself, and has been proven completely impotent in discouraging further Statism. One merely needs to look around to realize that our current state of affairs illustrates this fact. The vast, vast majority of Americans already have not been voting for decades, if not since the(se) United States were founded. What happens instead is that the Statists are simply *further* encouraged. They only see and acknowledge percentages of the *voting public* supporting either the 'blue' or 'red' version of oppression. It actually gives them a greater feeling of legitimacy, regardless of how invalid that feeling is (self-deception and rationalization play a big part here), and despite the fact that reality actually reflects a colossal rejection of the left/right false-choice dichotomy, along with the entire political system itself.
This is not to say that voting by itself can and will accomplish what we want - but voting is not mutually exclusive from other methods of achieving socio-economic change. See my post on 'Why Even Anarchists Should Vote'. But I digress.
Given the situation in the subject line of this post, I think as many of us (old-school conservatives, libertarians, independents, anarchists, et al) voting for Gary Johnson sends the strongest message, and pushes forward the future potential of a stronger foundation for a third party (especially while working at the same time to take over the GOP party apparatus). It will also at least shock both the Republican and Democrat tribes into realizing how much they are falling out of favor - and how truly fiscally conservative and truly socially tolerant ideas are becoming increasingly popular. This could incentivize them to move in our direction if they wish to retain their power in the meantime, and/or it could further legitimize the third-party option as a real alternative for many more Americans.
For all intents and purposes, during this election... 'right is worse'.
"It is time to stop coddling the screaming children and just say it: Ron Paul supporters are a scourge that could hurt the effort to stop President Obama's relection[sic].
...
"Dr. Paul and his supporters are a scourge on the Republican Party because they are not Republicans. They are trying to remake the party completely in Dr. Paul’s image and have trouble accepting that 90-95% of the party feel it is fine just the way it is.
...
"If Ron Paul supporters will vote for Ron Paul and nobody else, then get lost. Nobody needs you. Your candidate is the fringe, and you remain a scourge."
First, let me just say that I have no clue who 'Eric Golub' is. It doesn't really matter who he is (or isn't) - but in this instance, Eric is the mouthpiece that represents the current establishment / prominent Republican mentality. I've been hearing these kinds of statements a lot recently from many other talking heads on the mainstream media -- and I feel it needs to be addressed and settled, once and for all.
Eric is saying that RP supporters should essentially 'get in line' and vote for the Republican nominee, regardless of who it is -- or 'stay away' if we don't. Oh yeah - and uh, he says that we are 'a scourge'.
He also misrepresents Ron Paul supporters and makes quite a few hasty generalizations about us and things we say. I've met very, very few RP supporters who are as vacuous and inane as Eric here tries to make us out to be. In fact, RP supporters are some of the most informed activists out there who understand a wide range of topics - from the Constitution, to economics, to history (both American and World), and of course the process of utilizing Aristotelian methods of discourse to arrive at truth and justice.
Eric continues by making inane personal attacks on Ron Paul (he says, 'one leader with funny ears and a defeatist foreign policy is enough') in the article, as well as his absurd claim that '90-95%' of the Republican party think that it is 'fine the way it is'. Unfortunately for Eric, this opinion is completely divorced from reality. Clearly he's never heard of the Tea Party (which was originally started by Ron Paul supporters and their epic $6+ million single-day donation moneybomb at Faneuil Hall here in Boston, MA).
He wants us to settle for anyone who is nominated for the Republican Party. He wants us to compromise on our principles. But it is this easy readiness to compromise that has led us down this path in the first place.
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube...
When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil." - Ayn Rand
We're done with the compromisers. We're done with the knaves, the scoundrels and the trolls that Ayn Rand is speaking of who have brought us to the edge of financial destruction and the loss of our liberties.
To me, none of these empty suits that Eric wants us to support will do much different than Bush or Obama has done anyways. They have little to no consistent principles about individual liberty or free markets. Much of their rhetoric and absolutely all of the other candidates' political histories show this to be the case. They are concerned only with their own power and egos - at our expense. Ron Paul has demonstrated no such desires - and his voting record illustrates this.
If Ron Paul does not win the republican nomination (and it must be noted that his support is steadily growing, as another article stated, 'like a ratchet'), then I hope RP runs third party or 'independent' and wins - or at the very least causes a major disruption for either or both parties, which ultimately are not much different. If he doesn't win... then who knows - it may inspire a significant third party growth, especially with independents being the largest political affiliation in the US now.
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." - John Adams
If it comes down to it, then I (and pretty much all RP supporters) will simply protest vote - and I don't care if it gets Obama re-elected, because any of your other political trolls will merely continue the same destructive and corrupt trash we've seen for years anyways, if not decades.
In the end, it's clear that this troll and others like him who have such a disdain for RP supporters have become genuinely threatened by the influence of RP and his support base. Good. Let them flail about as they witness their own inevitable irrelevance... it is truly a sight to behold.
Our loyalty is not to your view of what the Republican party allegedly 'is' or 'should be'. Our loyalty is to the principles of free markets, individual liberty, responsibility, as local government as possible, and the Constitution. These used to be things the Republican party stood for, long ago. We represent the original Republican party - that of Barry Goldwater and 'Mr. Republican' Robert Taft. So you have it backwards, Eric. In actuality, it is you and your ilk who are the true scourge and blight upon the Republican Party - not us Ron Paul supporters.
So guess what, trolls? We're not going home. We're a fact of life now for the GOP. Get used to it. You lunatics have done enough damage, and we're here to put a stop to it. If you ever want to win another election, you'd better get on board, because if you don't, we're going to make your lives very, very difficult. This post was originally published under my old pseudonym, 'Sentient Void', at the Ron Paul Forums Blog, on 11-23-2011.
Every election cycle, the anti-voting anarchists and libertarians wind up the same old memes and quotes to discourage as many people from voting as possible, seeking a kind of absolution in their forced relationship with the State. However, this rationale is confused and short-sighted, ultimately supporting the democratic theorists' position while making their greatest adversaries' jobs easier than ever for them.
"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself." -- Lysander Spooner, 'No Treason'
...
"Many anarchist libertarians claim it immoral to vote or to engage in political action--the argument being that by participating in this way in State activity, the libertarian places his moral imprimatur upon the State apparatus itself. But a moral decision must be a free decision, and the State has placed individuals in society in an unfree environment, in a general matrix of coercion. As Lysander Spooner pointed out, in an environment of State coercion, voting does not imply voluntary consent." -- Murray Rothbard, 'Ethics of Liberty'
...
"I'm interested to talk about that. This is the classical anarchist position, there is no doubt about that. The classical anarchist position is that nobody should vote, because if you vote you are participating in a state apparatus. Or if you do vote you should write in your own name, I don't think that there is anything wrong with this tactic in the sense that if there really were a nationwide movement – if five million people, let's say, pledged not to vote. I think it would be very useful. On the other hand, I don't think voting is a real problem. I don't think it's immoral to vote, in contrast to the anti-voting people.
Lysander Spooner, the patron saint of individualist anarchism, had a very effective attack on this idea. The thing is, if you really believe that by voting you are giving your sanction to the state, then you see you are really adopting the democratic theorist's position. You would be adopting the position of the democratic enemy, so to speak, who says that the state is really voluntary because the masses are supporting it by participating in elections. In other words, you're really the other side of the coin of supporting the policy of democracy – that the public is really behind it and that it is all voluntary. And so the anti-voting people are really saying the same thing.
I don't think this is true, because as Spooner said, people are being placed in a coercive position. They are surrounded by a coercive system; they are surrounded by the state. The state, however, allows you a limited choice – there's no question about the fact that the choice is limited. Since you are in this coercive situation, there is no reason why you shouldn't try to make use of it if you think it will make a difference to your liberty or possessions. So by voting you can't say that this is a moral choice, a fully voluntary choice, on the part of the public. It's not a fully voluntary situation. It's a situation where you are surrounded by the whole state which you can't vote out of existence. For example, we can't vote the Presidency out of existence – unfortunately, it would be great if we could – but since we can't why not make use of the vote if there is a difference at all between the two people. And it is almost inevitable that there will be a difference, incidentally, because just praxeologically or in a natural law sense, every two persons or every two groups of people will be slightly different, at least. So in that case why not make use of it. I don't see that it's immoral to participate in the election provided that you go into it with your eyes open – provided that you don't think that either Nixon or Muskie is the greatest libertarian since Richard Cobden! – which many people, of course, talk themselves into before they go out and vote.
The second part of my answer is that I don't think that voting is really the question. I really don't care about whether people vote or not. To me the important thing is, who do you support. Who do you hope will win the election? You can be a non-voter and say "I don't want to sanction the state" and not vote, but on election night who do you hope the rest of the voters, the rest of the suckers out there who are voting, who do you hope they'll elect. And it's important, because I think that there is a difference. The Presidency, unfortunately, is of extreme importance. It will be running or directing our lives greatly for four years. So, I see no reason why we shouldn't endorse, or support, or attack one candidate more than the other candidate. I really don't agree at all with the non-voting position in that sense, because the non-voter is not only saying we shouldn't vote: he is also saying that we shouldn't endorse anybody. Will Robert LeFevre, one of the spokesmen of the non-voting approach, will he deep in his heart on election night have any kind of preference at all as the votes come in. Will he cheer slightly or groan more as whoever wins? I don't see how anybody could fail to have a preference, because it will affect all of us." -- Murray Rothbard
This much is clear -- Rothbard and Spooner both recognized that the question of whether you 'should vote' or not is very similar to the question as to whether you 'should defend yourself' from attack. Both saw that there is a war waged against your liberty, and it is under attack by those who wish to take it away from you via the ballot box.It's as if there are two sides of line infantry standing mere meters across from eachother -- with each shot fired being a guaranteed kill against the other side. One side is always attacking with the other side always defending -- as neglected and crumbling as it is -- the vestiges of whatever institutionalized liberty is left. Each vote is a bullet, and if the attackers overwhelm the defenders, then, whether you voted or not, another piece of your liberty will, in fact, be destroyed, and the attackers get that much more powerful. Liberty is a fragile thing, and all it takes is one bullet-vote to get past the defenders for it to be taken out, once again. Shots have been fired and exercising your vote is firing a shot back. I would, of course, never claim that libertarians and anarchists not voting is 'the problem'. There are a lot of problems, beginning with our values and culture and stretching all the way up to the law and the nature of the State. Solving these problems does not start and end at voting, but if libertarians of all stripes actually, regularly voted, then it would certainly help in stemming the unrelenting tide of assault against our liberty.
Just don't go in expecting that voting, by itself, is enough in the pursuit of liberty.
At the end of the day, you will be oppressed by a president and his government. His vision of morality will be brought to bear on you under the machine of the State, whether you like it or not, regardless of your values -- so you might as well honestly reflect on who you prefer, and thus vote for someone who will limit the oppression you will have to deal with and/or maximize as much individual liberty in your life as much as possible. At the very least, even to the extent liberty may not be increased at all with someone voted into office, this can still help in keeping the authoritarian, collectivist hordes at bay and minimizing the damage they can and want to do, in the meantime -- like throwing a wrench in that vast machine that's been created to slowly grind up your liberty.
