AP: States Weigh Letting Non-Citizens Vote

[Cowlesy]

Sure why not. Show up on the shore, get a job, pay some taxes and get to vote.

Being a citizen (or taking the time to become a citizen) is pretty much meaningless now. We might as well let every Tom, Dick and Harry get to pull a lever.

I'd love to go work in Japan for a year, pay their taxes and then demand I get a say in who represents me simply because I'm transacting business. Why do I think they would LOL at me.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/24/states-weigh-letting-noncitizens-vote/


PORTLAND, Maine -- Like his neighbors, Claude Rwaganje pays taxes on his income and taxes on his cars. His children have gone to Portland's public schools. He's interested in the workings of Maine's largest city, which he has called home for 13 years.

There's one vital difference, though: Rwaganje isn't a U.S. citizen and isn't allowed to vote on those taxes or on school issues. That may soon change.

Portland residents will vote Nov. 2 on a proposal to give legal residents who are not U.S. citizens the right to vote in local elections, joining places like San Francisco and Chicago that have already loosened the rules or are considering it.

Noncitizens hold down jobs, pay taxes, own businesses, volunteer in the community and serve in the military, and it's only fair they be allowed to vote, Rwaganje said.

"We have immigrants who are playing key roles in different issues of this country, but they don't get the right to vote," said Rwaganje, 40, who moved to the U.S. because of political strife in his native Congo and runs a nonprofit that offers financial advice to immigrants.

Opponents of the measure say immigrants already have an avenue to cast ballots -- by becoming citizens. Allowing noncitizens to vote dilutes the meaning of citizenship, they say, adding that it could lead to fraud and unfairly sway elections.

I mean, what a joke we've become.

[klamath]

All you can do is shake your head.

[VBRonPaulFan]

Yeah, that's completely ridiculous. If you've moved here and chosen to make a home here - become a citizen and gain all the rights that everyone else here has.

[LibertyEagle]

Wow, that is really sickening. :(

[Danke]

Looks like you have to be a resident though.

Count me out.

[ronpaulhawaii]

This type crap is why Gunny is running, and I'm helping him... I hope more liberty activists decide to step up and run for StateHouse races in the next cycle. We need you...

[Kilrain]

Why would citizenship matter, except for national elections?

If you've lived legally in Ruralville, Indiana, for 40 years, shouldn't you get a vote when it comes to electing the county sheriff, for instance? You're a resident of Ruralville, being a citizen of the USA has nothing to do with it, right?

[JK/SEA]

Sending absentee ballots to China is next.

[Daamien]

Why would citizenship matter, except for national elections?

If you've lived legally in Ruralville, Indiana, for 40 years, shouldn't you get a vote when it comes to electing the county sheriff, for instance? You're a resident of Ruralville, being a citizen of the USA has nothing to do with it, right?

Good point. If Portland wants to allow non-citizens to vote, then that's their decision. If I don't agree, I can just move or vote against the measure on its own merits. The federal government should not be involved in the voting criteria of local and state elections, despite my personal view that citizenship should be part of the criteria.

[Anti Federalist]

Sure why not. Show up on the shore, get a job, pay some taxes and get to vote.

I mean, what a joke we've become.

Ya' freedom hating, flag waving, nationalist, xenophobic swine.

Get back to the DailyKos, where ya' belong.

:rolleyes:

;)

[fedup100]

Why would citizenship matter, except for national elections?

If you've lived legally in Ruralville, Indiana, for 40 years, shouldn't you get a vote when it comes to electing the county sheriff, for instance? You're a resident of Ruralville, being a citizen of the USA has nothing to do with it, right?

The new batch of 80 thousand Muslims AssO just let in the country will love it. Why does it matter???!! Why would someone with this view point be on a RP forum?

[Kilrain]

The new batch of 80 thousand Muslims AssO just let in the country will love it. Why does it matter???!! Why would someone with this view point be on a RP forum?

'Cause I believe in decentralization and don't see why you couldn't be a "citizen" of say Virginia, or even a "citizen" of Danville, Virginia, without being a citizen of the US. And it should be up to Virginia to decide who is or is not a citizen of Virginia.

[Chieppa1]

http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/111069/citizenship-for-sale

[Noob]

Soon they be able to run and be elected to office with out having to be citizen.

[Danke]

Soon they be able to run and be elected to office with out having to be citizen.

That'll never happen...

http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2009-06-08-Obama1.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

That'll never happen...

http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2009-06-08-Obama1.jpg

http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/laughing-calvin--26-hobbes-337864_504_313.gif

[HOLLYWOOD]

Change the title...

AP: States Weigh Letting Non-Citizens Vote For Democrats/Liberals and Entitlement Programs

[Promontorium]

We are a Federation. Destroying the nation in the name of "decentralization" does nothing for justice. The progress of humanity is not heading into micro-nations or city-states, but to establish minimalist central rule that preserves the rights of people.

The same logic you employ to justify separate micronations within the US "If you don't like it, you can leave" I can apply to you. You don't like the supremacy of the US Constitution, leave.

Size and population are arbitrary to how just a nation is. Legalizing murder in 1 city isn't more just than legalizing it in a county, or a state.

[Kilrain]

We are a Federation. Destroying the nation in the name of "decentralization" does nothing for justice. The progress of humanity is not heading into micro-nations or city-states, but to establish minimalist central rule that preserves the rights of people.

The same logic you employ to justify separate micronations within the US "If you don't like it, you can leave" I can apply to you. You don't like the supremacy of the US Constitution, leave.

Size and population are arbitrary to how just a nation is. Legalizing murder in 1 city isn't more just than legalizing it in a county, or a state.

I didn't know that the US Constitution stipulates how local and state elections shall be held, and who gets to vote in them. Well, live and learn, I guess... :o

Thought this would be a clear case of that 10th amendment thingy coming into play.

[aravoth]

I didn't know that the US Constitution stipulates how local and state elections shall be held, and who gets to vote in them. Well, live and learn, I guess... :o

Thought this would be a clear case of that 10th amendment thingy coming into play.

It is, but consider this..

Why would anyone need to go to war with the US, when you could just send in a bunch of people to be resident aliens, have them vote in local elections, and turn the US into a country that is more favorable to EU style environmental policies?

All politics are local, if foreigners are allowed to vote in any capacity, it would easily undermine the entire country.

If we are not going to allow foreign campaign contributions, we sure as shit should not allow foreign voters.

[Kilrain]

It is, but consider this..

Why would anyone need to go to war with the US, when you could just send in a bunch of people to be resident aliens, have them vote in local elections, and turn the US into a country that is more favorable to EU style environmental policies?

All politics are local, if foreigners are allowed to vote in any capacity, it would easily undermine the entire country.

If we are not going to allow foreign campaign contributions, we sure as shit should not allow foreign voters.

That sounds like an awful amount of work... I humbly suggest that any nation(s) that has A. the manpower to do so, B. the resources to do so and C. manages to do so without people in the US catching on and changing the rules before it's too late would deserve to win. ;)

Now imagine this: Say I move to the US (my wife's American so getting a Green Card would be all but automatic), move to Fairbanks, Alaska and live there for 30 years.

I personally don't believe in people "changing" their citizenship. I was born a Swede and I'll die a Swede, but in time, I believe I could become more of a Fairbankian than some 18-year-old that's never been outside of Florida.

Shouldn't it be up to the people in Fairbanks to decide whether I should be allowed to vote for sheriff or whatever? What right does that 18-year-old in Florida have to tell them what to do, or how to run their town?

[aravoth]

That sounds like an awful amount of work... I humbly suggest that any nation(s) that has A. the manpower to do so, B. the resources to do so and C. manages to do so without people in the US catching on and changing the rules before it's too late would deserve to win. ;)

Now imagine this: Say I move to the US (my wife's American so getting a Green Card would be all but automatic), move to Fairbanks, Alaska and live there for 30 years.

I personally don't believe in people "changing" their citizenship. I was born a Swede and I'll die a Swede, but in time, I believe I could become more of a Fairbankian than some 18-year-old that's never been outside of Florida.

Shouldn't it be up to the people in Fairbanks to decide whether I should be allowed to vote for sheriff or whatever? What right does that 18-year-old in Florida have to tell them what to do, or how to run their town?

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, what each municipality does is up to them. I'm merely pointing out that having foreigners vote in elections of any sort will eventually lead to policies and laws that are contrary to classic American Ideals.

What if a large amount of radical Muslims moved to one city in America. Motivated by decades of US interference in their own nation, they decide to do the same to ours. So they move in, vote their own in, before you know it, you have a local theocracy dominated by sharia law.

That example is extreme, but the idea deserves a thought.

[Kilrain]

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, what each municipality does is up to them. I'm merely pointing out that having foreigners vote in elections of any sort will eventually lead to policies and laws that are contrary to classic American Ideals.

What if a large amount of radical Muslims moved to one city in America. Motivated by decades of US interference in their own nation, they decide to do the same to ours. So they move in, vote their own in, before you know it, you have a local theocracy dominated by sharia law.

That example is extreme, but the idea deserves a thought.

Then maybe you should try to stop them at the border. Simply saying that they can't vote won't stop them from having an influence on society.

As for Sharia law, sure, some elements of that could be adopted by a local community, and some would be over-ruled by legitimate constitutional objections, 8th amendment for instance.

I'm not saying foreigners should or shouldn't have a right to vote, I'm simply saying that in most cases, the final decision should rest with local communites or states.

I would probably allow foreigners to vote (in some elections) if they fulfil some criteria, and those criteria would actually be harder to achieve than the criteria for obtaining citizenship in present-day Sweden, or in present-day America.

[RedStripe]

Libertarian Principles: The law should be the same for everyone. Everyone should have the same rights. No special legal distinctions for some people, or special rights for a particular group.

Right-Wing Libertarian Practice: DAMN FOREIGNERSS GUNNA B ABLE 2 VOTE?!?! I WANT MY AMURRICA BACK!!@!2 DURR!!!

[fedup100]

Libertarian Principles: The law should be the same for everyone. Everyone should have the same rights. No special legal distinctions for some people, or special rights for a particular group.

Right-Wing Libertarian Practice: DAMN FOREIGNERSS GUNNA B ABLE 2 VOTE?!?! I WANT MY AMURRICA BACK!!@!2 DURR!!!

Since when did Libertarianism = liberal NWO world citizen dribble! I want people like you put in a special place and never allowed to influence my children or community.

YOU, it's people like YOU that have brought this multicultural PC correct cluster fuck into this country and by God we will rout you out!

Look at it people this is what has taken this forum over!

[mczerone]

Oh no! There might be voters who don't know anything about American history, Constitutional law, or really even understand the language that the politicians are using!

Voting is nothing but an illusion, and I don't care if they let Amazonian fighting tree frogs vote absentee in Portuguese.

Wake me when they allow me to opt out of voting and being held prisoner under their regulatory thumb.

[aravoth]

I'm not saying foreigners should or shouldn't have a right to vote, I'm simply saying that in most cases, the final decision should rest with local communites or states.



That is exactly what I'm saying. Local communities know the situation far better than the federal government does. If they're comfortable with allowing contributing foreigner votes in local elections, fine.

I don't think I would ever vote for that measure honestly.

[aravoth]

Voting is nothing but an illusion, and I don't care if they let Amazonian fighting tree frogs vote absentee in Portuguese.



Barack Obama is not an illusion, Neither was George Bush.

Yes the United States is full of idiots. You can either cry about it with your head tucked under your pillow hoping in vain that one day you'll be able to opt out, or you can start educating people, and help them understand the situation.

Politics is childish bullshit, it always has been. But it is very real, in fact, politics is so real that various forms of it has killed millions of it's own people.

The American political system is a threat to you, right now it's taking your money while simultaneously destroying it's value. It's sending young men off to die for a country they don't care about. It's restricting your liberties, and spying on you.

Pretending that it can't harm you, or that it doesn't apply to you just because you don't agree with it won't ever make it go away.

[MelissaWV]

That is exactly what I'm saying. Local communities know the situation far better than the federal government does. If they're comfortable with allowing contributing foreigner votes in local elections, fine.

I don't think I would ever vote for that measure honestly.

It's something that would likely be trotted out for a test run, but wouldn't work very well. Voter fraud is already a hell of a problem. Will non-citizens be registering to vote? Or will they "be registered"? What sort of paperwork does one need to provide in order to register? You can't make it, for instance, having a bill in your name. There are a lot of traditional households where only the patriarch has bills in his name, and the wife and voting-aged children still living at home would be out of luck. Will it be tax paperwork? That's a possibility, for sure, but easily forged (since tax paperwork can now come from a program like, say, TurboTax which means it'd be very simple to print out paperwork for people who've never paid).

Non-citizens voting locally does not have the impact that non-citizens voting nationally does. Even a statewide election --- one which votes in the people who decide whether or not we go to war, or stimulus packages pass, or ObamaCare becomes law --- is far more serious than the really small local elections. That said, those small elections carry weight as those folks become more ambitious. The person they elected may want to become a Senator, and would lobby to have their base able to vote for him.

If anything, though, this won't fly in most places because people see "non-citizen" and immediately think of sneaky banditos crossing the border in the dead of night. That alone will, sadly, be reason enough for a lot of people to oppose the entire idea.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, what each municipality does is up to them. I'm merely pointing out that having foreigners vote in elections of any sort will eventually lead to policies and laws that are contrary to classic American Ideals.

What if a large amount of radical Muslims moved to one city in America. Motivated by decades of US interference in their own nation, they decide to do the same to ours. So they move in, vote their own in, before you know it, you have a local theocracy dominated by sharia law.

That example is extreme, but the idea deserves a thought.

They could always come here and become citizens the legal way and do the same thing once they get voting rights.

[Cowlesy]

Libertarian Principles: The law should be the same for everyone. Everyone should have the same rights. No special legal distinctions for some people, or special rights for a particular group.

Right-Wing Libertarian Practice: DAMN FOREIGNERSS GUNNA B ABLE 2 VOTE?!?! I WANT MY AMURRICA BACK!!@!2 DURR!!!

Whew. Glad to know we continue to vehemently disagree. :)

[MelissaWV]

Barack Obama is not an illusion, Neither was George Bush.

Yes the United States is full of idiots. You can either cry about it with your head tucked under your pillow hoping in vain that one day you'll be able to opt out, or you can start educating people, and help them understand the situation.

Politics is childish bullshit, it always has been. But it is very real, in fact, politics is so real that various forms of it has killed millions of it's own people.

The American political system is a threat to you, right now it's taking your money while simultaneously destroying it's value. It's sending young men off to die for a country they don't care about. It's restricting your liberties, and spying on you.

Pretending that it can't harm you, or that it doesn't apply to you just because you don't agree with it won't ever make it go away.

Voting really is an illusion, though. The average person on the street will swear up and down to you that their vote counts in November. A portion of those will mutter something about the electoral college, but might believe that whoever wins the most votes in their state gets their state's votes. Very few know when they needed to have registered by, or how delegates are chosen for their state. Even fewer understand how the rules are decided, and whether their state decides on delegates all-or-nothing, or piecemeal. A huge number of votes never get counted at all. The popular vote does not secure a win for President, nor does it necessarily secure a win for lesser offices.

[aravoth]

Voting really is an illusion, though. The average person on the street will swear up and down to you that their vote counts in November. A portion of those will mutter something about the electoral college, but might believe that whoever wins the most votes in their state gets their state's votes. Very few know when they needed to have registered by, or how delegates are chosen for their state. Even fewer understand how the rules are decided, and whether their state decides on delegates all-or-nothing, or piecemeal. A huge number of votes never get counted at all. The popular vote does not secure a win for President, nor does it necessarily secure a win for lesser offices.

Yes I know, mostly I was trying to point out the perils of non-participation.

[LibForestPaul]

I bought some Lindt Chocolate today, wheres my Swiss absentee ballot?

[mczerone]

Barack Obama is not an illusion, Neither was George Bush.

Yes the United States is full of idiots. You can either cry about it with your head tucked under your pillow hoping in vain that one day you'll be able to opt out, or you can start educating people, and help them understand the situation.

Politics is childish bullshit, it always has been. But it is very real, in fact, politics is so real that various forms of it has killed millions of it's own people.

The American political system is a threat to you, right now it's taking your money while simultaneously destroying it's value. It's sending young men off to die for a country they don't care about. It's restricting your liberties, and spying on you.

Pretending that it can't harm you, or that it doesn't apply to you just because you don't agree with it won't ever make it go away.

I didn't say it couldn't harm me, or that by not voting you are insulated from their deviousness, I said that the power in voting is an illusion. Mellisa said it very well.

I simply don't think that voting, ever, is going to rid us of the evil that is force-filled govt. Instead, to really promote liberty, advancements need to be made building an alternative structure of security and governance. These efforts do not and should not rely on the "will of the majority", because, among other reasons, that would be tyrannical, even if it is "right".

You go on trying to convince people that they can have peace and prosperity if they all just vote a certain way, I won't inhibit your efforts. I'd rather just live free and lead by example. And when the gov't comes knocking, I'll either pragmatically pay up, or I'll choose my battles and fight them on my terms. Voting is playing by their rules, and while I might go pull a lever for the option I think might do the least harm, I don't see my vote as having any meaning even in my precinct, let alone at a national level.

In the end, I don't care how many idiots want to participate in govt. They can stay idiots. I don't want to force them into thinking for themselves just as I don't want them forcing me into accepting a "representative" govt.

[MelissaWV]

I didn't say it couldn't harm me, or that by not voting you are insulated from their deviousness, I said that the power in voting is an illusion. Mellisa said it very well.

I simply don't think that voting, ever, is going to rid us of the evil that is force-filled govt. Instead, to really promote liberty, advancements need to be made building an alternative structure of security and governance. These efforts do not and should not rely on the "will of the majority", because, among other reasons, that would be tyrannical, even if it is "right"....

There are ways to play the game, but it's an incredibly uphill battle. Becoming educated, getting involved, and turning the numbers in one's favor are still options. The trouble is that getting enough people to play the game at one time while still being able to ignore infiltration and distraction is a scenario with incredibly long odds. I still play it, anyhow, but I can see why others would rather just check out, hunker down, and wait.

[TNforPaul45]

Just let it all go, everyone, just let it all go.

[RedStripe]

Since when did Libertarianism = liberal NWO world citizen dribble! I want people like you put in a special place and never allowed to influence my children or community.

Haha, your petty need to control other people is so obvious it's pathetic.

Since when did libertarianism = cosmopolitan rights conception? Um, how about the enlightenment. Haha it's clear you have absolutely no idea what libertarianism is, or it's history.

Yea, God forbid that I have the opportunity to influence your kids and explain to them how all human beings should be treated with respect and dignity. Wait, did you say you were a Christian? What was that one thing, um, I think it was "the teaching of Jesus Christ." You should read that, and go back on your meds.



YOU, it's people like YOU that have brought this multicultural PC correct cluster fuck into this country and by God we will rout you out!

Yea, I'm part of the conspiracy. I'm actually one of the insiders. You'll never "rout" me out because I've already had microchips implanted into every white christian conservative in this country and I'm tracking your every movement.



Look at it people this is what has taken this forum over!

RedStripe: "Taking over" RPF since May 2007.

:rolleyes:

[Anti Federalist]

A nice idea in the very long term.

In the short term it resembles a gun controller's argument.

I'll be convinced when the other side lays down their arms.


I didn't say it couldn't harm me, or that by not voting you are insulated from their deviousness, I said that the power in voting is an illusion. Mellisa said it very well.

I simply don't think that voting, ever, is going to rid us of the evil that is force-filled govt. Instead, to really promote liberty, advancements need to be made building an alternative structure of security and governance. These efforts do not and should not rely on the "will of the majority", because, among other reasons, that would be tyrannical, even if it is "right".

You go on trying to convince people that they can have peace and prosperity if they all just vote a certain way, I won't inhibit your efforts. I'd rather just live free and lead by example. And when the gov't comes knocking, I'll either pragmatically pay up, or I'll choose my battles and fight them on my terms. Voting is playing by their rules, and while I might go pull a lever for the option I think might do the least harm, I don't see my vote as having any meaning even in my precinct, let alone at a national level.

In the end, I don't care how many idiots want to participate in govt. They can stay idiots. I don't want to force them into thinking for themselves just as I don't want them forcing me into accepting a "representative" govt.

[Cowlesy]

I didn't say it couldn't harm me, or that by not voting you are insulated from their deviousness, I said that the power in voting is an illusion. Mellisa said it very well.

I simply don't think that voting, ever, is going to rid us of the evil that is force-filled govt. Instead, to really promote liberty, advancements need to be made building an alternative structure of security and governance. These efforts do not and should not rely on the "will of the majority", because, among other reasons, that would be tyrannical, even if it is "right".

You go on trying to convince people that they can have peace and prosperity if they all just vote a certain way, I won't inhibit your efforts. I'd rather just live free and lead by example. And when the gov't comes knocking, I'll either pragmatically pay up, or I'll choose my battles and fight them on my terms. Voting is playing by their rules, and while I might go pull a lever for the option I think might do the least harm, I don't see my vote as having any meaning even in my precinct, let alone at a national level.

In the end, I don't care how many idiots want to participate in govt. They can stay idiots. I don't want to force them into thinking for themselves just as I don't want them forcing me into accepting a "representative" govt.

As an 'idiot,' I am perfectly fine with that.

I already cope with tax-feeders having equal rights to vote themselves a paycheck. Walter Williams at least expresses an argument against that. Now some non-citizen, de minimis tax-payers also want a vote without even getting their basic citizenship? I will fight against it too.

You can call it luddite, reactionary, whatever...I am no longer going to just let these people find ways to confiscate more of what I work for, or drive my nation further into fiscal decline.

[MelissaWV]

Drivel. The word is "drivel."

[QueenB4Liberty]

Barack Obama is not an illusion, Neither was George Bush.

Yes the United States is full of idiots. You can either cry about it with your head tucked under your pillow hoping in vain that one day you'll be able to opt out, or you can start educating people, and help them understand the situation.

Politics is childish bullshit, it always has been. But it is very real, in fact, politics is so real that various forms of it has killed millions of it's own people.

The American political system is a threat to you, right now it's taking your money while simultaneously destroying it's value. It's sending young men off to die for a country they don't care about. It's restricting your liberties, and spying on you.

Pretending that it can't harm you, or that it doesn't apply to you just because you don't agree with it won't ever make it go away.

Educating people will only get so far. But the bottom line is that there will always be people who think it's okay to use the ballot box to steal from others. There will always be more of them then there are of us. I've been "educating" the same people for years to no avail.

[oyarde]

Educating people will only get so far. But the bottom line is that there will always be people who think it's okay to use the ballot box to steal from others. There will always be more of them then there are of us. I've been "educating" the same people for years to no avail.

We cannot give up . We have to get to where we are at 51 % across the country .

[RedStripe]

As an 'idiot,' I am perfectly fine with that.

I already cope with tax-feeders having equal rights to vote themselves a paycheck. Walter Williams at least expresses an argument against that. Now some non-citizen, de minimis tax-payers also want a vote without even getting their basic citizenship? I will fight against it too.

You can call it luddite, reactionary, whatever...I am no longer going to just let these people find ways to confiscate more of what I work for, or drive my nation further into fiscal decline.

lol if you think your enemy is the underclass then the system is doing exactly what it is designed to do

[aravoth]

In the end, I don't care how many idiots want to participate in govt. They can stay idiots. I don't want to force them into thinking for themselves just as I don't want them forcing me into accepting a "representative" govt.

Thats the problem, The people now aren't forcing you to accept a "Representative republic", they are forcing you to accept a corporatist government. Wether or not you accept it is irrelevant. They don't give a shit about intellectuals that can take care of themselves.

People running the show these days want what you have, and someday, they'll get it, it's as simple as that.

[mczerone]

There are ways to play the game, but it's an incredibly uphill battle. Becoming educated, getting involved, and turning the numbers in one's favor are still options. The trouble is that getting enough people to play the game at one time while still being able to ignore infiltration and distraction is a scenario with incredibly long odds. I still play it, anyhow, but I can see why others would rather just check out, hunker down, and wait.

I didn't mean to imply that I refuse to play the game - I just am not going to devote productive effort to build a "voting bloc" when I could be supporting alternative markets, alternative monies, and civil disobedience.

If a friend asks me how I'm voting, and he's looking for a real conversation, I'll explain that I don't care to know much about the candidates, because they don't matter, and my vote doesn't matter. I'll explain that I don't care what "the majority" thinks, and that "the majority" is usually only around 10% of the actual population bound by the vote. I'll probably say that I'm voting for the LP candidate if I take the time to go there, even though I don't agree with the LP on everything, and explain that the major parties have no practical differences.

I certainly don't condone "checking out, hunkering down, and waiting." There are other options than just playing their game, once every couple of years, with their rules, and their pre-ordained options.

[Mini-Me]

Libertarian Principles: The law should be the same for everyone. Everyone should have the same rights. No special legal distinctions for some people, or special rights for a particular group.

Right-Wing Libertarian Practice: DAMN FOREIGNERSS GUNNA B ABLE 2 VOTE?!?! I WANT MY AMURRICA BACK!!@!2 DURR!!!

I think you conveniently left out the part about how libertarian principles oppose the notion that the legitimate use of force can be decided democratically. I recognize the moral argument here against distinct legal classes, of course. It's still hard to deny that ubiquitous voting rights among aliens would ultimately lead to more moral hazard, more state control and centralization of power, more special legal distinctions, and the acceleration of the "war of all against all."

This is one of those rare instances where following your principles completely will undermine them in practice, but fudging your principles is still a step on the slippery slope. It's a lose/lose proposition for someone like me. It shouldn't be for you though: I mean, I thought you were a utilitarian anyway, right? ;)

Thankfully, taking the Machiavellian stance here does NOT mean advocating an increase in state power or new class distinctions, which is where I draw the line. It merely means postponing the liberalization of voting rights to aliens until voting rights are more harmless. ;) Until the state is no longer a threat, I'd much prefer to see the status quo preserved here, i.e. only citizens can vote. I might briefly smile if voting was open to all, but it would be a Pyrrhic victory and short-lived, and I fear the consequences given our current circumstances.

Perhaps I'm wrong. I don't know. Time will tell.


lol if you think your enemy is the underclass then the system is doing exactly what it is designed to do

I don't know if you properly understood Cowlesy. Maybe you did, but it's important to make a distinction:
The growing underclass (much of which used to be the middle class) is easily manipulated and enticed by promises of scraps to vote for larger, more oppressive, and more parasitic government. Just because someone recognizes that, does not mean they necessarily believe the underclass is their true enemy, or that they are the ultimate recipients of government largess. People who vote for oppression are usually not the enemy, just neighbors who have become unwitting pawns of the enemy. Regardless of who usually "wins," the resulting atmosphere is the same...a war of all against all, where everyone votes themselves as much as they can of what others possess. Along with the MIC, the biggest money pits we have are Medicare, Social Security, and the huge unproductive government paper-pushing bureaucracies that support all of this. It's partially about the redistribution itself, and it's partially about the destruction and inefficiency that the process itself introduces to the economy.

[RedStripe]

I think you conveniently left out the part about how libertarian principles oppose the notion that the legitimate use of force can be decided democratically. I recognize the moral argument here against distinct legal classes, of course. It's still hard to deny that ubiquitous voting rights among aliens would ultimately lead to more moral hazard, more state control and centralization of power, more special legal distinctions, and the acceleration of the "war of all against all."

This is one of those rare instances where following your principles completely will undermine them in practice, but fudging your principles is still a step on the slippery slope. It's a lose/lose proposition for someone like me. It shouldn't be for you though: I mean, I thought you were a utilitarian anyway, right? ;)

Thankfully, taking the Machievellian stance here does NOT mean advocating an increase in state power or new class distinctions, which is where I draw the line. It merely means postponing the liberalization of voting rights to aliens until voting rights are more harmless. ;) Until the state is no longer a threat, I'd much prefer to see the status quo preserved here, i.e. only citizens can vote. I might briefly smile if voting was open to all, but it would be a Pyrrhic victory and short-lived, and I fear the consequences given our current circumstances.

Um, the growth of the state - if that's what you're worried about - marches on with or without liberalized voting rights and the dissolution of citizenship distinctions, so I don't really buy the assumption you're making here (in bold).

I think it's also a mistake to assume that the size of government or the extent of its influence is even quantifiable in any meaningful sense at this point. I'm for liberalizing voting rights for the same reason Ron Paul is for earmarks: it's totally valid to try to influence the system given that the system exists. The reason there is even a need for things like unemployment insurance, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc (and there is a need), is the decades and centuries of structural government intervention (that most people on this forum are completely blind to, with the exception of the monetary system and possibly intellectual property) which has helped to stratify society.

This system isn't "working" for the poor people, even if the poor people get a right to vote. It's "working" for a small percent of the population which holds the majority of the power and wealth, just like feudalism. If the peasants want to rise up and take more for themselves from the lord's surplus, I'm all for it.

The superficial, simplistic understanding of the state leads to the kind of statements you see in this thread like "I don't want more people voting to rob me" etc, which totally ignores that all wealth distribution is basically the byproduct of some form of government coercion at this point. There is not a person being taxed in this thread "to fund welfare for the poor" who has not been a beneficiary of systemic government intervention into the economic system.

[aravoth]

There is not a person being taxed in this thread "to fund welfare for the poor" who has not been a beneficiary of systemic government intervention into the economic system.

Could you paint me with a broad brush for a moment, and tell me how I have benefited from government intervention int he economic system?

[mczerone]

As an 'idiot,' I am perfectly fine with that.

I already cope with tax-feeders having equal rights to vote themselves a paycheck. Walter Williams at least expresses an argument against that. Now some non-citizen, de minimis tax-payers also want a vote without even getting their basic citizenship? I will fight against it too.

You can call it luddite, reactionary, whatever...I am no longer going to just let these people find ways to confiscate more of what I work for, or drive my nation further into fiscal decline.

So it's not that non-citizens get to have some say, its that you're assuming they'll vote to "confiscate more of what [you] work for". I suggest you rail against all govt then, and not just the latest symptom presented to you. Because a territorial monopoly of any service, even if truly limited to a few functions, will tend to take more and more from the productive and redistribute it to the unproductive.

And I'll leave alone your comment about "my nation", as that too is rife with deep meaning, but strays from the issue of the thread.


We cannot give up . We have to get to where we are at 51 % across the country .

And then what? Tell the other 49% that they must bow down to our superior system? And really, look at all the infighting that goes on here, in the remnant. There is no way that we could agree on what needs to be done (beyond ending some programs we all agree are unnecessary). The goal must be to destroy as much unconstitutional central power as possible, not seek to control it. And there are much better ways to accomplish that than convincing 51% of the populace that the unknown freedom we preach will work by theoretical arguments alone. There needs to be non-governmental solutions working before people will willing agree that they can vote against their socialized safety nets.


Thats the problem, The people now aren't forcing you to accept a "Representative republic", they are forcing you to accept a corporatist government. Wether or not you accept it is irrelevant. They don't give a shit about intellectuals that can take care of themselves.

People running the show these days want what you have, and someday, they'll get it, it's as simple as that.

I don't have anything. I am probably, at this stage of my life, one of Cowlesy's dread "tax-feeders". I have school loans, and I use federally subsidized highways, and my tax burden is low. Further, it is by means of a "representative republic" that the corporatists seek to gain exorbitant wealth. They have not swooped in and taken over the benign power structure, the power structure was and always has been designed to enrich the politically connected and protect state-favored corporations from dirty, proletariat, free market, innovative, consumer friendly competition.

People running the show these days are no worse than the people running the show at the time of the founding, and considering capital punishment is less of a threat now than in those times, I'd venture the hypothesis that the politically unconnected dissidents and free-traders have it much better than they did then.

Voting, IMO, should be extended to anyone living in or having an interest in the political territory so claimed by the govt - their rules, taxes, and policies affect them all, so why don't they get a minute vote? I'd include the convicted and the children. They're no less insulated from the results. Hell, if a chimp could express his desire, I'd let him vote too. Doesn't mean that we'll be free from our prison, but at least everyone truly has an equal right to say which warden we get.

[Mini-Me]

Um, the growth of the state - if that's what you're worried about - marches on with or without liberalized voting rights and the dissolution of citizenship distinctions, so I don't really buy the assumption you're making here (in bold).
That's my tentative belief as well, but I haven't yet given up all hope in political reform (from the bottom up at least). I'm jaded and cynical about politics, but I haven't thoroughly given up on them, and I operate under the working assumption that politics might matter in the end. I could be wrong of course, but I'm not confident about it either way. I like keeping all avenues open, I guess.


I think it's also a mistake to assume that the size of government or the extent of its influence is even quantifiable in any meaningful sense at this point. I'm for liberalizing voting rights for the same reason Ron Paul is for earmarks: it's totally valid to try to influence the system given that the system exists. The reason there is even a need for things like unemployment insurance, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc (and there is a need), is the decades and centuries of structural government intervention (that most people on this forum are completely blind to, with the exception of the monetary system and possibly intellectual property) which has helped to stratify society.

This system isn't "working" for the poor people, even if the poor people get a right to vote. It's "working" for a small percent of the population which holds the majority of the power and wealth, just like feudalism. If the peasants want to rise up and take more for themselves from the lord's surplus, I'm all for it.
The problem is that the peasants never, ever rise up and take more for themselves from the lords' surplus. Instead, the lords manipulate the peasants into rising up and taking more from their slightly better off neighbors (the shrinking middle class) instead, and the process affects the economy in such a way that it results in less to go around for everyone. Plus, the bigger such a system gets, the more the lords can use to confusion and complexity to obtain the lion's share of what is taken from the middle class. This is not indefinitely sustainable of course, because eventually there will be no middle class or productivity left at all, but I think I'd prefer exiting the war of all against all in a different manner from economic exhaustion, if possible.


The superficial, simplistic understanding of the state leads to the kind of statements you see in this thread like "I don't want more people voting to rob me" etc, which totally ignores that all wealth distribution is basically the byproduct of some form of government coercion at this point. There is not a person being taxed in this thread "to fund welfare for the poor" who has not been a beneficiary of systemic government intervention into the economic system.
I think you misunderstand the "I don't want more people voting to rob me" mentality, but I just posted about that a moment ago in my last edit, and you probably didn't see it. Even aside from moral issues, the problem with welfare is that it doesn't even work in the long term. It hurts the middle class first, then the underclass too as productivity suffers, and eventually the system exhausts itself...but it only makes the string-pullers richer. I don't exactly consider that a good thing for any of us.

[RedStripe]

Could you paint me with a broad brush for a moment, and tell me how I have benefited from government intervention int he economic system?

Sure.

"Benefited" probably isn't the best word, because it implies that there is a point at which your economic reality wasn't determined, in large measure, by state "intervention" which then could be contrasted to the present.

We can start with a really extreme example. If the government of Spain had not intervened into the "exploration" market, it's likely that you wouldn't even exist and would hence have no opportunity to own anything at all. The other end of the spectrum is the very simplistic sort of causation where one might say that a particular government contract or welfare program had X effect on someone's life/wealth.

You were born into an extremely complex economic system which has evolved alongside and intertwined with various companion political systems for centuries. The character of each - the economic system and the political system - are determined largely by each other, and the complex interplay between them. I personally don't think there is really a true distinction between the two, although at the extremes they do appear to be separate and concrete.

So let's say you work at a business. The fact that there is even a market for that business (local, regional, national, international), or technology available to make the business profitable, or rules which govern business practices, or courts to arbitrate disputes according to principles which have evolved over time in the context of a particular political or economic system, or just about every other significant economic factor that exists (or doesn't exist) is influenced or caused or changed in character, to some degree or another, by some form of state intervention that could go back for hundreds of years.

There is no alternative reality where the state does not exist and a completely free market is the source of your wealth and status in society. The state isn't just a drop of ink in the glass of milk, it's the steady drip of ink into the glass for 10,000 years. You can't take a sip from that glass without getting some black on your lips.

[mczerone]

There is no alternative reality where the state does not exist and a completely free market is the source of your wealth and status in society. The state isn't just a drop of ink in the glass of milk, it's the steady drip of ink into the glass for 10,000 years. You can't take a sip from that glass without getting some black on your lips.

I love your analogy, but could we change it to blue ink? Black milk is especially repulsive and diseased-looking, while blue seems more like a simple coloring. :)

[klamath]

Sorry Crowlesy, looks like the anarchists hijacked your thread and in the process showed how little they respect private property like always.

[mczerone]

Sorry Crowlesy, looks like the anarchists hijacked your thread and in the process showed how little they respect private property like always.

Can you point to one single instance of me or Redstripe - who were simply engaging in the topic as presented by the OP - "disrespecting private property"?

I know we disagree about some ideology, but do I follow you into threads about "how the free market should solve X" and say "those limited govt folks hijacked the thread because they presented a counter argument to the topic at hand, and in the process showed how little they respect the individual will like always"?

Of course not. I am civil and open minded. Willing to debate theories when presented by means of well founded arguments and supporting evidence. I'll grant my opponent a win if they earn it, and I've actually come much closer to supporting some government because of the debates I've had here and with others.

Do you ever question yourself? Or have you just built a wall, and won't listen to the arguments or concerns of anyone who hasn't already demonstrated that they agree with you 100% of the time, and accuse those on the outside of that fictional wall of "not respecting property rights" because they don't think those rights should be defended the same way you do?

I'm 100% for property rights, and I've written a published article examining how those rights are established, and how they can be justly defended. You?

[torchbearer]

they should let the whole world vote, especially the chinese. after all, it is their money we are spending. :rolleyes:

[RedStripe]

That's my tentative belief as well, but I haven't yet given up all hope in political reform (from the bottom up at least). I'm jaded and cynical about politics, but I haven't thoroughly given up on them, and I operate under the working assumption that politics might matter in the end. I could be wrong of course, but I'm not confident about it either way. I like keeping all avenues open, I guess.

Oh, I definitely agree. I'm all for political action - I'm just not under any illusions about the prospects for fundamental reform resulting from purely political changes.

I like what Kevin Carson says about the importance of political involvement as a means of preserving the "spaces" (legally) where the alternative society can take root and grow. A perfect example of that is the internet, in my opinion. Net neutrality is an important topic, regardless of which side you take, simply for the fact that we (people interested in a liberated society) need to keep a close eye on the internet and how it could possibly be restricted by political/corporate elites.



The problem is that the peasants never, ever rise up and take more for themselves from the lords' surplus. Instead, the lords manipulate the peasants into rising up and taking more from their slightly better off neighbors (the shrinking middle class) instead, and the process affects the economy in such a way that it results in less to go around for everyone.

I don't think this is true at all. There are plenty of cases in history when the exploited masses have reached a breaking point and have "stormed the Bastille." I'm not saying it ends pretty, but it happens. And while the ruling class always attempts to manipulate the social problems created by hierarchy, it's more reactionary than proactive I think.



Plus, the bigger such a system gets, the more the lords can use to confusion and complexity to obtain the lion's share of what is taken from the middle class. This is not indefinitely sustainable of course, because eventually there will be no middle class or productivity left at all, but I think I'd prefer exiting the war of all against all in a different manner from economic exhaustion, if possible.

Yea, and at the level of complexity we have it all just becomes a big revolving door but I don't think it's fair to ask the poor people to abstain from making demands on the system while everyone else is exploiting it full steam.



I think you misunderstand the "I don't want more people voting to rob me" mentality, but I just posted about that a moment ago in my last edit, and you probably didn't see it. Even aside from moral issues, the problem with welfare is that it doesn't even work in the long term. It hurts the middle class first, then the underclass too as productivity suffers, and eventually the system exhausts itself...but it only makes the string-pullers richer. I don't exactly consider that a good thing for any of us.

I wasn't imputing that mentality to you, I was just observing how people often react to the more visible forms of government redistribution while basically ignoring the subtle (and more powerful) forms.

And yes, welfare has it's own problems. It's unsustainable, has terrible side-effects for the people it's "supposed" to help, etc. At the same time, without free market reforms to our economic system which would empower people and communities to help themselves, it's marginally necessary to continue to give single mothers food stamps so their children don't starve or become malnourished (while corporate America gives a bonus it's top employees and directors so they can give their 16 year old brats $50,000 cars).

[RedStripe]

Do you ever question yourself? Or have you just built a wall, and won't listen to the arguments or concerns of anyone who hasn't already demonstrated that they agree with you 100% of the time, and accuse those on the outside of that fictional wall of "not respecting property rights" because they don't think those rights should be defended the same way you do?

This describes a lot of people on RPF, sadly.

[zade]

Since when did Libertarianism = liberal NWO world citizen dribble! I want people like you put in a special place and never allowed to influence my children or community.

YOU, it's people like YOU that have brought this multicultural PC correct cluster fuck into this country and by God we will rout you out!

Look at it people this is what has taken this forum over!

hahahhahaha omg, so much wrong with this

[Mini-Me]

Oh, I definitely agree. I'm all for political action - I'm just not under any illusions about the prospects for fundamental reform resulting from purely political changes.

I like what Kevin Carson says about the importance of political involvement as a means of preserving the "spaces" (legally) where the alternative society can take root and grow. A perfect example of that is the internet, in my opinion. Net neutrality is an important topic, regardless of which side you take, simply for the fact that we (people interested in a liberated society) need to keep a close eye on the internet and how it could possibly be restricted by political/corporate elites.

I don't think this is true at all. There are plenty of cases in history when the exploited masses have reached a breaking point and have "stormed the Bastille." I'm not saying it ends pretty, but it happens. And while the ruling class always attempts to manipulate the social problems created by hierarchy, it's more reactionary than proactive I think.
The masses have reached a breaking point and "stormed the Bastille" before, but this has never been done by empowering the state welfare system. The welfare system itself is one of the ruling class's manipulations, and whether it's proactive or reactive, it's both clever and effective: It manipulates the masses into voting for an expansion of the very system that is impoverishing them, under the pretense that this expansion will benefit them.

Speaking more generally, the masses will never be able to vote themselves the wealth of the lords. The only way for voting to ever have a positive long-term effect is if a large enough proportion of voters wisen up, stop voting for their perceived immediate interests, and start voting to dismantle the state. Coming back to the subject at hand, I tend to think expanding the voting pool to include aliens is much more likely to hurt than help in that regard, practically speaking.


Yea, and at the level of complexity we have it all just becomes a big revolving door but I don't think it's fair to ask the poor people to abstain from making demands on the system while everyone else is exploiting it full steam.
The insidious thing here is that the poor are not the ones who ultimately benefit from these demands anyway, in the long term. They are led to believe they will, which is why they make the demands in the first place, but when that only strengthens the system of control and tightens the vice of scarcity, it's in all of our best interests to fight against this.


I wasn't imputing that mentality to you, I was just observing how people often react to the more visible forms of government redistribution while basically ignoring the subtle (and more powerful) forms.
Don't worry, I wasn't taking offense. I only meant to defend Cowlesy to the extent that [I think] I understand his position, assuming he meant things the way I would if I had said the same thing.


And yes, welfare has it's own problems. It's unsustainable, has terrible side-effects for the people it's "supposed" to help, etc. At the same time, without free market reforms to our economic system which would empower people and communities to help themselves, it's marginally necessary to continue to give single mothers food stamps so their children don't starve or become malnourished (while corporate America gives a bonus it's top employees and directors so they can give their 16 year old brats $50,000 cars).
I think the disconnect here is that you see the poor voting for food stamps for themselves in isolation...whereas I see them simultaneously casting a vote for the same system that is giving corporate America a bonus to its top employees and directors so they can give their 16 year old brats $50,000 cars. I see the two ends of the welfare system as one and the same, because they're irrevocably intertwined and married to each other. The voting bloc that unwittingly enables the latter is the same one that enables the former. The bigger issue is not where the money goes, but that almost everyone is voting to empower the apparatus that facilitates them both. That is to say, when you vote for the welfare state, you empower and strengthen it, but you still have no real control over how it is used. That will always be determined by our "masters," regardless of who is being manipulated into voting more of that power into their hands. I'm not referring exclusively to Democrats and liberals, but to anyone and everyone who votes against liberty candidates and issues. There may be a difference in degree between the average Democrat (supports welfare, bailouts, and the MIC 75%) and the average Republican (supports welfare and bailouts 50% and the MIC 110%), and they're each more foolish than the other in different ways, but I'm pretty pissed over both. ;)

[aravoth]

There is no alternative reality where the state does not exist and a completely free market is the source of your wealth and status in society. The state isn't just a drop of ink in the glass of milk, it's the steady drip of ink into the glass for 10,000 years. You can't take a sip from that glass without getting some black on your lips.

Yes, but you can get your milk from somewhere else. Every so often in human history people have thrown off the chains. I simply can't accept that state intervention and corporate fascism are here to bind humanity forever. My Kids deserve better than that.

I thought that was why we were all here, to get involved, run for office, write books, write articles, make movies, do whatever we can when we can to advance the ideas of individual liberty, and educate people about the owner of the free market.

[osan]

Sending absentee ballots to China is next.

Why not? In for a penny, in for a pound. No sense in going only half insane, right?

[klamath]

Can you point to one single instance of me or Redstripe - who were simply engaging in the topic as presented by the OP - "disrespecting private property"?

I know we disagree about some ideology, but do I follow you into threads about "how the free market should solve X" and say "those limited govt folks hijacked the thread because they presented a counter argument to the topic at hand, and in the process showed how little they respect the individual will like always"?

Of course not. I am civil and open minded. Willing to debate theories when presented by means of well founded arguments and supporting evidence. I'll grant my opponent a win if they earn it, and I've actually come much closer to supporting some government because of the debates I've had here and with others.

Do you ever question yourself? Or have you just built a wall, and won't listen to the arguments or concerns of anyone who hasn't already demonstrated that they agree with you 100% of the time, and accuse those on the outside of that fictional wall of "not respecting property rights" because they don't think those rights should be defended the same way you do?

I'm 100% for property rights, and I've written a published article examining how those rights are established, and how they can be justly defended. You?

Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this forum is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
Because Josh and Brian paid for the server space to elect RP through the voting process and to BUILD voting coalitions that would restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property. Josh has made it very clear this is for democratic electoral actions. Josh and Brian bought the server space as their private property and set the rules of what they wanted this private property to accomplish- Build voting blocks that elect RP like candidates. When people come on and refuse to accept that and trample on Josh and Brian's intent you have no respect for private property. You are free to pay for your own private property server space and set the rules on what kind of activities you want there and live in peaceful coexistence with these forums.
I do not go on a democratic site made to elect democrats, and bash democrats. I respect their private property. I have the right still on the internet to start my own site bashing democrats and promoting electing republicans and I should have the right to ban anyone that is posting contrary to my goals on the server space I paid for. People that truely believe that government should be gone and people should completely voluntarily get along should never have to be banned for violating and disrespecting someone elses private property. They should voluntarily leave and promote THEIR ideas on a like minded forum they or someone else has bought the server space for.
Is the forum here to promote the vote or not to vote? It is to promote the VOTE- res judicata

[Anti Federalist]

You can call it luddite, reactionary, whatever...I am no longer going to just let these people find ways to confiscate more of what I work for, or drive my nation further into fiscal decline.

Nicely put.

The separation that is occurring here, in this thread and others, all revolves around one single word, "nation" and one question:

Does a nation need to exist?

I have considered and pondered this question at length.

I have come to the conclusion that a nation is still needed and serves a necessary function.

A truly stateless world would devolve into a corporate "Borg Hive" tyranny in a generation, maybe less.

[mczerone]

Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this forum is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
Because Josh and Brian paid for the server space to elect RP through the voting process and to BUILD voting coalitions that would restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property. Josh has made it very clear this is for democratic electoral actions. Josh and Brian bought the server space as their private property and set the rules of what they wanted this private property to accomplish- Build voting blocks that elect RP like candidates. When people come on and refuse to accept that and trample on Josh and Brian's intent you have no respect for private property. You are free to pay for your own private property server space and set the rules on what kind of activities you want there and live in peaceful coexistence with these forums.
I do not go on a democratic site made to elect democrats, and bash democrats. I respect their private property. I have the right still on the internet to start my own site bashing democrats and promoting electing republicans and I should have the right to ban anyone that is posting contrary to my goals on the server space I paid for. People that truely believe that government should be gone and people should completely voluntarily get along should never have to be banned for violating and disrespecting someone elses private property. They should voluntarily leave and promote THEIR ideas on a like minded forum they or someone else has bought the server space for.
Is the forum here to promote the vote or not to vote? It is to promote the VOTE- res judicata

Well, it's been fun RPFs.

I'll never question the validity of a "sovereign ... Republic" or question the morality, efficiency, or inherent philosophy of the "democratic electoral action[]."

And I won't point out that some of "the Founders" had little respect for private property, or that the Constitution itself is an injustice.

I'll retain my membership, I may comment on some news items or offer advice consistent with the mission statement. I'll be back when the grassroots initiatives are looking to campaign for RP in 2012.