Voting: Moral or Immoral?

[Anonymouse]

I never claimed that the private sector or Capitalism was a bad thing per se - and I certainly appreciate all the advances and the life here in the West etc etc - its you who are decrying our system wholesale - seemingly - (and yeah right - as if you are paying any taxes....). And as usual you essentialy avoid the issues and change the subject to again spout off your libertarian position - which is all well and good - but it also exposes that you in fact have very little experience with or understanding of reality - of how and why things happen in the real world - and what might and might not be possible or even desireable. While I share the libertarian ideal - it is clear to me that it is impractical (as any ideal is) for (unbridaled) application in the real world. As is anything taken to extreme - so we make comprimises - less then ideal - but practical and necessary.

As much as I wanted to avoid going off topic about govenment, nerfbrains like Thoth always exist. However, my thread was about voting, but you being the bullheaded boob that you are, had to derail it. However, this above paragraph is an example of everything that is wrong with this country, because it is full of regurgitated bile of what most of the Boobus Americanus produces.

The reason you do not understand my position and call it "impractical" is because it's simple, mine is a normative position. It is purely out of an ethical principle that I choose not to vote. Those who like to live by hypocritical double standards and contradictions cannot accept this, so they have to label it impractical. I will use a similar analogy used before. Both Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians all believe and agree that murder is wrong, and while we cannot eliminate all murder, we shall try to lessen it. Imagine if you used your example with regards to murder. Just because it is impractical, we therefore ought not to worry about it. The same applies to government. It does not mean that we should not try to lessen it or eliminate it. Those like you decry murder when committed by individuals, yet you wholeheartedly support State sanctioned murder which is wholesale murder, by voting and putting your energies into. Now, this is contradictory dilemma that the Boobus Americanus does not want to have to deal with, so they weave myths to avoid having to deal with this such as "spreading democracY and freedom" or "war is peace", and other horsepucky Orwellian newsspeak.

In the 20th century we all know that 200 million people have died because of State sanctioned wars and genocides. How many have individuals killed working outside of State and political affiliations? You will find that those poeple like you who are all too often stating that we cannot let individuals be because of "human nature" because they will start "murdering each other" have only to look at the differences between the murder committed by individuals working apolitically, and those committed because of State collective mindedness.

Yes - government is an easy target - and there are abuses and gross inefficiencies...and obviously it needs to be made better - and in many cases there are processes in place that are doing this (with mixed success certainly - but its something) - to some extent you just accept that nothing is perfect. And yes - less goverment is better where at all practical - I agree - and the private sector certainly can and does many things better...but unbridaled/unchecked - the abuses in the private sector would be as great or greater then with Government (and we have seen many examples of this....its not only in Government where liars, cheats and greedy crooks reside). And the private sector lacks the same system of accountability (as a more or less Democratic Government has in place) - what there is - is keyed to the bottom line of making money (or seeming to at any rate) - and tends to be short term (by choice - at least with most companies here in the states - and as a byproduct of how corporate fidicuary responsibility has been/is ussually interpreted [a real problem IMO] - so yeah to me all these lawyers are the problem...lol). Anyway - OK - so there are abuses and waste and such with Government - and Government power is downright frightening - OK - yes - but in theory - The US Government - and its actors - even at the highest level - are not above the law - and there are systems of and processes for accountability - not perfect - obviously - but certainly also efective in many areas (and voting is key to this...even with limited choices...you still can have an impact by voting some smuck out and putting the fear of such into others...).

This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard from you yet. To claim that the people who make the law and wield it, are not above the law, is akin to saying that automobile manufacturers that make the cars, are not responsible for its performance. If what you suggest was the case, then Bush and Cabal would have been held responsible for the lies and the unconstitutional tactics of its administration. The same applies to Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Roosevelt, Wilson, etc. It is the State that makes the law and the State will never indict itself. This is the problem with government in all its manifestations. Government always protects government, that is why if voting changed anything it would be illegal because the government always elects itself, by the art of deception by making the people believe that they have actual choices when the choices are from two government talking heads.

And to suggest that there is a problem with Goverments making laws..well - a bit naive I think - I mean even in tribal cultures the chief or such - and whoever else is involved - makes/enforces the "laws" of the community..etc etc (and I'd love to see your recommendation for making this one better - I really don't think the average person has time to be deliberating such ad nasuem [if you were to propose that we all "make the laws" or such?]- and most (of your capitalist buddies) are too busy out making money to be bothered - seems like you would be proposing what will amount to a real productivity loss..)....and our Government is representative...could it be better (much?) - yes certainly. But again - I'm awaiting your (realistic) alternative.

This isn't about government making the laws. This is about government having a monopoly on jurisprudence and the court system. Monopolies in anything are bad, from the perspective of economics, and once the myth of "public utility" is exposed to economic critique it falters, for all monopolies tend to deteriorate over time. That is why the law itself is unjust and cannot punish those who make the law, for they are above the law. They have a monopoly over law, thus there will be nothing to hold them accountable. Before you rant endlessly, make sure you have some basic knowledge other than your world famous retorts of "You clearly have no real world experience". You can shove all your real world experience in my face all you want, but you will still not know the subject, because you are ignorant about not only U.S. Constitution and government, but economics as well.

[XxgoeyxX]

I would like to state that I will be voting this November. But I dont know for who!

[Anonymouse]

Oh and rat - in regards to your list...to claim that all of these things can be ascribed stricly to the private sector - well your mr North is just plain wrong in a large number of these citations. I urge readers to look over the list - and in a great many case you can see where Government funding and involvement were critical (but of course...this should be obvious - its not all one or the other - except in rats little insular pretend world)...

That is simply an unsubstantiated assertion. If we did not have the free market which gave man the creativity needed to compete and create, we would never have gotten what Mr. North listed. None of the things listed would have come to be, had it been left to government, for all governments restriction freedom and liberty which is essential to the creative processes of all societies, by barring competition and restriction liberties.

Oh and I see a claim regarding the highway system...well i do know of a handful of private roads in this country...but as far as PUBLIC transportaion is concerned - well its pretty much been all Government....but yes - the asphalt layers do tend to work for private companies that the Government contracts with - etc etc - as in many areas. Even medical research and in most all scientific areas...Government has been and is a great catalyst. And you also mention clean water and such - well who to thank for that eh? And in this case - and in so many more - it is Government regulations that ensure the standards - that set guidlines - for like - poilluting the air and water - that if they were not set - we wouldn't at all have even the level of (reletively) clean air and water that we have in this country....etc etc etc

The reason it has been all government is because the government itself is force, and since it has a monopoly over the whole territory we call America, it wills as it pleases. Thus it has not allowed private enterprises to enter in the sector of road building, because it would not be viable for the government, for it wants to make sure that the poeple are always dependent on it, and not private institutions. As far as regulations and pollution, you should read Murray N Rothboards critique of this argument in his famous essay, Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution. The full text is available here in PDF format, although I linked the HTML version.

http://66.102.7.104/u/Mises?q=cache:bHjOhwnKEeUJ:www.mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf+Pollution&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Anonymouse]

"If you do not like democracy, please suggest a better system." This is usually the last refuge of the pointless, after having battered them with a superior argument.

A better question is, "a better system"...of what? Why have a system, period? This is somewhat like constantly changing channels when there is nothing good on. It's all the same old crap...you keep channel surfing and getting nowhere while the answer is obvious: turn off the television and live your own life, instead of trying to figure out a better "system" of who shall control whom.