Eh, taken to the extreme, if no one voted then the whole media circus that is "the electoral process" ceases to mean anything. The system is based on CONSENT. For better or worse, voting is consent to whatever the outcome brings.
Printable View
WORSE, WE SEE POTUS MIKE PENCE ASKING HIM TO BE THE VEEP ON THE FALL 2020 GOP TICKET, AFTER TEFLON DONNIE RETIRES FROM PUBLIC LIFE. Doctor Rand seyz YES, Pence then resigns in February of 2021, after issuing a slew of POTUS pardons for the den of thieves around Donald Trump, but he does not break ole Andy Johnson's Reconstruction era record for the same! The swamp is undrained but Doctor Rand likes living up to campaign promises. This is the fastest and easiest route for RAND. Inside a yellow dawg Democrat year... the GOP can be stampeded on...
Not participating and therefore not giving it legitimacy is rebelling. The entire structure depends on the masses lending legitimacy to the system by buying into it. At the end of the day, politicians have only as much power as they are given by the masses. A governor, for example as a "TPTB", is just some dude sitting in an office if no one pays him any attention or cares what he has to say. He loses all power over the people then. Legislation is just words on paper if no one follows them. I'm not advocating one way or the other, just stating that not voting, taken to the extreme of everyone ceasing to participate, is the highest form of non-violent rebellion.
And all this assumes one believes that voting matters in the first place. My state doesn't allow any sort of verification/auditing of voting machine election totals. The results are literally what they tell us they are and fuck you if you want to see for yourself.
You are changing what we are talking about, if you are engaging in civil disobedience then you are rebelling (in an ineffective manner) and you don't fall into the categories I discussed of wolf among the sheep or useful idiot, however you are forgetting that the powers that be also have the power that proceeds out of the barrel of a gun, most people WILL cooperate with them unless they are defeated on the battlefield or replaced through the ballot box.
That is a serious problem that may require civil disobedience and protests to change, until it is changed it may be pointless to vote in your state.
Sorry, that doesn't follow. Let's say Ron Paul lied, cheated, blackmailed, etc. himself into the presidency. Why should he then turn into a Communist because of it? Would you have rather had a Ron Paul presidency by any means necessary or no Ron Paul presidency because he was "honorable?" The stakes are too high to not use the enemy's tactics against them.
Race, IQ, cultural compatibility, voting habits, crime rates, welfare use, etc. Would it be good for Japan to become, let's say, 40% Mexican? Is California better off now than when it was 90+% White European?Quote:
Also, Hoppe is wrong. Which isn't surprising. He is perhaps the worst "libertarian" theorist of any notoriety active today. If you want something actually useful on teh subject: https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/...n-immigration/
https://i.imgur.com/lpRAHgc.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/gkrsgak.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/SFvrj89.png
https://i.imgur.com/9qpJT7y.png
https://i.imgur.com/6PkkuOo.jpg
If Ron Paul lied about his beliefs and misled the public then he would not be Ron Paul and he would not be the kind of man that would try and decrease the power of the State.
The kind of man that would do that is by nature a tyrant just waiting for power and any idiot voting for him is nothing but a fool. You're the one being lied to, not the government bureaucrats. If you use the enemy's tactics the you are the enemy. Only a Communist, Socialist, or equally detestable person untrustworthy with power would even consider the idea.
LOL. Vox Day. Talk about following an idiot. You've been really drinking the Kool-Aid, haven't you?
IQ is largely a delusion. And even if it wasn't it wouldn't matter. Stupid people have all the same rights you do.
That you want to take away their rights because of something so weak and ephemeral as an "IQ" test just tells me you're a tinpot tyrant yourself.Quote:
However, so far I have never talked to someone who obsessed over the alleged difference in average IQs between races, who didn’t also have an immoral authoritarian agenda they were trying to justify. And so far, every one began by denying having such an agenda, only to later demonstrate that they did.
Because, you see, the concepts of self-ownership and non-aggression don’t have an IQ threshold. “Oops, your IQ is only 70, so it’s okay for you to be enslaved or otherwise violently victimized.” No, it doesn’t work that way.
Oddly, a lot of people who oppose race-based injustice and victimization still get duped into arguing about statistics and studies, as if that is what matters. Instead, whether they want to argue about the data or not, anyone who actually values freedom and justice should begin and end such a discussion by pointing out that, when it comes using state coercion, it doesn't matter what the IQ of any group, or any individual, is. Aggression is wrong, against smart people, against stupid people, against all people. (And how stupid does someone have to be to not understand that?)
There is nothing new about the irrational and immoral notion that, if some categories of humans can be deemed “inferior,” then those categories don’t have to be treated the same way as the “superior” categories. And the agenda might not be something as openly horrendous as genocide or enslavement; it might be something along the lines of, “Well then our immigration policies should favor this group over that group.” But that still means initiating violence based on statistical patterns and probabilities, rather than using force only to defend against actual individual aggressors.
And just as this applies to IQs, it also applies when it comes to crime statistics. If Demographic Group A can be shown to, on average, commit violent crime at twice the rate of Demographic Group B, what does that mean? Does it mean that it’s okay to lock up, or otherwise initiate violence, against everyone who belongs to Demographic Group A, based upon what we think some of them might later do? Of course not. Again, knowing what the statistics are can be useful for trying to understand and solve problems, but never by mistreating individuals based on their categorization, by race, or nationality, or sex, or age, or anything else.
So no, when people harp on IQ as it relates to race, rarely are they “just being scientific.” Usually they are doing the collectivist, pack-mentality routine of trying to concoct an excuse to use authoritarian coercion again some other group of people, for the benefit of their own group. Ironically, these same people are usually the loudest to condemn communism, and the most eager to apply the “communist” label to anyone who doesn’t agree with them—despite the fact that they are just one more flavor of authoritarian, collectivist statist, and share a lot in common with communists. (Even the Nazis were, after all, national socialists.)
The principles of self-ownership and non-aggression do not change based upon race, or place of birth, or sex, or wealth, or education level, or IQ. When it comes to the “political” realm, voluntaryism is (by definition) the only truly tolerant position one can take, and no amount of attempted rationalizations, or appeals to “necessity” or “practicality,” or “scientific studies,” will ever change that. I own me, and you own you. That is, and will always be, the primary and fundamental starting point for a moral, rational society.
https://steemkr.com/anarchy/@larkenr...-and-then-what
Race absolutely is a delusion. As a very white, blonde, blue eyed man, people afraid that their precious white daughter might marry a "horrible" black man, or Heaven forbid, a Mexican (!) are just ridiculous. They labor under the delusion that 1. there is any race but the human race and 2. that there are such things as "pure" races when there are not and never have been. Go back far enough and we're all African. But more than that, racial intermixing has been one of the constants of human history. The concept of "white" and "black" as racial identifiers as we understand it now was only invented beginning in the late 1700s and really only solidified in the 1920s. Before, during, and sense people have intermixed all across the globe. All people are multinational and multiracial.
https://www.cwu.edu/diversity/sites/.../whiteness.pdf
A better predictor or criminality isn't race but poverty. White people in poverty act the same way poor black people do. And when you alleviate poverty people stop committing crimes with racial difference. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf
Which explains why black people commit more crimes. One, certain laws, like the War on Drugs, were created specifically to attack and destroy black communities for doing things like using drugs.
Meaning of course that the government specifically set out to destroy black people and impoverish their communities, communities that had only gained the freedom to actually compete on the market to improve their lives. Segregation ended just over 50 years ago, not even a lifetime to build up wealth and restore a people broken by government violence. And all that time they've been fighting another struggle against the State in the form of the War on Drugs, meant to prevent them from being able to get ahead.Quote:
John Ehrlichman, counsel and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under Nixon, in the latest issue of Harper's is one of those moments.
The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikshe.../#7f3ae0e542c8
So, you want to make America better? Restore the greatest engine in human history to do that - the free market system. Free market capitalism destroys poverty, increases the standard of living for everyone involved, and does it without caring whether you're black or white. Which of course is why Progressives such as yourself have always hated the free market, it disproves your entire system and you can't handle that.
Oh, and as for California, considering the people who initiated its slide into socialism were, and a majority still are, white people, blaming Mexicans or anyone else for its problems is just stupid. The problem in California, as everywhere else, is the State. Not immigrants.
If no one voted in this country any more, yet some group still insisted on trying imposing their will, even after everyone had rejected that structure, it would result in overt totalitarian conditions and that's not a good move in a country with 300 million guns, unless that group had a death wish. The reason those 300m haven't been used is because people mentally "invest" themselves into the outcomes of elections by voting, with the gracious "help" of the media, of course. Once one is invested in the outcome they have consented to whatever the outcome results in. Everything that happens after that becomes a giant PR game.
You can still be a libertarian and also be willing do whatever necessary to attain power. Libertarians fail precisely because of attitudes like yours. Your holier than thou attitude is a weakness. I would rather have us actually achieve a libertarian society rather than talk about it ad nauseam.
Here's all the data, but it's not all just about IQ. It's about the right of Whites to not be displaced in their own countries.Quote:
LOL. Vox Day. Talk about following an idiot. You've been really drinking the Kool-Aid, haven't you?
IQ is largely a delusion. And even if it wasn't it wouldn't matter. Stupid people have all the same rights you do
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/...ere-all-white/
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/05/11/fiscal-impact-of-whites-blacks-and-hispanics/
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/...c-immigration/
Race is very real.Quote:
That you want to take away their rights because of something so weak and ephemeral as an "IQ" test just tells me you're a tinpot tyrant yourself.
Race absolutely is a delusion. As a very white, blonde, blue eyed man, people afraid that their precious white daughter might marry a "horrible" black man, or Heaven forbid, a Mexican (!) are just ridiculous. They labor under the delusion that 1. there is any race but the human race and 2. that there are such things as "pure" races when there are not and never have been. Go back far enough and we're all African. But more than that, racial intermixing has been one of the constants of human history. The concept of "white" and "black" as racial identifiers as we understand it now was only invented beginning in the late 1700s and really only solidified in the 1920s. Before, during, and sense people have intermixed all across the globe. All people are multinational and multiracial.
https://www.cwu.edu/diversity/sites/.../whiteness.pdf
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/...ific-category/
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/...016/04/15/329/
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/...so-not-racial/
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/...between-races/
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/...ial-construct/
Wrong.Quote:
A better predictor or criminality isn't race but poverty. White people in poverty act the same way poor black people do. And when you alleviate poverty people stop committing crimes with racial difference. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf
https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordp...-by-economics/
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/...rty-and-crime/
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/...q-and-poverty/
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/...it-more-crime/
https://i.imgur.com/HBiBLKr.png
Ending the War on Drugs would help the situation.Quote:
Which explains why black people commit more crimes. One, certain laws, like the War on Drugs, were created specifically to attack and destroy black communities for doing things like using drugs.
Meaning of course that the government specifically set out to destroy black people and impoverish their communities, communities that had only gained the freedom to actually compete on the market to improve their lives. Segregation ended just over 50 years ago, not even a lifetime to build up wealth and restore a people broken by government violence. And all that time they've been fighting another struggle against the State in the form of the War on Drugs, meant to prevent them from being able to get ahead.
Agreed on free market capitalism. However, racial diversity and multiculturalism are not strengths. They instead breed antagonism and conflict. In fact, you are the Leftist on this matter. Your egalitarianism is misguided. You also ignored all those other factors I mentioned. Any person that votes for a non-libertarian leaning candidate is essentially an enemy of liberty. Some do have the potential to be converted, but it is difficult, as most of us are aware. Even if you don't care about race or culture at all, by having an open border policy, you are letting in millions of liberty's enemies. You are greatly increasing the amount conversion work we have to do.Quote:
So, you want to make America better? Restore the greatest engine in human history to do that - the free market system. Free market capitalism destroys poverty, increases the standard of living for everyone involved, and does it without caring whether you're black or white. Which of course is why Progressives such as yourself have always hated the free market, it disproves your entire system and you can't handle that.
Oh, and as for California, considering the people who initiated its slide into socialism were, and a majority still are, white people, blaming Mexicans or anyone else for its problems is just stupid. The problem in California, as everywhere else, is the State. Not immigrants.
To think that White Americans and Mestizo Mexicans are interchangeable, that you could swap the populations and both countries would remain the same, is absolutely delusional. The people define a country as much as its political institutions do. Would Japan be better off if it was 40% Mexican? Would it ever be in the best interest of Japanese Asians to become a minority in their own country? Another thing you need to consider is that most of the libertarians behind the idea of unrestricted immigration were Jewish immigrants. Can you think of any reason why Jews would be in favor of unrestricted immigration?
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/...vote-democrat/
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/...ne-of-america/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol6GA4dMZw4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7YzrbeLbJE
https://i.imgur.com/eaXC4Jh.png
https://i.imgur.com/jbOKsfm.jpg
There are enough oligarchs and their family, friends, employees and camp followers who will always vote to make a fig-leaf of a popular mandate to legitimize the government in the eyes of the sheeple.
Even if voting was somehow abolished most of the sheeple don't vote because they don't care who rules them and they would support the government if the only change from current conditions was an end of voting, they are too devoted to "law and order".
Non-voting has not accomplished anything and it never will.
Post sliding 101^^^
Rand Paul. An ophthalmology surgeon. 2020. "Helping America gain its vision back."
A Presidential campaign is too fitting for him to pass up. :D