Rockwell:
Great News From the 2014 Elections
Two-thirds of the people eligible to vote didn’t. Since only 1/3 of the people voted for the regime, shouldnt it be democratically dissolved? And notice that we have to go to Al Jazzeera to get the truth. The cheerleading State media of the US are silent.
2/3 of electorate: Resistance is futile.
1/6 of electorate: I hate Obama.
1/6 of electorate: I hate Republicans.
When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6
Yep.Originally Posted by green73
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
“The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner
tldr; when the process fails you, just start it again and hope for the best. Y'know, it might work this time.?
"The system is corrupt, beyond redemption, and is not worthy of my support."
what if there was an election and no one showed up to vote?
what if there were taxes and no one paid them?
what if there was a war and no one showed up to fight?
Then there would be no war. The people that usually want war (including the part-time interventionists on this forum) are rarely the ones who actually have to go fight them.
Better than the alternative.
Re-set the clock to zero and start over.
Yes, but not ideal. What is the point of starting a new government? We already know how it will end.
Story time!
The Tale That Might Be Told
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com...t-be-told.html
Perhaps they will recount the tale many years from now. Perhaps an old man or woman will tell the grandchildren the story once more, as they try to speed the descent of peaceful rest. It's one of the children's favorite stories.
Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
--Albert J. Nock
Hilary told me that no difference is made!
"One thing my years in Washington taught me is that most politicians are followers, not leaders. Therefore we should not waste time and resources trying to educate politicians. Politicians will not support individual liberty and limited government unless and until they are forced to do so by the people," says Ron Paul."
I pray for the day when humanity looks at government with the same disgust that it does at (mostly) slavery, human sacrifice and genocide.
I don't think we're there yet.
But a re-set of this regime would certainly help that along.
I love it! May I borrow?
Viable solutions are impossible from within the system, because the system is the problem.
"One thing my years in Washington taught me is that most politicians are followers, not leaders. Therefore we should not waste time and resources trying to educate politicians. Politicians will not support individual liberty and limited government unless and until they are forced to do so by the people," says Ron Paul."
I didn't vote.
Reported.
"One thing my years in Washington taught me is that most politicians are followers, not leaders. Therefore we should not waste time and resources trying to educate politicians. Politicians will not support individual liberty and limited government unless and until they are forced to do so by the people," says Ron Paul."
Good on you, comrade. If you ever just want lolz with it, do "unvoting" as I do. That is, write in imaginary candidates in every office. I'm still hoping Mr Giggles gets an honorable mention somewhere in AZ media.
Come on, you can do better than Mr. Giggles. At least go for something dirty like Mike Hunt, Seymour Butts, or Dr. T Sanchez.
I did that for some others. I was just giving an example. I should be more creative next time, though. I was feeling rather lazy about it this year. :/Come on, you can do better than Mr. Giggles. At least go for something dirty like Mike Hunt, Seymour Butts, or Dr. T Sanchez.
$#@!, now I feel bad for voting. I wanted to vote against my congress critter so I feel good about that part.
I honestly just didn't think to register. I'm busy and there wasn't really anyone worth voting for. If I had been registered I would probably have just voted for all the Libertarian candidates and used write-ins where there were none.
I voted. I recently moved and there were 3 referendums to raise taxes. 3!!
They were all voted down.
Didn't really care one way or the other about the politicians. Threw a couple votes the LP's way and did some fun write-in stuff that someone might enjoy.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
Some people realize that there will in fact be people elected.
Whether you want there to be government or not.
You're just an idiot if you think that there is no difference at all between all candidates for all offices in all respects.
And that 1/3d number certainly does not apply for my state, Maine. I suspect that it's just completely wrong.
If my state is clearly over 1/3d, and it definitely is - what are the sub 1/3d states?
Maine was at least 56.4% - assuming that every Mainer 18+ is eligible to vote, and we know that's not the case.
Persons under 18 years, percent, 2013
maine - 19.7%
US - 23.3%
Maine - under 18 = 19.7%
maine population = 1,328,302
maine under 18 population = 261675
1,066,627 - max eligible to vote.
601,697 - voters so far
56.4% - at least - of the eligible voters voted
People who don't like government not voting just means that the people who do like government win.
I'd rather have the people who like Ron Paul voting than the people who like Ron Paul not voting.
If not voting means that the laws don't apply to you, great. Apparently a lot of people seem to think that it works that way. But it doesn't.
So, all you are doing is getting the shttier version by not showing up to vote for the slightly less shtty version.
I only voted in the election because the ballot questions in New Jersey. Especially Number 1:
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A COURT TO ORDER PRETRIAL DETENTION OF A PERSON IN A CRIMINAL CASE
DO YOU APPROVE AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW A COURT TO ORDER PRETRIAL DETENTION OF A PERSON IN A CRIMINAL CASE? THIS WOULD CHANGE THE
CURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BAIL.
THE CHANGE TO THE CONSTITUTION WOULD MEAN THAT A COURT COULD ORDER THAT A PERSON REMAIN IN JAIL PRIOR TO TRIAL, EVEN WITHOUT A CHANCE FOR THE
PERSON TO POST BAIL, IN SOME SITUATIONS.THE AMENDMENT ALSO REMOVES LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION ABOUT BAIL ELIGIBILITY FOR DEATH PENALTY CASES. THE DEATH PENALTY NO LONGER EXISTS INNEW JERSEY.THE CONSTITUTION CURRENTLY REQUIRES A COURT TO GRANT BAIL TO A JAILED PERSON IN A CRIMINAL CASE BEFORE TRIAL. IF THE PERSON POSTS BAIL, THE PERSON IS RELEASED FROM JAIL PENDING TRIAL.
THE AMENDMENT WOULD GIVE A COURT THE OPTION OF ORDERING A PERSON TO REMAIN IN JAIL IN SOME SITUATIONS. THE COURT COULD ORDER SUCH DETENTION
BASED UPON CONCERNS THAT THE PERSON, IF RELEASED: WILL NOT RETURN TO COURT; IS A THREAT TO THE SAFETY OF ANOTHER PERSON OR THE COMMUNITY; OR
WILL OBSTRUCT OR ATTEMPT TO OBSTRUCT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS.
THE AMENDMENT AUTHORIZES THE LEGISLATURE TO PASS LAWS CONCERNING PRETRIAL RELEASE AND PRETRIAL DETENTION. THE AMENDMENT WOULD TAKE
EFFECT ON JANUARY 1, 2017 TO ALLOW ANY NEW LAWS TO BE ENACTED AND THEIR REQUIREMENTS TO BE ESTABLISHED.
THE AMENDMENT WOULD ALSO REMOVE LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION ABOUT BAIL ELIGIBILITY FOR DEATH PENALTY CASES. THE DEATH PENALTY NO LONGER
EXISTS IN NEW JERSEY.
Source: http://www.state.nj.us/state/electio...question-1.pdf
Oh. It passed:
Yes: 850,085
No: 528, 438
The Voluntary Exchange Podcast
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain"
"I want to be President, not because I want to run your lives. I don't want to run the economy, and I don't want to run the world. I want to be President to restore liberty."
"The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft"
"My name is George. I'm unemployed and live with my parents."
Problem with this argument is that "$#@!ty v $#@!tier" is a lose-win (we lose, they and their cronies/welfare recipients win) proposition-not in the rational self interest of very many people.
Don't feel bad for voting.
The anti-voting arguments being used are idiocy.
Politicians will be elected whether you like it or not.
And most (at least many) of us here would vote for "no government" if it was a choice. But it isn't a choice. There will be policians elected.
And if you think that there are no differences between D and R, you're an idiot.
People can say 100 different things which are similar to "they're the same" - and they could be right - but they're not the same.
We can wish that Ds and Rs did things the way we want them to. And they don't. And we can list 100 different ways in which Ds and Rs
don't do what we want, and that they're in agreement with each other, and not with us. All true.
But it doesn't mean that Ds and Rs are the same. At all. We're still going to be governed by those fkers, and not voting for them doesn't mean that we aren't governed by them.
What are you talking about?
No one is saying that you're going a nice prize for voting.
You're simply going in there and picking a less shtty politician. In my case, there were choices I found not shtty, but good, but even so, even if all the choices were shtty, if I could find the differences, could identify the less shtty, I'd be voting.
Because it most definitely is in your rational self-interest to pick the less shtty choice.
I'm not saying that shtty does not = shtty - but that there will be someone elected, and the less shtty version is better than the more shtty version.
And it's in everyone's rational self-interest for things to be less shtty than more shtty.
Oh bull$#@!. You're just not paying attention. The difference is a matter of such infinitesimal degrees that even at a tree-level view they're indistinguishable. And that's just from a practical standpoint. From a philosophical standpoint there is objectively NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER, IN REAL TERMS.
EVERY SINGLE DAY THAT PASSES WITH ONE OF THESE SO CALLED PARTIES IN CHARGE AMOUNTS TO SOME GREATER DISTANCE BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR GOD-GIVEN INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY. PERIOD. FULL STOP.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us