Two of the men who assaulted a woman before a Rand Paul debate are no random bystanders who just wandered onto the scene and muddied the Tea with their violence. Both are active members in Rand Paul’s campaign. More details here.
It’s only once in a while that a story this perfect comes around. It doesn’t surprise or shock me in the least, because I know this is the mentality of the hateful right and the Tea Party in particular. The hostility is palpable whenever those asshats are on camera. In fact, that’s probably why the cameras point at them so much. It’s a hell of a show.
I mean, honestly, a guy in a “We the People” baseball cap stomped on a young, defenseless woman being held down by another man. The same assholes who are online every day telling us the police are brutal Gestapo who abuse everyone are beating up women in real life in Rand Paul’s honor.
It’s things like this that illustrate so clearly that the problem we have today isn’t political or governmental, it’s human. These gutless bullies who pick on young women half their size and kick them while they’re down are trying to sell me on the idea that it’s the police who are brutal. Right...
The only thing more laughable than this notion is Rand Paul’s hairpiece.
A pic of Rand Paul posing with one of the assailants, Tim Profitt.
The solution to America's jobs problem lies not with budget-busting federally mandated "stimulus" programs.
Instead, what is needed are specific reforms that wouldn't cost taxpayers, would create a broader tax base for cash-strapped cities and states, and would provide opportunity for millions of Americans who worry where their next paycheck is coming from.
As demonstrated by a series of eight new reports issued in October 2010 by the Virginia-based Institute for Justice, one of the principal obstacles to creating new jobs and entrepreneurial activity in cities across the country is the complex maze of regulations cities and states impose on small businesses. IJ's "city study" reports are filled with real-world examples of specific restrictions that often make it impossible for entrepreneurs to create jobs for themselves, let alone for others.
Chip Mellor, the president and general counsel of the Institute for Justice, said, "If the nation is looking to the federal government to create jobs in America, it is looking in the wrong place. If we want to grow our economy, we must remove government-imposed barriers to honest enterprise at the city and state levels. Remove those barriers, and you will see a return to the optimism and opportunity that are hallmarks of the American Dream."
IJ's eight reports document how irrational and anti-competitive regulations block entrepreneurship. More often than not, these government-imposed restrictions on economic liberty are put in place at the behest of existing businesses that are not shy about using government force to keep out competition. The Institute for Justice's city studies examine regulations imposed on a wide range of occupations in Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Newark, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.
I have argued with people online for a long time. When my dad got an AOL account in 1994, I was 12, and I started arguing in chat rooms and message boards. I evolved from an angry Catholic to a bemused atheist in the intervening 16 years. I went from being a staunchly conservative opponent of Bill Clinton to being too liberal to vote Democrat. From viewing women as inferior to equals, from schmoozing with the rich to sympathizing only with the poor, from an ignorant fool into an open minded asshole…
Despite a litany of alterations to my mental processes, I think the biggest change I have experienced is a rise in determination. I was always stubborn, but that’s different. Stubbornness is nothing but the determination to not budge; determination is only effective when you refuse to stop moving forward.
In my experience, anarchists are quitters. I have failed many times in attempting to bridge our gaps in ideology, to understand what I perceive to be the unworkable underpinnings of an anarchist “system” (or I guess lack thereof in some cases). And it dawned on me why our two lines of thought are completely incompatible.
Anarchists are quitters, and I can’t relate to that.
Obviously, making this observation is not some nail in the coffin of anarchists. Instead, it merely explains and puts into context what I perceive to be the emotionally driven arguments that anarchists present. The anarchist is essentially exasperated, and I can’t say I blame them.
The United States government is doing some really dumb and destructive things. Anarchists know it, I know it, basically anyone paying attention knows it. We’re all working from the same premise. The difference is, anarchists seem to have endured some traumatic existential crisis that has crippled their civic-mindedness and left them feeling impotent.
The anarchist sees the state as requiring obedience in order to function. I see the state as requiring civil disobedience in order to function. I think this may be the fundamental difference in our views of “the state.”
Every minority in US history has fought the system. For some reason, a small portion of middle class white males have turned to anarchy because they refuse to stand up to the same system that held down women, blacks, gays, etc.
Anarchists need to wake up and realize their opinion matters. They must know this on some level, because many of them have blogs where they voice their views. The problems they point to are usually valid, and it is important that they be publicized and addressed, but it is difficult to take anyone seriously when they accompany their complaints with calls for ridiculous courses of action – or no action at all.
What kind of success would women have experienced if they had argued for the dissolution of the US, rather than seeking the right to vote? It is arguable that they still would not have suffrage, because a group that seeks to achieve ridiculous and impossible goals often only succeeds in being a complete failure. I’m all for idealism as an outlet for creative political development. All great ideas started in the mind of an idealist, but to be fair, so have all of the abhorrent ones.
I don’t think anarchy is one of the great ideas. I could be wrong, of course, and if you’re reading this, then odds are you think I’m full of shit. To be fair, I don’t think anarchy is a useless ideology with nothing to offer me. If I thought this, I wouldn’t be writing this now; I would stop posting here and move on to greener pastures. I suppose I’m just not a quitter.
Rather than write off anarchists as fools, I search for what aspects of anarchy are appealing to anarchists and attempt to find ways to work them into schemes I imagine to be superior. Anarchy is notably noble for attempting to dissolve hierarchies and support liberty, I just don’t see egalitarianism and freedom to be the natural state of humanity. This doesn’t mean freedom and equality are any less preferable, it simply means they require maintenance. I have yet to see the methods by which their upkeep is maintained in an anarchy.
From my brief back-and-forth with Francois Tremblay, I am not impressed. And why would I be impressed by someone who so rapidly abandons the ideas being discussed in favor of accusing his opponent of close-minded opposition (hell, even I can do that). I found this to be a polite mutual exchange, clearly he did not. I hope this doesn’t discourage him from commenting, and I don’t know how to take the pseudo-threat of his loss of respect for SE.
I do want to apologize briefly to Nikk, because I know he has quoted and linked to Tremblay in the past, so I am profusely sorry if I have embarrassed you and your blog in front of someone you respect. I don’t know your level of admiration for Tremblay, but I hope the level of respect I showed him was appropriate. If Gerald Celente came on here and commented on my post, I wouldn’t jump to calling him a retard (at least not immediately).
But back to how anarchists are defeatists… I think anarchy in general is a quitter’s mentality projected upon a society. Perhaps this is why every anarchy is doomed, because every anarchy does inevitably give up when faced with a serious organized threat. However, one should note that it is not solely statists that rise up against anarchy, it is always accompanied by religious zealots.
Perhaps this is why I fear anarchy: it is the foothold religion needs. Religion has lost ground to the state, and religion needs the dissolution of the secular state in order for it to rise to prominence again. Every anarchy in history was accompanied by a subsequent theocracy:
- The English civil war was followed by the theocracy of Cromwell and an overbearing religio-statism influenced by Hobbes’ “Leviathan”
- The French Revolution resulted in Napoleon’s theocratic alliance with the Catholic Church
- The Spanish Civil War ended with egalitarian anarchy… that was quickly quashed by Franco and his organized Catholic allies in the Spanish Revolution
- Today, in Somalia, the dissolution of the government has resulted in the rising influence of fundamentalist Islam
I like my freedoms, which is why I so fervently oppose anarchy. Anarchists are the unwitting ushers of theocratic oppression. I’m not sure how any student of history could see otherwise. The only problem is, you can’t convince any anarchist of this, because he’s convinced that theocracy can only march through the front door, not sneak in the back door which has been left ajar by anarchy.
Can religious despots seize power by traditional means? Clearly. However, I fail to see what good can come from saying, “A tyrant can be elected,” because the possibility of tyranny is less frightening to me than anarchy’s assurance of it. Tyrants can and are elected. It is not only the citizenry’s responsibility to oppose those that are, but it is clearly in their best interest to do so.
What drew me to anarchists is their willingness to criticize all sides of the political spectrum. I can relate to this. However, there are those who say the anarchist can be equated to the atheist, and while I have no problem denying the gods I cannot see or feel, I am technically agnostic because I don’t know. While I am derided as a “statist,” I am not. I can’t pretend to know what is best, only what I perceive to be the best based on historical examples; I would more accurately be an agnostic on matters of governance.
This is an unenviable position for me, because I have long ago adopted atheism while simultaneously still being an agnostic. Identifying as an agnostic means you are criticized by both theists and atheists. I decided to side with atheists as a matter of practicality. I am, for all intents and purposes, living and acting as if there were no gods. Ergo, I am a de facto practicing atheist, though I cannot say with certainty something like “there are no gods,” because I do not have irrefutable evidence.
While I an uncertain of anarchy, I see holes in it which are perhaps too large to be patched. My view of anarchists as quitters seems to be reinforced by the utter lack of tangible courses of action being presented by anarchists. Perhaps the anarchist position is to gain the reins of power through incessant criticism, though how this would happen and what they would do if it did is a mystery to me.
Criticism is good. It is the most important ingredient in any healthy society. What worries me most is not the anarchist’s criticism of others, but their inability to take it. Anarchism has a glass jaw, and seems to go down for the count quickly in any sort of discussion that aims criticism at anarchy rather than at “the state.”
What’s more, anarchy relies on demonizing and dehumanizing government to the point of seeing it as separate and apart from society. The anarchist position almost seems to be that the government is being bred and indoctrinated somewhere apart from the rest of us, that the government is anything but us.
The anarchist has conflated his decision to remain powerless in the debate (by never presenting a real solution or taking any sort of constructive action) and projected this powerlessness upon society as a whole, imagining the common person as somehow apart from the government. This has always been the stance of rebellious ideologies: it’s Us versus Them. The anarchist seems to be saying that while They are big and evil, We are small but noble, and We should not tolerate Them, so They have to go.
This just isn’t how I see things. This isn’t the reality I have observed. I have never seen Them, only Us, and if We can’t get it to work, it’s because We failed. Place the blame where it belongs: on Us. More importantly, anarchists need to do something or come up with real solutions, not spout emotional responses to the very real problems we face.
I won't be voting next week. I haven't even registered to vote since maybe the year 2000, when I thought it really made a difference who was elected to occupy the White House. That fiasco (in every way) was the last straw, and I never could be bothered with the whole rotten thing again. It's funny, because just the other day, a younger version of myself confronted me at work. Poor young, naive bastard. He asked me if I was voting in the upcoming election, and the look of disappointment on his face at my answer was excruciating to look at. I used his question as an opportunity to plant the seeds of liberty and forbidden anti-state ideas, explaining to him that voting was useless and his one vote wouldn't make any difference even if it wasn't. He was shocked by such views, as if I was the crazy one, rather than those who keep going to the polls like robots every two years thinking that this time it's gotta work, it has just gotta, by golly!
I've said before that the modern religion is statism (with the State itself the new god), and its adherents, just as those of supernatural faiths, have their rituals. The most important ritual of the new secular religion is voting, so that the ruling class can claim a "mandate" from the people to continue lording it over them. Since I am an anarchist (the only moral political position) I don't wish to participate in something that gives any cover to the establishment in the form of an election that "legitimizes" their power. The statist "democratic" process only gives the illusion of choice and control, but unlike the crazies that keep getting excited every two or four years over the latest crop of "change" candidates, I want no part in choosing a master to rule over me, especially when it's a choice between Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
Besides, it's like that old saying "what if they gave a war and nobody came?". Well, how about if they held an election and nobody voted. Not likely to happen? No, probably not, but the establishment still isn't happy with non-voters. That's because their legitimacy is threatened if only a minority of the population participates in the farce of voting. Even more so if it's a shrinking minority. So, by not voting, you actually are doing something, something the rulers in Washington and elsewhere can't stand (which puts a smile on my face) and also something that isn't crazy, because unlike voting, it's not doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
The sociopaths called politicians want the power to rule over you, and while you can't stop them at this point from doing so, you can at least refuse to agree that they have that right by not voting for any of them.
I think this may have been posted here before, but so what. It's worth posting again, especially as we get closer to the phony baloney election next week that ain't gonna restore freedom to anybody (except the continuing freedom of the ruling elite to keep on screwing the rest of us).
As with last week, we'll start with the opening from the ABC television series The Movie of the Week, which featured original made for T.V. movies. This time the movie is The People (1972), and like many episodes of the weekly series, was meant to be a series of its own, with this being the pilot episode. It wasn't picked up as a weekly show, and aired instead as a stand alone for The Movie of the Week. This one starred Kim Darby and William "Ham" Shatner in the story of a strange town that turned out to be the hometown of some aliens (and I don't mean the kind from south of the border).
Hmmm, sounds like I could adapt the plot for a future Story of the Week: A group of aliens from the planet Ginx invade a peaceful libertarian town that just wants to be left alone by the Federal Government, but when F.B.I. agent Bret Alan comes to investigate some odd goings on, all Hell breaks loose as the aliens form an alliance with the townspeople to fight the Feds. A revolution ensues, spreading across the United States, and states start seceding from the Monster of D.C.
Sounds like a winner to me, but in the meantime, after the video, the story of Snowflake and Barb continues...
"So," Barb said to Snowflake as they sat next to the warmth of the fire, with Barb's husband Harold sleeping only feet away on the living room sofa, "the old bastard has to die."
Snowflake was still stunned by Barb's proposal, but all she managed to say in reply was "why?"
"He's no good, honey, that's why. I never told you this before, but Harold has been involved in some rotten stuff over the years. He once kept a load of drug money that was seized when he was a deputy sheriff over in Blackstone County. He still has most of it, and I know he's got the map to where it's hid in a safe deposit box. Once he's dead, the contents of that box are mine, and we can take all that dough and start a new life for ourselves anywhere we want."
Snowflake wasn't sure she was ready to commit murder, but the idea of a load of cash was appealing. "How much money," she asked gently.
Barb thought for a moment, then said "Oh, maybe five or six hundred thousand, maybe more."
Snowflake would have fallen over, but luckily she was still on the floor.
But still, the thought of killing someone, even for that much money, just was more than she could contemplate. No price was worth selling your soul for, after all. She then told Barb matter-of-factly that she would never be able to go through with or be a part of such a scheme.
Barb looked deeply into Snowflake's eyes. "You can and you will!" she said. She was so loud she almost woke Harold up. Snowflake hadn't seen this side of Barb before, and for the for time in their lesbian relationship, she began to question what she'd gotten herself into.
"How 'bout poison," Barb was saying one morning over breakfast later that week. "Think we could get away with that? Might be risky, though. Cops are stupid, but still clever enough to figure that one out, maybe. What do you think? I'm thinking we just try and make it look like an accident and hope for the best."
Snowflake still couldn't believe the things she was hearing coming out of Barb's mouth. She was afraid to disagree, however, because now that her lover's true character had been revealed, and she knew what she was capable of, it might even mean a death sentence for her, not just Harold. She would play along for now until she could think of what to do.
Two days later, they'd settled on the plan. They would go for a hike, telling Harold it was a picnic, and even though the "lazy son of a bitch", as Barb called him, hated to exercise, he loved picnics, especially when they included Barb's homemade chocolate cake, fried chicken and potato salad. Barb even thought about poisoning the cake to make double sure of Harold's demise, but decided against it. Pushing him off a cliff would do the trick, she was sure.
Snowflake knew she had to warn Harold somehow, but she wasn't sure how to go about it. If she told him outright, he might not believe her. He might even call her crazy and tell Barb she had one hell of a crazy "cousin" living under their roof. There just has to be another way she thought. She decided to sleep on it. Besides, there were still three more days until the date of the "picnic".
When the day arrived, the weather took a turn for the worse. It looked as though the day would be a wet one, maybe too wet to have a picnic. Barb was already getting antsy. She didn't want to have to postpone the event. She was also slightly afraid she might not have the nerve to go through with it if they waited until a more inviting, sunny day. No, it would have to be today.
"Harold," she called. "Picnic time, sweetheart!"
Snowflake still couldn't believe Barb was that cold. But she realized there was no other way out of this mess than the plan she had chosen. She just hoped it would work, and that Barb didn't suspect anything was amiss.
"I've got all the food packed and ready to go. Put it in the car, will you, dear," she said to Harold when he was dressed in his ridiculous looking "picnic clothes". What a stupid old fool Barb thought as she looked at him with a fake smile on her disgusted face.
When Harold was gone, Barb said to Snowflake "Go get my hiking boots and put them in the trunk, will you? I can't hike around up there without the proper shoes."
Snowflake went to Barb's closet and found the boots, but she didn't touch them. Instead she grabbed some pumps and put them in an old Macy's bag and took them out to the car. She was a little nervous, thinking Barb might want to inspect to make sure the boots were in there, but she didn't. Instead Barb smiled and winked at her and whispered in her ear: "It won't be long now."
Got that right! Snowflake thought.
Barb was pissed when they got to the hiking area and she discovered that her boots were nowhere to be found. "What the hell?" she practically shouted. "High heels?"
Snowflake tried to look innocent. She made up an instant story about Harold grinning at her like the cat who just ate the canary, when they were still at the house, and that he'd had the bag with the shoes in his hand, as if he'd messed with the contents to just to make Barb miserable. Another one of his practical jokes, no doubt, the asshole!
"The goddamned old bastard!" she said for about the tenth time when she and Snowflake had fallen behind Harold on the trail up to the "picnic" spot. "I'll, kill him!"
Trying to suppress a smile, Snowflake asked her, "How are you getting along in those shoes."
Barb looked at her like she was insane. "What do you think? I nearly slipped back there and broke my neck!"
Harold turned and Barb gave him a phony laugh. "How are you doing, honey bun?" she asked him.
Harold frowned and turned back to the trail ahead of him.
"All right," said Barb to Snowflake. "We're almost there. We've got to do it at the highest point. Make sure the old fart really falls and cracks his idiot skull open."
As they reached the place where Harold was supposed to have his "accident", Snowflake hesitated for just an instant, then she threw her weight against Barb and sent her falling over the cliff that now was directly to the right side of the narrow trail. Barb had a look of shock on her face for a moment, then one of realization and disillusionment as she knew that Snowflake had betrayed her.
After the authorities had ruled that there was no foul play involved in Barb's "tragic" death, Snowflake and Harold found themselves alone back at the house.
"Well, I guess you'll be leaving soon," he said, that same look of longing for Snowflake still on his face.
Maybe he was just a bad old bastard, just like Barb said. She thought for a second that she'd sent the wrong person over that cliff, until she understood that he was only a horny old horn dog and didn't mean anything truly evil. Maybe he couldn't quite get it up anymore, like Barb had said. but maybe Barb was at fault for that. Maybe she just hadn't turned Harold on anymore. He really wasn't all that bad looking for an old guy.
"It's gonna be awfully lonely in this old house, now that Barb's gone, and with you probably leaving," he said to her.
"Well," she said, "I guess I should find a place of my own now. It's too bad, because you and I could have had some really good times together, if we had some money. Too bad we're both broke."
Harold took her in his arms and she let him. After they kissed he said. "You know what, I think I know where I can get some money, enough money to have those good times you're talking about. What do you say?"
"Oh, Harold," she replied, "that sounds wonderful."
My dilemma: How do you ensure that our representative democracy is truly representative and not a corrupt oligarchy?
The answer: Pick politicians randomly or somehow exclude the corrupt.
The specifics: The Athenians, for a time, chose their leaders via lottery. This ensured that the poorest citizen had equal chance to win public office as the richest. A random lottery does not discriminate.
Well… the Greek one did, because only free, native Greek males who were born in wedlock could enter the lottery. We don’t have to do it that. I would include anyone over 15, regardless of any other criteria (honestly, I don’t even count citizenship, but I don’t know how they’re supposed to be entered in a lottery if they’re undocumented… maybe they’d serve if the dead person who’s SS card they’re using gets picked…)
Another interesting method of governing used by the Greeks was to call quorums for legislation purposes and to pay the first X number of people who show up to vote on the matter. It’s sort of a first come, first serve method of lawmaking.
I don’t think this could work for a federal system like a lottery could, but it might work on the state level (especially in Delaware or Rhode Island…).
I think another interesting method would be a caste system. Okay, I lost some of you, but bear with me. We could somehow the country up into different castes. It could be random, but I like an elective system…
So how about this: we divide the country up into castes based on which Beatles album you liked the most (Revolver or die, assclowns!). Once we’re in our respective castes, we will cycle chronologically through them all, with each caste having its turn to rule with an iron fist. Then, the only thing to debate is whether One or the Love Album should be sanctioned castes…
My favorite method would be if government went online (cyberarchy). Of course, a blogger doesn’t want to get off his ass to change the world. I think I should be able to reign my tyranny on all of you from the comfort of my chair. It’s the American way, as the founders intended…
Can you imagine a government issued email that you can reply back with your vote? The only problem would be ensuring every citizen has internet access, but once the implants are mandatory…
*cue ominous music*
Okay, serious face again… I think the best system, however, would be eudemocracy: true rule by the people - specifically, the unwashed masses. I would like to see a government composed entirely of elected officials, none of whom are above the poverty line. Let’s be honest: the middle class is too busy doing real work to legislate, and the upper class has a bad track record… maybe it’s the hoi polloi’s turn.
I’ll tell you one thing: it would finally encourage us to fund education for all. And we wouldn't need welfare, since the poor could subsist on “campaign contributions.”
