Ken:
From the last thread, your last comment contained a clever sounding quote against the idea of voting. Could you elaborate? I mean what is his suggestion? Overturn the system? Which system does he think works better?
Here is the comment Sy refers to:
We have all heard the mantra before: "If you don't vote, you can't complain." Well I disagree, I think it's just the opposite: "If you vote, you can't complain." By voting, you are legitimizing the system. You are giving your stamp of approval that you will accept the outcome because you agreed to it. If it does not turn out like you had hoped, you have no right to complain, because that would make you a sore loser.
Whenever I am in hot debate with the neurologically challenged, I have found this to be a good example: If I were having lunch with you, and in the middle of lunch I were to stand up and announce to everyone in the restaurant that you were buying everyone's lunch, I am sure you would take issue with that. What about if I agreed to put it up for a vote, would that make it fair? If you agree to accept the result, then you are therefore legitimizing it, and agreeing to the outcome.
On the other hand, if you were to say it is not up for a vote, I am not buying; I don't care what everyone else thinks, well then you would have every right to complain if I tried to coerce you into paying. By not agreeing to participate in the vote, you have not legitimized it, and therefore have every right to complain, and should. The sheep cannot seem to grasp this concept.
- Mike Wasdin
Sy, I won't venture to speak for him; he's a libertarian anarchist. I can speak for myself. Like most of us, I'm frustrated with the path our self-serving, dumb and dishonest political leaders drag us. I'd like to live a sane life in a mad world. I'm sick of voting for candidates who are only slightly less odious than the other. What real difference will it make if we live under King Obama or King McCain?
On a daily basis, I ponder what the rational and constructive course of action, given our circumstances, would look like. There are varying conceptions of reality and we should focus on our immediate sphere of influence: family and community.
In one of my books, I flippantly created The Sovereign Union of Vagabonds who operate as if the inept corruptness of political life does not exist. They operate on a different plane within society, like the Amish.
Here is the SUV Code of Conduct:
1. Perform a daily Random Act of Kindness (RAK).
2. Recognize that evil people are your enemy.
3. Recognize that you are what you do.
4. Remember that there are larger forces at work in your life.
5. You cannot wear the medallion and bear the mark unless you take the pledge and keep your affiliation in good standing.
6. Keep yourself physically fit.
7. Embrace a continuous quest to increase your knowledge.
8. Tell the truth or remain silent: inaccuracy is sin.
9. Do the logical and right thing 95% of the time.
10. Never stop seeking, but recognize that the essential purpose of life is unknowable. Have faith that good works have value.
I wonder if the world would be improved if the SUVs really existed?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 9
The Amish have managed to sustain their drop out culture, and there remain many other mostly religious groups who have done so. Of course, these people (remember the women of the weird polygamous Mormon cult?) tend to be the opposite of libertarian, and instead are generally enslaved to a leader or an agenda.
If you dont go the route of the Branch Davidians or some other drop out group, and want to be free, independent and responsible for your actions, you are going to have to live in a society like ours. And that requires some sacrifice of total freedom. To me, total freedom is a myth. I dont like going through the metal detector in the airport, but I do because if I want to travel I have to.
I dont like paying so much of my money in taxes. ITs my money why cant I keep it all? Because then who pays the teachers, police, soldiers, etc.? Pure capitalism, pure greed, pure free market, even pure freedom is a myth, like pure anything. If everyone paid for only what they used, and we turned our society into a collection of individuals with no commons, no government, no cities (because this kind of pure self sufficiecny thing only works in rural areas, with plenty of land) it would be only a matter of time before absolute chaos ruled the day.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! So darn funny, yet so true.
I agree Sy, total freedom is a myth. There's always accountability, in some way or another--answering to someone else. Of course the set of laws this country was built on not only allows, but encourages that accountability because we as a society need that. We need order and structure to function as a society. Yes, there are those that would do the right thing regardless of the law encouraging it--charities and such, but the many wouldn't. The founding laws focus us on the 'common'. Where these men came from, the common good of the people was not a normal consideration.
I have no problem with my tax money going for teachers paychecks or for building new schools, supplies for schools, etc; IF those funds are actually and solely used for that purpose. For example, lottery ticket sales in some states were allegedly put into place to fund schools and education. If funds were actually used as they were proposed, we wouldn't have a deficit of supplies, programs, or school buildings. We wouldn't have to settle for teachers of lessor abilities because the school system could afford.
Within our communities, there are special meetings for allocating extra funds out of taxes for something special needed by the local school system, police, and fire departments. We vote to put it on the ballot for local elections.
In my opinion, whereas many forms of government appear to work well in theory for the good of all, in reality they don't. Given the choices, and despite the flaws, the form of government this country uses offers the best at this time.
I don't see any evidence that societies evolve toward rationality. They decay until revolution (breakdown) occurs.
I'm not suggesting we isolate ourselves from society and its benefits. I'm suggesting there are observable examples of living a good life within the system, while ignoring or rejecting the worst of the madness. Like rubbing oil on a body and so it easily slips through the greedy fingers of the nanny state. Figuratively speaking, of course. As I think about it, this is what all of my books have been about.
Claire Wolfe: Become an outlaw. I hate to say that. But it’s totally useless to attempt to work within the system when there are so many laws being passed, so many regulations being promulgated, so many databases being created, so many surveillance methods being set up, so many agencies snooping into our lives – and all of it being engineered so quickly and covertly that even dedicated activists often don't learn about it until months after it's been accomplished. I think the only tactics that will work are guerilla tactics. Refuse to cooperate. Lie, stonewall, do whatever you have to do to keep yourself out of the databases, or to screw up the databases. Break the surveillance equipment. Don't get a regular job; work only for cash. Make the lives of the invaders miserable. Of course, I can’t recommend – this is important – I can’t recommend that people do illegal things. I simply don’t think anything else is going to be effective. In I am Not a Number (currently out of print 3-14-2000) I make the assumption that so many people are eventually going to rebel against this kind of tracking and control that we're going to have a vast network of underground communities, providing their own jobs, medical care, security, food and services. It's too late to try to fight this within the system. If we oppose these intrusions, we must begin to prepare NOW for the day when we won't be able to conduct our daily lives without our social security-based "internal passport" - our national ID drivers license.