Quote:
Originally Posted by PR_Glen
so what is your solution then if it's not by voting?
In one corner you have a man or woman working hard for a politician to be elected, not being paid to do so but because they believe in what they are saying and believe they can make a change and do some good with their local community and more. In the other corner you have an internet cynic who doesn't have a plan, doesn't have a solution, doesn't have a leader to look up to and is only looking out for themselves. Who would you listen to and take more seriously? Who would you follow?
Sure you can say: 'well the second guy doesn't need to look up to anyone!' 'We don't need to follow anyone!' 'he/she is their own person!' Right? There would have been no American revolution if they didn't have leaders to follow, if they didn't have people to believe in, if they all acted as 'individuals' rather than a group.
If you don't like who's running, find someone who should or run yourself. If you can't win, it's not a conspiracy, it's not a government cover up, it's because you didn't give the people what they needed--you know, the ones who vote...
|
As a lot of people around here already know: I'm a libertarian. Reason (1) teaches us that every human being is master of his own body and master of his own property. This means that every human being is free to do whatever he wants with his own body and property as long as he doesn't cause damage to another human being or his property (2). This also means that all transactions have to be voluntary. Forcing someone to buy the product you are selling is an act of aggression.
What is the state? The state is an organization that has a monopoly on certain services (protection, arbitration etc) within a certain area (meaning: the state uses acts of aggression to wipe out the competition). Furthermore, the state forces people to buy its services.
From an ethical point of view what the state is doing is an act of aggression and unethical.
From an economic and utilitarian point of view, you get the most optimal situation (the highest output of goods and services, the best quality, the least amount of waste) when all transactions are voluntary.
Realistically, we know that as long as there are human beings, there will be acts of aggression. There will always be theft, murder, rape etc. However, these are all things you can defend yourself against. The problem with depending on the security services provided by the state to protect you is that the state has no incentive to do a good job (they get paid anyway... through taxation) and that the state does not allow you to defend your own property or seek to hire protection from a more efficient security provider.
What I do is I ignore the state as much as possible. I pay my taxes because otherwise they send their stormtroopers to kill my dog, but other than that I try to ignore them. I lead my own life. I interact with other people. I make money by providing products and services other people value and are willing to pay for. I try to help my friends, family and neighbors as much as possible. I save for the future, I try to invest wisely. I work hard and am proud of what I've achieved so far in life and don't need some government bureaucrat to tell me how to lead my life. And I sure as hell won't go along with that charade they call elections.
(1) check Hans Hermann Hoppe's argumentation ethics. btw: Spooner, Rothbard etc arrived at the same point using a Natural Law. Thomas of Aquinas arrived at the same point using theology. These are the same so called "God given rights" your founders talked about.
(2) The libertarian non-aggression principle.