Showing posts with label politicians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politicians. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

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)

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Excuses for Obama's war

It seems incredible to me that I should have to point out the evil of keeping a war going that has lasted longer than WWI and WWII combined.

On Oct 17, 2009, my friend wrote to me:
The Real Problem is that conservative republicans got us neck-deep in Afghanistan and then conveniently hid it behind the Iraq mess. Then left both disasters for Obama to try to clean up.

Yeah, the old "if only the leaders I like were in charge, things would be great" argument.
The fact is that liberals love government more than they hate war, and your reaction proves that, ... sad to say.

Obama has the power to stop the carnage now - withdrawing is the only compassionate thing to do.
The same argument is always used to keep wars going indefinitely; "we can't stop now, there would be chaos and death". You don't see the irony of that? We'd still be in Vietnam today if everyone followed that line of irrational thinking.

Can Obama do anything wrong in your eyes?
Sometimes I think that the best thing America can do is quick, complete withdrawl from the whole region. Let them all kill each other and we'll deal with whoever is left standing after the carnage. But then, I'm too compassionate to advocate that. Damn it.

Keeping a war going because of your "compassion"? That's Orwellian double-speak to the max.
But if we continue what we've been doing the last 10 years, is that better? No, I'd say.

Obama is ramping things up and spilling the war over into Pakistan. And you still refuse to admit that Obama is a war monger.
He is beholden to the corporate entities and politicians who got him elected, and most of them want war to continue. It's good for business and good for the politicians.
Liberals love a war when it's started by a liberal, conservatives love a war that's started by a conservative.
And around and around it goes. When the killing will stop, nobody knows. - All in the name of "peace" and "compassion".

Perhaps, read some history about wars, and the popular arguments of the time - they are no different now than they were a hundred years ago when the US invaded the Philippines to "protect the locals". And then the slaughter began.
But, pick a war, any war. I just randomly picked the war in the Philippines because I knew it was about a hundred years ago.
Read what Mark Twain wrote about war back then.

In my eyes, you either are adamantly and always against war, or you are forever going to be making excuses for double-talk; "war is peace, ignorance is strength, slavery is freedom".

Note that in all modern history NO invading force has ever done any good in Afghanistan nor has any foreign power ever subdued- permanently- any bit of the violence, nor has anyone ever succeeded with any plans for whatever future they had in mind in this country.

I don't see how that is relevant to the argument that war can stop NOW, no excuses. There is no good way to stop a war, especially not by extending the violence like Obama is doing.

I think at least Obama is trying to change the way Americans think about the Middle East. That has to be the first step. I wish things would move faster but remember he's fighting against a lot of very ingrained and inbred thinking. He can't change the world right this minute any more than you or I can?

Baloney. He can stop it. He loves his political career more than he hates innocent bloodshed.

Smile, man. We can agree, disagree, or agree to disagree. And that's a good thing!

That is not right. The truth is the truth, regardless of who agrees. And war is wrong. You wanna dig up the old Catholic argument about a "just war"?

These are innocent lives that are being destroyed by your tax dollars, and you treat it like a coffee-table discussion.

Stand up for what is right, not for which side of the left / right debate you are on.