Politics is an immoral dead-end

[Tom Sawyer]

Careful Seth you are on the chopping block...

No, not Russell's... I just was working on the Concord Porc video... don't make me put horns on you. 

[SethCohn]

No, not Russell's... I just was working on the Concord Porc video... don't make me put horns on you. 

In an english accent:

Rawr! You make me horny, baby!

[Russell Kanning]

Ok by me.  My religious beliefs are my own concern, and not up for public comment anyway.
Besides which, I know I'm right about them. 

We don't even have to conjure Seth anymore .... he lives here now.

[dalebert]

He's sort of saying something I've said before but in a different way. To me, politics is putting the cart before the horse. The horse is culture and politics always follows it. Something has to become popular with a significant portion of the culture before you can make it happen politically, which then makes the political involvement extraneous. There may be rare cases when you manage to take advantage of the fact that fewer people are voting so that you might be able to pass a bill that shrinks government or elects a non-standard candidate. However, as soon as you truly start to threaten the state, you also energize and mobilize agents and beneficiaries of the state to fight back. There is significant historic precedent. I think those apathetic non-voters are that way simply because they can be... for now. As soon as someone poses a real threat to what they've come to expect as a given, they stop being apathetic.

Arnold Schwarzenegger seemed like California's last hope. I really had invested myself in the notion that I would have to abandon ship (CA) if he didn't win. I worked harder on his campaign than I ever had for anything political. Well he won and I was more excited about his win than any other political event in my lifetime. I took his win by a significant margin as a mandate from the people for smaller government. He tried to pass several bills that seemed fantastic. The unions, particularly the government employee unions like teachers and prison workers, mobilized an effort that looked like WWIII. They knew that those bills were a massive threat. They raised and borrowed over $100 million to fight him and it worked. That's getting on the scale of a national presidential election! After that, Arnold started compromising A LOT and by that I mean he became a standard bleeding-heart liberal Democrat who just happens to have an "R" by his name.

We have to change the horse. We have before us the HERCULEAN task of shifting the culture away from accepting this aggressive violence known as the democratic process in order to impose their will on people. That's really the root of it, because as long as people believe in that, they can justify whatever violent programs or policies that process has created. I'm trying to take bites out of that enormous elephant, but I don't claim to have all the answers. My religious views are best described as agnostic because I don't claim to know everything about the universe. I only know that I absolutely don't believe in the gods that have been presented to me. I've heard that religious people need that Jehova, or Alah, or Buddha shaped hole in their head to be filled with something before they can stop believing and, sadly, the same seems to apply with politics. I don't know how to fill those democracy or constitutional republic shaped holes. My politics is defined by what I DON'T believe in. I believe in complete freedom short of fraud or aggression, so it follows that I actively disbelieve and oppose a democratic process that's used to impose the will of the majority on the minority.

[youtube=425,350]cBNbf38OmJU[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBNbf38OmJU

[Kat Kanning]

If convincing others that your point of view is correct is too big a task, there is separation from those who do not share your views - secession or some such.  Not that I don't think you should try persuasion

[dalebert]

If convincing others that your point of view is correct is too big a task, there is separation from those who do not share your views - secession or some such.  Not that I don't think you should try persuasion

I don't really feel a need or desire to separate myself from political libertarians. I anticipate that this debate will simmer down (it already has considerably) and become less heated over time and that we will still be having it, off and on, for years, but that's ok with me. At some point, we all know where we stand on certain issues and the debate will become extraneous until there is some new information or certain events unfold that introduce something more into the discussion.

[Kat Kanning]

Wasn't talking about that...had more like state secession in mind.

[John Edward Mercier]

I believe in complete freedom short of fraud or aggression, so it follows that I actively disbelieve and oppose a democratic process that's used to impose the will of the majority on the minority.

At this point we have the minority imposing their will on the majority. Which is why the society is collapsing into totalitarian elitism.

Everyone is both an Anarchist and a Statist. This is most easily noted in children just old enough to use the word 'NO'. The Anarchist in them wants their individual liberty... but the Statist wants to be part of the unit called FAMILY. Your inherent Freedom of Will will always make you an anarchist, but your need for some semblance of order (no fraud/aggression) will just as equally make you a Statist. Its just the size/scope of the State that is at question.

[dalebert]

Wasn't talking about that...had more like state secession in mind.

I have a cute cartoon planned regarding secession of the state.

[Kat Kanning]

Yay! 

[J’raxis 270145]

I had a reasonable belief that the politician wasn't going to cause any aggression...

Oh Jeremy.  And I take it you have a reasonable belief that Ron Paul isn't going to aggress against any perfectly innocent immigrants.

This, I believe, is the only actual policy of Dr. Paul's that I oppose. (I oppose his pro-life stance, homosexual rights stance, and religious conservatism, also, but he's made clear that these are personal beliefs that he doesn't intend to legislate: He wants to simply keep the federal government out of the debate. So these positions and my opposition thereto don't play into my voting decision.) Since everything else he stands for is something I support, I believe it's worth it to support him, try to get him into office, and then perhaps work to get him to change his position on this one issue. Supporting a politician doesn't mean abject loyalty to their entire platform and following everything and anything they say.

And again, I don't consider this to be "lesser evilism" since Dr. Paul is so overwhelmingly better than the other candidates. Lesser evilism would be voting for Romney in a Hillary vs. Romney general election, or somesuch.

[I didn't watch the linked video—as I said in another thread, these video blogger guys need to get back to writing instead of expecting people to sit there and listen/watch them for 45 minutes, so one can peruse their material at one's own pace—so I'm only answering your comment here and not the video.]

[Kat Kanning]

Jeremy opposes homosexual's rights?

[J’raxis 270145]

Jeremy opposes homosexual's rights?

No, Ron Paul opposes homosexual rights (to some extent—there's quite a bit of controversy over his exact position, but he seems to be generally hostile to things like gay marriage, &c.), and I oppose Ron Paul's position. Bloody double negatives...

But, since it seems to be mainly a personal belief of his—not something he wishes to implement as policy, beyond keeping the fedgov out of such policy—I don't mind his position and it doesn't affect my desire to vote for him.

[Kat Kanning]

Aha 

[MaineShark]

No, Ron Paul opposes homosexual rights (to some extent—there's quite a bit of controversy over his exact position, but he seems to be generally hostile to things like gay marriage, &c.), and I oppose Ron Paul's position. Bloody double negatives...

But, since it seems to be mainly a personal belief of his—not something he wishes to implement as policy, beyond keeping the fedgov out of such policy—I don't mind his position and it doesn't affect my desire to vote for him.

I'm opposed to gay marriage laws.  I'm also opposed to heterosexual marriage laws.  I'm opposed to any involvement between "law" and "marriage."

I seem to recall something Ron Paul wrote that was similar.  But it doesn't play well as a campaign soundbite, since most folks can't comprehend not having a "marriage license," so I expect he's just staying relatively quiet on the whole issue right now...

Joe