(My CNJ column for June 24, 2011. I admit the headline they wrote for me bewilders me completely and totally. As written, not as published.)
Believe it or not, I don't care about politics. I would like a world where it is safe to ignore politics completely if you have better things to do, or more concrete concerns. That isn't the world we live in, much to our detriment.
Many people still think it is OK to join together to make up rules for other people to obey, or to impose "taxes" for them to pay. This, unfortunately, makes it necessary for the rest of us, if we care about paying and obeying, to sometimes band together to try to stop the rules from changing so that we don't become criminals or to prevent having more of our life, liberty, and property stolen from us in the name of "The Common Good". It is "politics in self defense" and it is a tragic waste.
Paying attention to the political debates surrounding an election is almost painful. Listen to politicians debating among themselves as they propose to violate the liberty of some segment of the population that they hope a majority of voters dislikes. This sleight-of-hand is calculated to focus your attention on "the others" while your liberty is dismantled. You are always someone else's "other". Disagreeing on details of how to violate you, as candidates invariably do, is not a disagreement of substance, but of method.
Respecting liberty to any degree is never seriously suggested, except minimally by the one GOP candidate who has little chance of being elected, and who wouldn't be able to make a real change if he were elected, due to the constraints of the system. Everyone knows who this candidate is- he consistently wins polls, but the polls are regularly misreported in order to marginalize his candidacy and promote the status quo. CNN and Time Magazine (online) were both caught red-handed doing this very thing in the past week.
Politicians get votes by playing on people's prejudices and fears, not by telling them that they are responsible for their own lives. They can also get votes by promising to take something from someone who is unpopular and give it to someone whose vote they are courting. That "something" may be liberty or it may be money. Without those two tactics, a candidate will get too few votes to win.
There is no one alive who has the authority or right to represent another person without an explicit agreement being reached between the two individuals involved. A Constitution that neither party physically signed doesn't count as an explicit agreement, regardless of what you've been told. Moreover, those who vote for the losing candidate are not bound by the results no matter what, since they then have no representation at all, legitimate or not. So take responsibility for yourself and get on with the things that matter in your life. Withdraw consent.
Many people still think it is OK to join together to make up rules for other people to obey, or to impose "taxes" for them to pay. This, unfortunately, makes it necessary for the rest of us, if we care about paying and obeying, to sometimes band together to try to stop the rules from changing so that we don't become criminals or to prevent having more of our life, liberty, and property stolen from us in the name of "The Common Good". It is "politics in self defense" and it is a tragic waste.
Paying attention to the political debates surrounding an election is almost painful. Listen to politicians debating among themselves as they propose to violate the liberty of some segment of the population that they hope a majority of voters dislikes. This sleight-of-hand is calculated to focus your attention on "the others" while your liberty is dismantled. You are always someone else's "other". Disagreeing on details of how to violate you, as candidates invariably do, is not a disagreement of substance, but of method.
Respecting liberty to any degree is never seriously suggested, except minimally by the one GOP candidate who has little chance of being elected, and who wouldn't be able to make a real change if he were elected, due to the constraints of the system. Everyone knows who this candidate is- he consistently wins polls, but the polls are regularly misreported in order to marginalize his candidacy and promote the status quo. CNN and Time Magazine (online) were both caught red-handed doing this very thing in the past week.
Politicians get votes by playing on people's prejudices and fears, not by telling them that they are responsible for their own lives. They can also get votes by promising to take something from someone who is unpopular and give it to someone whose vote they are courting. That "something" may be liberty or it may be money. Without those two tactics, a candidate will get too few votes to win.
There is no one alive who has the authority or right to represent another person without an explicit agreement being reached between the two individuals involved. A Constitution that neither party physically signed doesn't count as an explicit agreement, regardless of what you've been told. Moreover, those who vote for the losing candidate are not bound by the results no matter what, since they then have no representation at all, legitimate or not. So take responsibility for yourself and get on with the things that matter in your life. Withdraw consent.
.
