Political Activism vs Apathy?

A friend of an online friend accused me of being apathetic because I don't care to fight for truth and justice in the political arena. Here's what I have to say on that topic.

My argument with all of this political crap is this: if we want a world that is a fair world, we should start out by being fair in our own dealings. If we don't want to be bullied by a big government, we should start by not bullying those around us.

And, since you have taken it upon yourself to try and stir people to action by accusing them of apathy, I feel the need to reply to that blanket accusation.

When someone disagrees with your point, and when you answer "you are apathetic" or "you have given up", that is NOT an argument. It's better called a "guilt trip". There are some interesting arguments about how to better the world, but replacing logical argument with rhetoric and name-calling isn't one of them.

Like most internet arguments where we argue with faceless "rivals", I might come off as very harsh. So, I apologize for that. I don't mean to attack mistaken people, I want to attack mistaken ideas.

Like many people, I have strong opinions about politics. Unlike many people, I think joining the game of politics to change our political problems is not a good idea.

I didn't always feel this way. As recently as the year 2000, I was on the ballot as Libertarian Party candidate for Michigan Representative of District 88, running against the incumbent Patty Birkholz. I received the most votes of any LP State Rep candidate that year - thanks to having no Democratic rival. :-) I was also on the ballot in 1994 and 1996 running for Allegan County Commissioner. I also worked on many other political campaigns and party events. I co-founded and chaired the Libertarian Party affiliate for Allegan County.

But I've learned a lot, and I'm not afraid to say when I'm wrong. I haven't "given up", I've learned to stop spinning my wheels. A great quote is, "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you always got." A sure sign of insanity is trying to get different results by repeating the same action.

Politics got us into this mess. In the past year, I've read 3 books (1,2,3), and listened to a 4-volume audio-book, about the years leading up to the American Revolution. It's obvious from studying this history that the common people were left out of the political process, as they are left out today.

That whole "We the People are the Government" and "you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem" mantra is nothing but political theater. That mindless chant keeps the tax slaves fighting amongst themselves, instead of attacking the cultural ideas that create this system that has its boot on all of our throats. Naturally, you don't hear these ideas suggested in government schools or pop media.

You said, "It all needs fixed first by not allowing attorneys to hold a voting position in government . it is a conflict of interest, and should be out lawed . then we could get laws thru to limit law suits on medical and this would bring insurance rates down for the consumer. this is only a fraction of what needs done."

So we need more stupid laws to fix our problem of "too many stupid laws"? I don't think so.

As far as a "conflict of interest", I'm with you on that. Everything in the government is a "conflict of interest". The Executive Branch employs tens of thousands of bureaucrats who push unfunded mandates, stupid rules, and taxes on us little guys. And if you have a problem, you can sue in Federal Court. Good luck; the Dept of Justice is part of the Executive Branch, and Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the Executive Branch.

And, even when you have Democrat politicos fighting Republican politicos, they are very careful not to set too many precedents that might blow back in their face after the next election changes the powers-that-be at the top of the Federal Gov't. As for the US Congress; those congress-critters are mainly good at dodging responsibility, so most of them "go along to get along". They kick and scream about the legislation getting pushed by the other side of the aisle, but then they offer their own version of the same exact legislation.

"Lets get some good laws that will finally fix the bad laws."

"Let's get the good politicians in there and push out the bad politicians."

Déja vu, anyone?

This is exactly the "solution" that got us to where we are today.

There are no quick fixes. Political power-mongers have been shaping the way people think for 10,000 years. We can't fix politics until we fix how people think about politics. Right now, it's nothing but a fight for the levers of power. And only rich people and large interests can win that game. By opting out of that game, we reduce their power to proclaim a "mandate from the people".

The problem is not the Abuse of Power, the problem is the Power to Abuse.

You said, "I sure hope a few of us can get a movement started and force issues on the ballet."

The key word being "force". All Government is Force. Government doesn't produce anything. Government doesn't add anything to the marketplace of goods and ideas. Trying to use government power levers for good is a losing proposition. Government only redistributes wealth and hands out favors to political pals. That's all government is good for.

Until a substantial number (no need for a majority) of intelligent people understand the equation "Government = Force", we are only going to travel further and further down the rabbit hole.

PS - Here's an entertaining and intelligent article commenting on the 2004 campaigns and conventions.

When Will They Figure It Out? by Butler Shaffer

Excerpts:

Like those who refuse to acknowledge a naked man at a party, nobody was willing to take note of the fact that millions of Americans have become painfully aware of the utter meaninglessness of political activism and voting to their lives. We have long had a one-party system in America – the Establishment Party – with indistinguishable candidates from indistinguishable branches of this party offered as "choices" to voters.

There was a time when political conventions and campaigns could be counted upon to evoke a snippet of intellectual interest – at least enough to keep intelligent souls energized about the process. The last major presidential campaign with an ideological base to it was probably the Goldwater candidacy in 1964. His words – written by my late friend Karl Hess – "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice; and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue," had substance to them.

The political establishment depends upon the continuing participation of men and women who believe in the preposterous; provided it has been certified by the kind of political conventions and media coverage to which we are subject. What sends members of the establishment into a state of delirium is the question: what if they gave an election and nobody showed up? What if men and women understood – as more are discovering – that no matter who they vote for, the government always gets elected, and the same fundamental policies will be adopted?

+++++++++++++++++++

"A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker." H.L.Mencken

"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule--and both commonly succeed, and are right... " H.L.Mencken

"The United States has never developed an aristocracy really disinterested or an intelligentsia really intelligent. Its history is simply a record of vacillations between two gangs of frauds." H.L.Mencken (1880-1956)

The Brink of Chaos

A friend sent me this video which has an Iraq vet talking about the horrible tragedy of unnecessary war.

The enemy is at home This is what patriotism is!

Amen, brother. If only more people would "get it" that "War Is The Health of the State", . . . And Nothing Else Matters.

Like I often say, for all the conspiracy buffs out there; there would be no "preemptive" wars, no 9/11's, no Waco's, no gun-grabbers, no WTO, no UN, no Fed, no IRS, no War on Drugs, no bureaucrats with guns, . . . If only a big enough minority began to openly scoff at the idea that "we NEED government to keep us from the brink of chaos."

The truth is the quite the opposite. Contrary to what culture has been teaching children for 10,000 years : government is what brings us to the brink of chaos. That's what this Vet is talking about. When enough people scoff at the government's supposed "goodness" and "necessity", then we will have soldiers and cops who QUESTION the validity of shooting or imprisoning someone because a POLITICIAN proclaims that this will help the "Greater Good".

In school we were taught that governments have done all these good things, like ending slavery and stopping Hitler. The truth of the matter is that slavery was enabled by democratically-elected government, and Hitler was enabled by democratically-elected government. Not the other way around. We are taught to believe the reverse of the truth. The enemy is in our hearts and heads!

There's something we need to investigate more than 9/11. There's something we need to research more than Obama's birth certificate. There's something we need to audit more than the Federal Reserve. There's something we need to uncover more than government and corporate corruption. We need to explore and scrutinize our culture's insistence that society can't work without a command structure to "guide" and "protect" us. We need to uncover the connection between our childish belief in "might makes right" and the Tyranny of Democracy.

Democracy is not the same as good governance, let alone a good society.

Mistaking democracy for the good life

It doesn't take a majority to popularize an idea.

Love your country, NOT your government.

PS - The guy speaking in this video is from:

Iraq Veterans Against the War

"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."

Voltaire

The Pledge Of Allegiance

Republican politicians love the Pledge of Allegiance. There are at least three things wrong the Pledge of Allegiance, even from the Conservative point-of-view.

1. The pledge was written by the socialist, Francis Bellamy. The original intent was to include the word "equality" along with "liberty and justice for all". The Pledge has been change a couple times already; if they put in the word "equality" will you still think the Pledge is somehow a good idea? I would think we want to inculcate into our kids a spirit of self reliance and tolerance. The pledge teaches Orwellian (even Hitlerian) "group-think" and "God is on our side". In later years, this attitude blossoms into the ugly attitude of "America, Love It or Leave It". If "love it or leave it" was a principle of the founders, there would be no provision for amending the U.S. Constitution.

2. Oaths of Allegiance are a hallmark of tyrannies throughout history. There is no place for "oaths of allegiance" in a country that calls itself free and just (and Christian). Many Christian churches originally (and correctly) opposed the Pledge of Allegiance. The Catholic Knights of Columbus led the movement to add the words "under God", in the spirit of "if we can't beat them, we'll join them".

3. Most importantly, the brouhaha over the Pledge and "under God" is nothing but a distraction from more important issues. Socialist propaganda always hammers on the petty fears and populist trivia in order to distract from the real political issues (state, federal, and local) that are destroying families and businesses, i.e., Regulation, Welfare, Wars, Taxes, Laws, Corporate Welfare, Taxes, Wars, Taxes, ...

I'm sure most voters would know very little about any of these historical or economic realities. They live in a world of "let's pretend that if we get our kids to memorize a few words (especially with the word "God" in there someplace), they will grow up to be better citizens and better Christians". Never mind that the long-term effect of such oaths is a general devotion to collectivist thinking. Ironically for conservative pledge-promoters, collectivism is antithetical to "liberty and justice for all".

Conservatives jump on the Pledge Of Allegiance bandwagon to get the attention of patriotic voters who were taught to have reverence “for God and Country”. But voting Republican instead of Democrat simply means heading for Socialism at 80mph instead of 100mph.

Democrats are "tax and spend", forcing us to live with a crippled economy. / Republicans are "borrow, print more money, and spend", forcing our children to live with a crippled economy.

Be patriotic: Shop Smart!

On Jan 7, 2010, I got an e-mail message that encouraged everyone to "Buy American"

My challenge to you is to start reading the labels when you shop for everyday things and see what you can find that is made in the USA - the job you save may be your own or your neighbors!

If we care about the American economy, should we "Buy American"?

This is a popular myth believed by people who never read anything about economics.

To limit your purchases by lines on a map is to lose everything that the division of labor gives us.

The "division of labor" means we don't all have to be self-sufficient. I don't have to know how to build a guitar in order to play a guitar. I don't have to build my own car, or my own tools, or my own house. I don't have to learn how to build or maintain all of these things, Other people in the marketplace have learned from trial and error how best to make a quality product at a reasonable price. Through an investment of their time and money, entrepreneurs learn what techniques work best for production and distribution of a product. The bigger the marketplace, the better this works

When you limit your purchases to a certain area on a map, you are paying someone to invest their time and money in duplicating the process of "trial and error". It's terribly inefficient and uneconomical, and it ends up being a bad deal for the buyer and the seller. It's bad for the buyer because he's throwing good money after bad, and it's bad for the seller because his business is inefficient and therefore not viable.

It's okay to "buy American" if it makes you feel good. It's your choice. I guess people make purchases for stupider reasons. But don't delude yourself into thinking that this is good for American jobs or the American economy. The more competition we have in the marketplace, the better it is for everyone's prosperity. The bigger the marketplace, the better. When you limit your purchases to "buy American", you are cutting out a major chunk of competition, you are shrinking your marketplace, and you're asking for lower levels of prosperity for you, your family, and your country.

The best thing a shopper can do for himself, his family, and his country is to "buy smart": buy the best product at the best price from the company with the best service reputation. That's the best economic choice, and it's "win-win" for everyone involved. Anything other than "buying smart" weakens the American economy.

(Quote from a Gary North article): "To buy" is "to sell." It is the same transaction. It is an exchange. The person who suggests that Americans should buy only from Americans is suggesting the absolute abolition of international exchange. He is advocating the destruction of the international division of labor. He is advocating the abolition of international economic specialization. He is advocating international economic disintegration, given the key position internationally of American trade, American capital markets, and American technology. He is advocating economic collapse. He is advocating a return to barbarism.

Be patriotic: Shop Smart!