Long-winded isn't the issue, but maybe concrete examples would make a world of difference vs. abstracts or analogies.

Consider property taxes - a real-world example of government coercion, much simpler than some alternative examples such as income tax in being more localized, having fewer complicating exceptions/loopholes, etc. Some options I see:

- pay them, much as you'd hand your wallet to an armed mugger
- don't pay them, and resist subsequent attempts to garnish wages, evict, arrest, etc.
- make a - probably futile - effort to vote in local elections to at least reduce the %age of theft
- bribe local politicians/assessors/collectors for less than your property taxes to overlook yours
- actively start applying force to the local politicians, collectors, etc.
- change to renting, avoiding personally paying property taxes, though paying rents pushed up by them
- move to another locale with a lesser degree of property taxation
- squat in an abandoned building, desert locale or other obscure place likely to be overlooked by assessors/collectors

These are not all mutually exclusive, and (though some seem very unlikely not to lead to disastrous results) choosing between which one( to pursue would be up to further details of your context. None of these require admitting the government has any ethical right to your money for the 'privilege' of letting you live where you do. Every one means your behavior is influenced by the presence of the coercive government levying property taxes.

So:
1) are there any significant options I've missed?
2) are there any of the options that should absolutely be preferred, regardless of context, and if so, why?
3) are there any of the options that should absolutely be avoided, regardless of context, and if so, why?

Aaron

I know that what I wrote could be considered long winded, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't so bad that an intelligent person would have been unable to understand the point.

It's not about serenity. Knowing the difference is important, the "courage to change" more so, but "acceptance", in the sense of fatalistic resignation, is off the table.

It's about solving the problem. The problem is not that government exists, nor that it exists in the degenerate form that it does, it is that government controls your life, controls your life. Don't accept that problem as an immutable given, solve it.

Accept only that aiming your actions at it is not a viable means of doing so. Political activism, voting, protest, defiance, revolt, and submission are all actions aimed at it, and the only thing they do is take your time and attention away from solutions.

Galt's Gulch, per se, is not the answer, but notice that the strikers did not agitate, vote, protest, defy, revolt, or submit. Yet they won, and they still would have won even if the strike had no effect on the system, because changing the system was not the definition of winning, it was a side-effect.

Don't worry about the mice existing, worry that they can get in your house, and that they find food there when they do. Get your own house in order so that the mice aren't your problem anymore. Doing so doesn't require violating a principle, even once. In fact, it demands complete adherence to principles. It doesn't require that you weigh principles against the practical, it requires that you understand that the moral is the practical, that morality is the standard by which practical is measured, not the other way around.

Robert-
To summarize what I gather from Billy and Kyle is roughly a secular version of the 'serenity' prayer - 'God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom always to know the difference'. I.e. live your own life without initiating force, recognize the government is evil but also outside your power, and just decide whether you'll try to fly under the radar, fight if feasible, pay the muggers when necessary - generally whatever option least screws up your own life.

Assuming that understanding is right, I still disagree on side particulars such as whether noncoercive government is theoretically feasible, whether voting can be one of the options, etc., but these seem minor compared to the general attitude, where I think they're right about what is necessary to maintain happiness despite an omnipresent oppressor.

Aaron

I dont think "fisking" is a typo.

I think Robert only means he will do a detailed line-by-line critical investigation of the claims of both Rand and Binswanger in relation to anarchism. Robert has used the term before, in reference to Kant. (see Wikipedia "fisking"). I additionally think Robert is saying that, as well, he will try to understand Billy's position and demeanor by keeping Billy in mind during his research.

Robert: If I'm correct about your intended meaning, you stated:

they have not bothered to cite some external repository that I can review at my own pace

Here ya go...

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/c...

and (listed there) a good starting point:

Objectivism and the State: An Open Letter to Ayn Rand by Roy A. Childs, Jr.

Fisk away, to your heart's content.

Because in my (brief) investigation there was a little confusion whether it was indeed a typo.

"the fisker can without too much trouble make the fiskee look ridiculous."

Do you really think that I was being cynical about that?

I'm telling you: I honestly could not understand it and the typo thing did not occur to me. Now, make of that what you want, but I'm telling you the truth, just like I always do.

I get your dry humour. ”the second word in your second sentence is in your evident context -- a very idiosyncratic turn of a very specious term.” I, too, thought at first fisk may be a recent term to mean to report with pessimism and anti-Western bias but that didn't fit the context. After investigating I realised my r is next to my f.

"You mean: that I should play 20 questions and watch you providing cryptic answers to questions you deem worthy and upbraiding me when my questions are below par."

No, Robert: that's not at all what I mean. I meant exactly what I said. You can say anything else you want to about it but it won't be true.

"I'll read Virtue of Selfishness and Objectivism vs Anarchism by H. Binswanger myself. I'll fisk their contentions that anarchists (1) treat the non-initiation of force principle as an irreducible primary, and (2) that Anarchism is arbitrary. It is whatever the anarchist says it is (see above) and to disagree is to make an enemy of someone who feels that any restraint (external to himself) on the use of force is an abridgment of his natural rights. And, I'll keep you and your behavior in mind when I do so."

To begin with: the second word in your second sentence is -- in your evident context -- a very idiosyncratic turn of a very specious term. I have no idea what you mean to say.

There is nothing that I can do about what you say in your final two sentences, but I do know that they are not true in the least.

Does that matter to you, or do you intend to press falsehoods anyway?

So by: "I am not aware of anyone who explains what I think better than me when I am intelligently examined in the matter"

You mean: that I should play 20 questions and watch you providing cryptic answers to questions you deem worthy and upbraiding me when my questions are below par. That sounds like a recipe for your entertainment and my confusion.

No. I think I'll pass on that offer.

I'll read Virtue of Selfishness and Objectivism vs Anarchism by H. Binswanger myself. I'll fisk their contentions that anarchists (1) treat the non-initiation of force principle as an irreducible primary, and (2) that Anarchism is arbitrary. It is whatever the anarchist says it is (see above) and to disagree is to make an enemy of someone who feels that any restraint (external to himself) on the use of force is an abridgment of his natural rights. And, I'll keep you and your behavior in mind when I do so.

That much I am capable of.

All the best.

Robert: "Or it could be that I just don't understand your argument and wish you to point me to some resource that I can go back and chew over on my own time."

I have no earthly idea what it might possibly be outside a pretty general political corpus that one might presume would be fairly familiar around here. (Caveat: that also necessarily means the work of drawing the implications. Here's a very general example: one big thing that we're all talking about is the contradiction between Rand's ethics and her politics.)

"Some resource", you want, and "on your own time". Well, I am not aware of anyone who explains what I think better than me when I am intelligently examined in the matter, and I am here all the time. None of this can be put plainer than that, Robert.

My answer is depends on the context of your politics

OK. The context of my politics (explicitly and simply) is: my life.

My answer is depends on the context of your politics - something none of you have defined explicitly and simply. You've told me what it is not, but not what it is.

I want to make sure that I'm not signing my own death warrant by helping you to shrug off everything, laws and such mechanisms to protect me against the initiation of force included.

It's self defense pure and simple. Or as the line in the Declaration of Independence goes: to secure these rights among men...

And that's my last word on this. I've been respectful throughout, and I have made an honest attempt to grasp the substantive (between the cussing and cryptic cross-words) aspects of your argument. Perhaps I'm a little slow on the up-take here. But I have been honest.

I don't care to deal with those who label me otherwise. Not least when in the thousands of words they have typed, they have not bothered to cite some external repository that I can review at my own pace sans the one-up-man-ship. And this from people who profess many years of contemplating the subject. Really? I think not.

But no matter, I care not.

That was a fun read. Now...

Was that a long version of "I actually don't have one good reason why Ron's (or Billy's) politics should be forcibly conformed to those of a federalist/statist"?

the only thing you'd be 'required' to do by Perigo & DeSalvo's ideal government would be to agree to the following Bill of Non Rights (by Lewis Napper).

We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bedwetters.

If you agree that a understanding of no rights is necessary to "Secure the Blessings of Liberty," I strongly urge you to refer this to as many people as you can, or link it from your own webpages. No, you don't HAVE to .... Nothing tragic will befall you should you NOT refer it."

"I'm calling bullshit... catatonic skepticism."

Or it could be that I just don't understand your argument and wish you to point me to some resource that I can go back and chew over on my own time. It could be that I've made honest errors in my summary. Compared to this labyrinthine thread, fisking Kant is a cake walk.

Instead, you believe me to be dishonest and even if I cared to prove you wrong, I suspect that there is nothing that would change your mind on that. To continue in beyond this point is futile.

Interested parties may wish to ask themselves why Billy et al. are reluctant to point me to a single essay or collection of them that states positively what he/they believe in. Is it really that hard? I don't understand why it should be, but I no longer care why.

Happy Trails Billy et al.

You ask: "Quite frankly I still haven't seen what your personal politics consist of" and you note "I have yet to see your vision spelled out on its own terms."

Here's my personal politics spelled out in plain clear english: I *never* instigate aggression, ever.  As far as a vision goes: I have *no* plans for anyone else's life. That's all you really need to know about me and my politics, isn't it?

Now, keeping in mind what Billy just wrote...

"Here's one: freedom. The ability to conduct my life by my own lights without people like DeSalvo or Perigo presuming to bind me to their government. That might be a triviality to you, but it's not to me.", and

Billy in another thread here at SOLO, to Scott deSalvo: "What you don't have is a good reason why I should care one whit about what you think and why my politics should be forcibly conformed to yours. Do you understand? Not one reason."

...here's the questions (again)...

True, or not? Is there one good reason, and--if so--has Scott provided it? If not, can you? Why should *my* politics be forcibly conformed to those of a federalist/statist?

Just one good reason.

Robert: "I know that Billy's statements about Linz are untrue. I've known him for nearly a decade and his denunciations are patently ridiculous. As is his dismissal of Linz's work and ideas based on an accident of birth."

That's not all there is to it, by a long shot.

"As for Billy's thoughts on the positive aspects of anarchy - perhaps you could point me to them."

Here's one: freedom. The ability to conduct my life by my own lights without people like DeSalvo or Perigo presuming to bind me to their government. That might be a triviality to you, but it's not to me.

Rebert: "so in other words specifically outlining your ideas in their own right is not your job."

I have. I've done that right here.

"Not proven yet to my satisfaction and you can blame Rand, Jefferson et al. and their defense of the necessity of government for that."

That's your characterization ("blame" -- and those people). And if that's as deeply as you'll consider the matter, then hell, man, I'll "blame" you, too.

"According to you: it's not every man for himself."

Cite that. Do you understand? Go find where I said that and then point to it for all the nice 'netters.

"According to you: it's not survival of the man or group with the biggest gun."

And you say it is? Make your argument.

"According to you: there is no need for an organized justice system because rational men will not disagree (this is more Scott's ideas than yours because I can't decrypt your position here)."

That's only an element, Robert, you're infatuated with it. (I defined this earlier here. Go look it up -- although you could have saved yourself the trouble by reading it for comprehension the first time.) Look: that "rational men" thing is Rand's. And I take it seriously: it makes sense to me.

"According to you: anarchism is not how it is portrayed in the history books and the infamous contemporary 'anarchists' were impostors."

"Imposters" is your word: not mine. I pointed out a crucial difference in principle between me and Nestor Mahkno, and I could do the same thing with all of them: they were all collectivists, and I'm not.

"All I'm asking is for someone, anyone who supports your vision of anarchism to define it in its own terms. Then we can have a rational discussion..."

I'm calling bullshit. I don't believe you. You could have gotten busy with that at any point along the way but haven't. You've got a safe catatonic skepticism going, Robert, and I know better than to try to interrupt that.

so in other words specifically outlining your ideas in their own right is not your job.

Anarchism has to be discovered, understood and evaluated using the information that the individual can turn up on his own time and with whatever methods he has available.

OK.

As my reply to Ron Good states, I've done that and found nothing I would swap even the current system (which sucks) for.

Now what? You call me a few names and we agree that the other is a dangerous lunatic whom we never want to hear from again?

(1) Government isn't working. True.

(2) Government can never work.

Not proven yet to my satisfaction and you can blame Rand, Jefferson et al. and their defense of the necessity of government for that.

(3) Anarchism can work.

Unknown, because I can't even figure out what you mean by anarchism.

According to you: it's not every man for himself.
According to you: it's not survival of the man or group with the biggest gun.
According to you: there is no need for an organized justice system because rational men will not disagree (this is more Scott's ideas than yours because I can't decrypt your position here).
According to you: anarchism is not how it is portrayed in the history books and the infamous contemporary 'anarchists' were impostors.

Feel free to correct any misconceptions here.

All I'm asking is for someone, anyone who supports your vision of anarchism to define it in its own terms. Then we can have a rational discussion - if that is your intention and wish.

Unless you give a definition of anarchism all we have is a game of 20 questions where you get to say: Anarchism isn't this, it isn't that, it isn't the other. Thanks, but I'm too busy to play that game.

(1) There are several conversations going on on this thread. I was highlighting the main issue of one of those conversations.

(2) I know that Billy's statements about Linz are untrue. I've known him for nearly a decade and his denunciations are patently ridiculous. As is his dismissal of Linz's work and ideas based on an accident of birth.

(3) As for Billy's thoughts on the positive aspects of anarchy - perhaps you could point me to them. As far as I can see his main contention is that anarchy has to be better than the current situation and it can't be any worse. He may have said more on this thread but finding it is like looking for the needle of wisdom in a haystack of cussing and zingers.

I appreciate that you too respect the guy. But I ask you: is his contribution to this thread an example of his best work?

(4) As to your personal politics. Quite frankly I still haven't seen what your personal politics consist of. Why? Because neither you, nor Billy, have defined it in positive terms. All I see in the thread thus far are negative comparisons with the present system. That's not hard. The present system sucks shit. But the difference between your vision and Scott's is that I've seen Scott's vision for Liberatrian (for want of a more accurate term) government articulated in detail. I can analyze the concepts and I agree with the vast majority of them. So far the counter argument runs: "Government has never worked ever in Human history and Scott & Linz are butt-heads."

I have yet to see your vision spelled out on its own terms.

Now you may say that that isn't your job. That's perfectly understandable. So I went looking on my own.

I turned to the history books I have at hand and looked up Anarchism.
And what I found was Nestor Makhno and other assorted scum. And I'm glad to see that he is neither your hero nor Billy's.

So I looked again and just about drowned in a sea of minutiae about various strains of 'anarchism.' For example: Anarchist-communism, Anarcho-syndicalism, Individualist anarchism, Social anarchism, Collectivist anarchism etc, etc. ad nauseum. Which one of these do you subscribe to? And if none of them, then what? You may point to Rand, but Rand was a staunch defender of the Grand Experiment (a term favored by idealists when discussing the genesis of America) and a I've encountered oblique criticisms of Anarchism in such of her writing as I've digested thus far. So no dice on that front either.

For the love of Mike, spell your vision out or direct me to some resource where it is laid out in clear, plain English!

Robert: "And I'm at a loss as to how you can judge anyone else by their response to Billy's posts here. On balance, what has he said other than 'Anarchism Rules and fuck you Linz and Scott?'"

I can lead a horse to concepts, Robert, but I can't make him think.

Robert, with respect:

You wrote: "those are side issues to the main issue: The substance of Billy Beck. And that is something about which I cannot say anything based on the substance of his contributions here."

Well, I guess it's the main issue to you and a few others. But anyways, you could say something about the substance if you just checked to see whether or not what Billy says is true.

Start here, maybe...Billy in another thread here at SOLO, to Scott deSalvo: "What you don't have is a good reason why I should care one whit about what you think and why my politics should be forcibly conformed to yours. Do you understand? Not one reason."

True, or not? Is there one good reason, and--if so--has Scott provided it? If not, can you?

So, examine especially, why should an anarchist's politics [let's make this personal: *my* politics] be forcibly conformed to those of a federalist/statist? Just one good reason.

Y'see, *that's* the main issue. At least to me.

are perfectly outlined in the Declaration of Independence. And I've already heard your opinion of that.

It is clear to me from my reading on the lives of Jefferson, Adams, Washington, in addition to studying the Revolution itself, that their intention was to create a republic with a local, secular and elected government. It is also clear to me that the values that they held were also held by others such as Voltaire and Bastiat and Locke to name a few. The founding fathers were lucky in that the juxtaposition of events was such that they were able to put those values into action.

My opinion of mankind is sufficiently high enough that I believe that had the great experiment not occurred in 1776 in the 13 American Colonies, then it would have occurred somewhere else at some other time. The ideas and values of freedom are too good to keep down.

I also think it is a bit rich to blame the founding fathers for this mess. I think the people to whom they bequeathed their creation have something to do with its dereliction given that those same fathers also provided the means by which to improve the thing. We will disagree as to whether you can polish a turd, but the point is: the children of the founding fathers have squandered an opportunity.

But those are side issues to the main issue: The substance of Billy Beck. And that is something about which I cannot say anything based on the substance of his contributions here. That was my point. That and the fact that I am not alone in noticing this.

And I'm at a loss as to how you can judge anyone else by their response to Billy's posts here. On balance, what has he said other than "Anarchism Rules and fuck you Linz and Scott?" Prophetic! Thoroughly Enlightening! But slightly overdone now, I think. I appreciate that you admire the bloke, but are you seriously telling me that this thread is his best work?

Scott may well have been guilty of Billy baiting, but if Mr Beck has a problem with Linz and his SOLO vision, what the bloody hell is he hanging around here for? Is there a free gift give away that I'm not aware of: first person to log seventy consecutive abusive posts gets a Kewpie doll?

Odd... That you, an anarchist, would even bring up the notion of nationhood

Are you unable to see the difference between the values the founders of the nation were attempting to make manifest and the actual form of the thing they created? The US founders get all the credit in the world for having the right values (for the most part), and acting on them, but it doesn't change the fact that they failed to achieve them in any lasting way. That their attempt was doomed to fail on it's premises still leaves us with the damage we see from it today, regardless of what they were attempting to achieve.

Should they have known better? Perhaps, and some of them had at least a clue, but they didn't know what we know now, and they couldn't possibly have. It's because they tried it, in part, and because the world was able to see the good that came from those values even in the face of the destructive Constitution they were buried in, that we know now what they didn't. It's only because of those values that the Constitution worked even a little bit, for as long as it did.

By my rough count, four or five regulars here have written you off

To me, that's a very important data point, but not in the way you intended. It tells me something about them, and nothing about Billy.

That you, an anarchist, would even bring up the notion of nationhood (America and NZ as entities with any value what-so-ever) period. Why should you even give a crap when the very concept of sovereign nations is an affront to anarchism?

I also find it ironic that you are berating someone for exercising one of those freedoms that "were actually manifest here in America first [for] the first time in human history." And on a website that he owns more over. If a man cannot say what he believes in his own house to his guests, what is the point?

I would have thought that you'd have opted out (a right you've vociferously proclaimed earlier) of this forum by now, seeing as its members and it's owner vex you so.
Was Olivia right? Do you get off on exchanging salty epithets? Is it some sort of cathartic exorcism? If so, then why are you not hectoring unfettered lovers of government like the regulars at Huffington Post?

'Nothing Linz says counts?' Maybe not. But what Linz is a hell of a lot more coherent than anything you've written here. Quite frankly, I've given up on sifting through the blizzard of barking and snarling - the thin intellectual gruel you get in return cannot sustain the effort.

And I know that my opinion of you doesn't concern you, but you may want to consider whether continuing at SOLO is worth your effort. By my rough count, four or five regulars here have written you off and that's only the one's who've bothered to tell you so.

I'm trying to get a handle on what you're saying concerning the focus in never voting, never trying to persuade others, not even with a news network. Are you essentially saying to just not worry about whether/how the government is unjust or immoral or if/whether/how it could ever be changed, and instead simply focus on whether/how long you'll personally tolerate it? I.e., take evil government as an immutable metaphysical given, and choose whether to submit, fight or flee?

You're getting closer, but there's still some implicit premises in there that are useful to identify. First, you say "never trying to persuade others". Trying to persuade others is a good thing. The problem comes when you see others becoming persuaded as the solution, rather than a tool.

Same goes for worrying about the government and how it could change. Changing it is useful, but it's not in itself the solution.

The premise that I think you're carrying is that, since the problem is external, then the solution must be as well. That premise has a corollary: that an external problem can only be dealt with by flight, fight, or submission.

An example, not a perfect analogy, but maybe illustrative:

We had mice in our kitchen last winter. So, obviously, the problem is the mice, right?. We tried everything, traps, poison, attacking them individually. Of course, none of it worked. The problem wasn't the mice, they're just doing what mice do. The problem was my house. I had a small hole in the wall of my den, and there were enough crumbs and other tiny bits of food available to keep the mice well fed. We patched the hole, and thoroughly cleaned the kitchen, behind the stove and fridge, all the deep recesses of the cabinets, and within days they were completely gone. They stopped coming in, and we found a few that couldn't get out that had apparently starved to death. The rest, I presume they went elsewhere and found food, or they died. I don't really care which, because they weren't my problem anymore.

It wasn't a matter of either attacking them or tolerating them, and it was futile to try to change their nature. What I had to do was change myself so that the mice wouldn't be able to bother me, no matter how hard their nature compelled them to try.

The situation with government is far more complicated, so don't read too specifically into the story of my mice. First, neither the existence nor form of government is metaphysically given. It's man made, and it can be unmade. However, the fact of it is, for all practical purposes, immutable in the short term. It should be treated as if it were a metaphysical given within a certain context. You have choices other than fight, flee, or give up. You can start to patch the holes, and you can start to cut off their food. Neither of those require changing the nature of the government.

Don't ask me for details how. It's the subject of far too many words to be dealt with here, and even then, I don't have very many concrete answers. But the concretes of how are not the point right now, the point is to establish the correct premises, to start looking at ways that are fully consistent with rational egoism, individualism, and freedom, that don't require compromising them in order to accomplish anything. Those principles work, if they are consistently applied.

It's useful to observe politics. It's vitally necessary to understand the external conditions under which your life will be lived for the near future. But once you stop observing for the purpose of figuring out how to fix it, and start observing for the purpose of figuring out how to adapt yourself, it's amazing how many possibilities come to a mind that is focused on that which you have actual control over.

Eventually, government may change. But your own well-being, even your rights and freedom, do not have to depend on it. If it does change, it will only be in response to you and others changing the conditions it faces. It's nature is parasitical, and that cannot ever change. If you want to try to convince others, convince them of that. Convince them to trade with you in ways that don't feed the government. Convince them to make themselves independent and free. We may eventually get to the point where we are so well protected from it, where we can keep all the resources we produce, where our example is so clearly superior that other people are now convinced, that we do have the ability to change it. But then, what would be the point, except to remove a niggling little annoyance, or maybe to rescue those who didn't (yet) bother to do it themselves?

Changing your orientation to government won't solve the problem, it's the starting point for finding a solution. It's a lot of work and won't happen overnight. It may even prove ultimately futile. But that's also true of any political solution you can think of. So which is less likely to be futile, one that depends on what you can control - yourself - and is fully consistent with principles, or the one that relies on others for its success and requires fudging on principles in order to convince them just to choose a slightly lesser evil, let alone actually work for your freedom?

Kyle-
"Only a true messiah would deny his own divinity!" - Monty Python's 'Life of Brian'. Voting for Billy for president is meant as an ironic honor as I know he wouldn't take it, and for more reason than I. I wouldn't want to be PoTUS not because I think it's powerless - the ability to cause Armageddon is horrific, maybe the source of that power is the ultimate secondhandedness, but it's undoubtedly insane power. Nor do I think a decent person couldn't undo some damage done by that role past. I just realize a good person put into the presidency would get blamed for looters no longer getting their loot, upsetting the machine, and couldn't expect a very long life expectancy themselves. Billy I believe would have further objection than just that fear-of-establishment-assassins, and I respect that.

I'm trying to get a handle on what you're saying concerning the focus in never voting, never trying to persuade others, not even with a news network. Are you essentially saying to just not worry about whether/how the government is unjust or immoral or if/whether/how it could ever be changed, and instead simply focus on whether/how long you'll personally tolerate it? I.e., take evil government as an immutable metaphysical given, and choose whether to submit, fight or flee?

Aaron

Perigo: "But the anarchist contingent is displaying a morbid lack of humor across the board that would turn any Randroid green with envy."

To begin with, I say that's an assumption without foundation. She's been gone more than a quarter-century now. That's a period of history through which the variety and depth of horror throughout the culture has grown without respite.

Beyond that, though, my central question is, "So what?"

Whether she would have gotten a chuckle out of you is quite perfectly impertinent.

I'm veering towards the no-vote side of this argument. There comes a point where the political system is so corrupt that I personally don't want to sanction it in any shape or form. I'm so disgusted and sickened by the response to this credit "crisis" and the envy, hate and idiocy on display, that I can't see any value in either side.

The only alternative to a no-vote if I were American would be the Libertarian Party. Normally I wouldn't support them because of their isolationist foreign policy in the face of the real current external threats, but I don't see any values amongst the conservatives or the left illiberals or their supporters that I want to fight for anyway. They all make me sick.

webhost101.net - Websites made easy.

...and leave.

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

I've asked you before to put up a recognisable photo. This is something we require as a sign of good faith. Now I'm telling you - if you don't, you'll be blocked.

And I don't think McCain's mortgage proposal is funny. See my comments elsewhere. But the anarchist contingent is displaying a morbid lack of humor across the board that would turn any Randroid green with envy.

"And here was I thinking Randroids wrote the manual on humorlessness."

Well, it's nice to have things to amuse one's self...

but the near terminal-stage cancer in the body politic that produces an Obama (or, to be bipartisan, a Bush and Paulson nationalization freak-show with extra added McCain "free mortgages for the feckless") is hard to laugh at, somehow.

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

"It's astounding and appalling that it should even require statement around here."

Sadly, as I mentioned above, it is no surprise to me and hasn't been for a long, long time now.

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

Thank you. Unfortunately, that was the big fallacy of DeSalvo's argument.

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

"That's much more eloquent than the terms I usually use: legal does not equal right, and illegal does not equal wrong."

It's astounding and appalling that it should even require statement around here.

Earnest Brown: it is not a good idea to collapse the concepts of legality and morality together...

That's much more eloquent than the terms I usually use: legal does not equal right, and illegal does not equal wrong.

Billy wrote:

Perigo: "You really shouldn't talk about America that way."

I wasn't and you know it. I was wrong about that particular and have it squared-away now but it doesn't matter. In fact, it makes you worth even less.

Of course I know it, and it was a joke, my dear old thing.

And here was I thinking Randroids wrote the manual on humorlessness.

I 'm sure it was innocent.  I was not indicating serious offense on your behalf, only that there was a serious point in bringing it up.  There was a reason John Galt wouldn't take the job, aside from his being a fictional character who had to keep to the plot.  It's got to be one of the most powerless jobs on the planet.  I sure as hell wouldn't take the job, I've got real work to do. 

And you, I know you'd never be able to look Priss square in the eye again if you took it.

"Oh, and why insult Billy that way? He's been pretty reasonable with you. Seriously."

I'm pretty sure he might not understand that, Kyle. I naturally flinched when I saw that he'd written that, but cannot conclude that he'd meant an insult.

Perigo: "You really shouldn't talk about America that way."

I wasn't and you know it. I was wrong about that particular and have it squared-away now but it doesn't matter. In fact, it makes you worth even less.

I'm trying to get you to think about it in concrete personal terms. Of course, that goes for anyone else reading it as well.

So, you don't spend much time thinking about it? Good. But what else do you spend time and brain cells working on that is directed at changing the political apparatus? It's broader than just voting, I only started there. Unless you are a George Soros, own a cable news channel, or otherwise have the power to reach and convince millions, it's all just as futile. And even then, it's just as futile, you can only lead people where they are already going, as Gail Wynand learned.

So answer this, for yourself, you don't have to tell me about it... what is the problem you're trying to solve? If your answer is about anyone but your own self, it's the wrong problem. If it is about other people changing their behavior, it's the wrong problem.

Oh, and why insult Billy that way? He's been pretty reasonable with you. Seriously.

Kyle-
Are you 'using' you in the personal sense with me, or in the general sense speaking to everyone? I used to vote Libertarian wherever possible, used to write myself or friends in against incumbents with no opponents, etc... but last election I voted in I left most items blank. If I vote 2008 it would be an absentee ballot, and anything outside of local 'yes/no' issues doesn't get the mindshare it would have even two years ago. Maybe I'd leave candidate voting areas blank, maybe check any third parties, maybe just write in "Billy Beck" for president. I admit I have far more brain cells spent on knowledge of major candidates than I'd like, and sometimes waste time arguing about them (and obviously have a historical interest in past national/political matters probably more than is worthwhile ). But I wouldn't waste more than 15 minutes and a stamp to actually figure out how to vote and do so.

Aaron

Voting is to meaningful and effective political action what Social Services is to meaningful and effective benevolence.

... but who counts the votes.

Aaron, pulling the lever is irrelevant. As you point out, it doesn't have any effect. That includes the negative ramifications of it as well. A trained monkey could do it, but you're not a trained monkey. You'll think about it, you'll weigh your choices, you'll discuss it online and with friends and family, you'll worry about the outcome, you'll ponder what your vote will mean, you'll try to find reasons and fit them into some kind of rational framework...

Don't you see what that does to you? Don't you see how you have to bend and twist concepts until they have no rational content anymore, just to be able to pretend that you're doing something rational? Don't you see how all that effort is effort not spent on doing something about the problem (or even properly identifying the problem)? Do you see that the evasion necessary for it leaves you helpless, even after the vote is cast, even if it goes "your way"? Do you see that conceding that this class of problems is only solvable in this way leaves you utterly unable to see solutions elsewhere?

Electoral politics poisons everything it touches, not least your mind. By the time you walk into the booth, the damage is done, even if your vote never actually gets counted. The trained monkey doesn't have that problem, he's just doing it to get a banana. And his vote means every bit as much as yours does.

to me Sarah Palin is the female version of George Bush, shes been cast by McCains consultants, The image she portrays, the hardworking Hockey Mom, juggling family life and work, from her interviews she has a black and white understanding of life and American Foreign Policy, but her Media gaffs dont matter as its the image that counts , and shes perfect, charismatic and unflinching in her beleifs and the mythology she spouts is what is understandable to the majority of unthinking Americans, , it looks like the Day of the intellectual President is over, they are not needed, as the image and myth is what works to win the heart of America, and Sarah Palin is that Myth.

Scott-
"I take it you have decided that it [voting] is a pointless gesture?"

To clarify, voting for the US president is a pointless gesture, though since that was the context of this thread I didn't put that qualification earlier.

Voting in general I certainly don't regard with any special esteem of it being someone's 'civic duty' or a great honor or privilege. However, I also don't regard it as some kind of moral imperative not to vote at all.

Voting is simply a mechanism the government offers to give its crimes the air of legitimacy. It's Luciano and Gotti dealing with a public relations problem by giving you an infinitesimal say in how the mob runs your block.

This does nothing to truly make the corrupt actions acceptable, yet does unfortunately legitimize them in the eyes of many who see that a 'choice' is offered. I can't see as evil someone who still tries to use that mechanism to indicate a valid choice, desperately trying to tell government to not be quite so oppressive. I may vote, to oppose local sales tax and bond proposals, having a 1 in 50,000 or so chance of having some positive change with respect to the local elected mob. I question if even this is 'worthwhile', but have no issue with someone who chooses to vote in such a manner. However, I do consider it blatant sanction of evil to vote *for* an oppressive tax, amendment, etc., or a candidate we know - as we do with the major presidential candidates - will be evil.

That I'm not more concerned with that sanction of evil is only because of the countering effect of a single vote being insignificant. Chances of 1 vote mattering in a state, let alone a national, election are minuscule. Presidential election in particular is a step beyond - in addition to the 1 in 100s of thousands or 1 in millions in your state, as you pointed out the electoral college makes your state likely to not matter. Finally, 1 vote is orders of magnitude less than the margin of error, let alone the margin of fraud. An election close by even several thousand will not be determined by your vote, but by legal maneuvering about how to count. "Those who cast the votes, they decide nothing. Those who count the votes, they decide everything." - Joseph Stalin.

Aaron

Who do you think you're kidding? You cheap little poser. You sit down there in a third-rate hole of a country in the middle of nowhere that counts for shit

You really shouldn't talk about America that way.

and you run your mouth about things that were actually manifest here in America first the first time in human history, all while they're being murdered by morons. Well, I'm living it you worthless asshole.

Ah. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Nothing you say counts. Shut the fuck up.

I am well aware that nothing I say counts, but it's unlikely that I'll shut the fuck up. Not on my own turf, anyway. Thanks, though, for the gracious suggestion.

Perigo: "...Mr. Beck's specialty gives honest anger a bad name..."

Right, ladies and gentlemen. You should "KASS" your ass around here in the fashion-show and be nice but try to look like you got an attitude on, and whatever you do, don't scare the white people.

Who do you think you're kidding? You cheap little poser. You sit down there in a third-rate hole of a country in the middle of nowhere that counts for shit and you run your mouth about things that were actually manifest here in America first the first time in human history, all while they're being murdered by morons. Well, I'm living it you worthless asshole.

Nothing you say counts. Shut the fuck up.

Mr. Perigo,

If one of my internet interlocutors fallaciously collapsed the distinction between legality and morality and if I was then accused of being a lying moral nihilist when I criticized legal systems SPECIFICALLY ON MORAL GROUNDS, I guarantee you that my anger would be both honest and splenetic to the extreme.

I agree that if Billy thinks so little of DeSalvo, then he should take ANYTHING he claims about Billy's own nature with a laugh as the expression of a manifest idiot. That, however, tis none of my business or responsibility.

However, that begs the question of why you should care about what Babs Branden thinks about anything...

or even why you should think about her -at all- in the first place.

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

Mr. Beck's specialty gives honest anger a bad name

One of Mr Beck's specialties *is* honest anger. I appreciate seeing it even if you don't recognize it. And there's nothing hamfisted about it; I'm always amazed at how efficiently it filters ideas and the people that hold them.

I have no opinion about her but what does Barbara Branden have to do with any of this? I mean, what was that, a drive-by side-issue smear just because you could tenuously work it in? If so, I think *that's* ham-fisted even if you have good reasons for disliking Ms Branden.

Jennifer: I'm sure I never recommended being complacent

That said, I respect that you'll do what you think is right and I'd rather that, even though I think it's a wrong decision, than I would you merely abstaining from a choice because you find it difficult. My response to you wasn't meant to be critical and if you took it that way at all, my apologies for not being clearer.

What I was trying to say is two-fold.

One, just as I wrote: "If the choice you are presented with makes you sick and there is no
good choice to be had in that booth, then you're allowed to come to the
conclusion (as I have) that there is nothing about voting that makes it
worth one's time".

And, two: that it very much appears you're doing what you love with your work (from your profile); I think *that's* important and I think it's a valuable accomplishment.

And I'm glad your father made his way out.

I thank you you for your lively and stimulating contributions. I invite you to contemplate the possibility, however, that the unrelenting, badgering hamfistedness that seems to be Mr. Beck's specialty gives honest anger a bad name. And that is a shame. Galt forbid that the likes of anti-all-anger-except-hers Babs Branden should derive succour from this thread.

"Not bad Billy."

I think so, too, and I thank you for saying so.

Well, Mr. Good, I see it this way: My father escaped the tyranny of fascist Italy so he -- and I one day -- would have a right to vote.

Call me philosophical, but if people become complacent about choosing their government, they will lose that choice one day. Does my vote matter? It sure as hell does to me. I don't owe it to anyone -- I choose to vote because I choose to live in this country, and I will have my say.

I sat out the last presidential election because I found the choice almost as difficult -- this time my conscience will not allow it. You are welcome to do what you like, of course, but I can't sit this one out.

Jennifer

-- breaking news reports that the Republican-dominated committee investigating 'Troopergate' has concluded that Sarah Palin abused her office.

The inquiry looked into her dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, who said he lost his job because he resisted pressure to fire a state trooper involved in a bitter divorce with the governor's sister. Palin says Monegan was fired as part of a legitimate budget dispute.

Branchflower said Palin violated a statute of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.

WSS

Mr. DeSalvo, based on 12 years online experience with the man, and note that Billy qualified his statement by saying that his assumptions about you were directed to the substance of your posts.

As for Beck's reaction to your continual accusations of untruthfulness, the following is instructive, and a rare instance of him having something good to say about a politician:

http://www.two--four.net/weblo...

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

"YOU injected conditional threats of violence into this."

I had excellent reason. Moan all you want.

Yes, you never insinuated that I lived in a cave if that is what you mean.

Yes, you are a dishonest scumbag.

But I want YOU to remember something. YOU injected conditional threats of violence into this. NOT ME.

I even spotted you the first one.

When people make threats of violence towards me, then I clarify for them that it would be bad idea. I am glad that you CLAIM that you agree that it is a bad idea.

But, makes me wonder why you brought it up. It ALMOST looks like you have some plans, Billy, but that you are trying to divest yourself from being legally implicated. But you don't need to do that, because, according to you, you look judges in the eye and dare them, right?

Someone like you wouldn't set me up for an attack, or a shooting by a third person, would you? You are going make me pay in blood? Unfortuntely, I do not trust your integrity.

You are legitimately mentally ill.

"Grave" threats that I "will pay for this in blood" saved only by geographic distance?

YOU WIN. I am not going to risk my life arguing with you on the internet. You win, okay? Your threats of force have convinced me that anarchy is the way to go. Congratulations.

This is eloquent proof that anarchists like you are interested in initiating force against those who disagree with you and find your ideas lacking. Nietzschean superman.

Note: I was perfectly able to discus some issues with your fellow anarchists without THEM threatening me.

I will make sure to print and have family and friends keep copies of this.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

faced with this list. (Recommended Books, May 26, 2004).
And "A Nation of Busybodies." Not bad Billy.

Scott, you wrote:

"I thought it might be enlightening for you and your friends to experience the business end of what you were feeding me.

It seems you did not like it. Possibly, you may now consider a
change in style and substance when dealing with someone with whom you
do not agree. Probably not, though.

I am tired of being disingenuous in making a point."

*That* was you talking about acting in a manner you imply you usually don't but only to "enlighten [us]; in other words: "being disingenuous in making a point." was you.

Billy hasn't done that once. Not for any reason.

"...where Billy has made assumptions about me..."

You're not paying attention. I was very specific. Go read it again.

"I do not make puerile conditional or oblique threats of violence."

Neither do I, Scott, and I never like it, but I will not stand for any more of your assertions of my dishonesty, and I'm just telling you that you should understand how grave this is. If not for the remoteness you exploit, you would soon pay for this in blood or make clear to me on my terms your intent to take good care of the truth.

Now, before anyone around gets their ass in an uproar about "internet stalkers" or any of the rest of that sort of thing, you should know that -- no matter what -- I will always have better things to do than something like that. This is not worth that. It is, however, worth pointing out just how serious it could be.

If I had the time or inclination, I could go back through this thread and show you where Billy has made assumptions about me, which he now flatly denies doing in accusing me of making assumptions about him. You can, if you want.

At this moment, I do not have time to re-read posts.

My apology stands to you because you did not deserve the bile or the game playing that Billy earned. Is still earning. And still deserves. Unfortunate if it disaapoints you, but there you are.

If he were in Chicago, and wanted to try to bleed me like a pig, or slap me, the second conditional threat of violence he has offered me, then I would graciously accomodate him for about 40 seconds and his life would be very different than it is now. I do not make puerile conditional or oblique threats of violence.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

But is it true or not?

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

"Do you even realize that you [meaning Billy] are lying here?"

I have *never* known Billy to lie. Not once, not about anything--and I've been paying attention for years. 

I won't let that accusation pass anywhere, anytime, without stepping up in Billy's defence.

DeSalvo on voting: "I take it you have decided that it is a pointless gesture?"

It's a bloody criminal conspiracy.

Look: if I came across a crowd of people intent on putting your rights to majority opinion, I would coolly inform them that that's what they're really up to, and they'd better move along peaceably while they can.

What on earth makes you think you can dispose of others' rights like this with a moral leg to stand on?

I appreciated your apology to me, but I am also here to tell you something about your posts at 21:24, 21:15 and 21:09:

You were wrong about me, and you're still very wrong about Billy.

"Do you even realize that you are lying here?"

If you said that to me face-to-face, I would be ready to slap an eye right out of your head.

" If your integrity means anything to you, go back through this thread and take a look."

Cite it.

Why congratulate me? Of course I give credit where it is due. That does not change what I think of Billy, his ideas, SOL, or any of the rest.

I am honest.

You may contrast that with the behavior of others if you choose-very easy to spot the differences.

Electoral college elects the president. Even to the extent the popular vote may have some influence on the presidential election, my vote will have NO EFFECT because Obama is the winner in Illinois. Period. Of course, there have been some recent elections that were much tighter, so whether people turn out to vote can make a difference.

This has been my position--check WAAYYY back this thread began. I wrote that I understood why some people would choose not to vote. Still do.

I am voting, so I find it to be worthwhile. When given the choice between standing on the sidelines or taking action, I take action. Just because there is not a 1::1 between my vote and who is elected doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile.

It's a civil right that alot of people wish they had. It's a civil right that alot of good people have died to earn and to defend.

I take it you have decided that it is a pointless gesture?

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

"See, I'm not making these kinds of assumptions about you"

Do you even realize that you are lying here? If your integrity means anything to you, go back through this thread and take a look.

I know why you act like you do, Billy, and I will not bore you or anyone else repeating it.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

"While you are huddled in your cave..."

FAIL.

It's just boring, Scott, ya know? See, I'm not making these kinds of assumptions about you. Everything I say about you is about nothing but what I see you write here. And the thing about an item like this is what it says about your reasoning powers. You bring the same anti-thought to the politics that you avow here. You keep doing it over and over, even while you're copping to the odd glimmer of light breaking in on you now and then.

I don't know why you act like a retard, Scott, but I find nothing to like about it.

Scott-
I want to congratulate you on changing your views on the Constitution and enumerating rights, and giving Billy credit.

I was going to do so based on a post about 15-20 ago on coming to the conclusion that voting was a waste of time, but you posted something more recently about the powerful symbol of voting, opposing Obama and such that seems to contradict that. So is voting - this election, or in general - worthwhile or no?

Aaron

Don't be sad, Billy. While you are huddled in your cave and working on your TOP Secret Projects, with Secret Movers and Shakers, I am very happily pursuing my values. Very successfully, I might add.

I know this bothers you. If you could control yourself at all, it wouldn't. But it does.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

I do not want anything from you. Why would I?

Everything I have EVER said about your Sense of Life and ridiculousness of your ideas stands. Everything about the posing, the nonsensical rambling, it all stands.

I find it ironic that you accuse me of rote recitation and not being able to look past my nose. You may as well be describing what you see in the mirror, if you had the stomach to look at your ugliness.

You are not a complete dummy. Just an evader and an ugly, ugly human being. The ugliest I think I have ever met, and that's NOT a compliment, though a pervert like you probably takes it for one. I could feel your relish in announcing that someone accused you of being cruel.

Not cruel, just pathetic.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

Whatever you are (I have enough proof), it certainly is not benevolent, as demonstrated by your continued behavior.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

Didn't I?

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

DeSalvo: "The Constitution is better as written than it is being applied. Voting is a gesture, because a majority of general election votes means close to nothing with respect to who ends up as President."

That's just lame. Honest to god.

Pay attention, kids, to someone who really thought this stuff through:

"All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority."

(Henry David Thoreau, "Civil Disobedience")

DeSalvo: "For many people, it is an important symbolic gesture in support of the relative freedoms we enjoy, and the form of government which has enabled those freedoms."

{sigh} You really are a fucking moron, DeSalvo. Really. It amazes me that you can get through your day.

"Anyone who suspect that that's all that I'm about is very, very wrong."

Yeah, I was thinking about Baby Snooks and his "Why, Billy" routine.

My contempt for the Age of Obama is as wide as the vasty deep.

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

DeSalvo: "I wrote that to you during my 'lashing out' phase during which I accused anarchists of being socialists, taking an anti-anarchist position on issues whilst spouting anarchist catchphrases and being generally rude in a vain attempt to demonstrate the ridiculous style being employed by others at the time."

Consider this deeply, kid: one of the few sensible things that George Bernard Shaw ever said was that "Those with nothing to say also have no style, and can have none."

There is a corollary to this, which is that people who attend and value fashion over substance are deaf.

Throughout all of this, you have been saying nothing. It's just rote and thoughtless recitation with you, compounded by the fact that you do not look an inch past the end of your nose unless there are Shiny Objects out there to attract your attention.

There was no way in life that I was ever going to give you what you want.

DeSalvo: "My estimation of Billy is not as high as yours, but it is not as low as I make out."

Yeah, well, my estimation of you is a lot lower than I let on.

Of the two of us, I'm the one who gets to claim "benevolence".

Brown: "I wouldn't bother to spit in his direction if he was a Snidely Sneerwell anarcreep who had no intention to do anything but carp from a position of 'superiority.'"

Let's not have any mistake about this: I don't mind doing that. I positively cultivate my contempt. This whole fucking culture deserves me at my worst.

Anyone who suspect that that's all that I'm about is very, very wrong.

"Billy changed my mind on that,...

You should have said so, dink.

I apologize to you for my behavior. It appears that you did not deserve that sort of response, and it did not get me closer to my goal.

Accepted with thanks. I'll respond with more later as I'm at work.

I wrote that to you during my "lashing out" phase during which I accused anarchists of being socialists, taking an anti-anarchist position on issues whilst spouting anarchist catchphrases and being generally rude in a vain attempt to demonstrate the ridiculous style being employed by others at the time. I apologize to you for my behavior. It appears that you did not deserve that sort of response, and it did not get me closer to my goal.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think I can infer from the question that the answer you subscribe to is: None.

I cannot give you an answer to that question which will satisfy. Trying to "fix" the Constitution (or the 9th Amendment) is pointless, because words on hemp are not the reason we have the problems we have. The Constitution is better as written than it is being applied. Voting is a gesture, because a majority of general election votes means close to nothing with respect to who ends up as President.
For many people, it is an important symbolic gesture in support of the relative freedoms we enjoy, and the form of government which has enabled those freedoms. Since I have already rejected the package deal that voting means I have given my consent to anything and everything the government does, I am proud to vote and proud to be an American citizen. I see a grave threat in Senator Obama's becoming President, so I make my gesture.

Not voting has never kept someone from winning an election.

I would be interested to hear your answer and its explanation.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

Once you attempt to enumerate rights, you put yourself in a box and close the lid

Scott, presuming by your responses to my posts that your earlier request for me to leave you the H alone has been rescinded (let me know if i'm wrong)...

Now explain to me the difference between attempting to enumerate your rights through legislation and: voting...

If there is one thing that is perfectly clear, it is that you *owe* no one your vote--not even yourself, unless you *want* one of the results.

Which was *not* to say that I'd think well of folks who would push me around like that just because voting had a chance of achieving what they'd want. I only meant that it would at least be a clear connect between what that person would want and them acting for it, sort of like a thief being, well...consistent when they use a gun.

of Billy is not as high as yours, but it is not as low as I make out. My ego does not get in the way of my esteeming people in proportion to their value, whether I get along with personally or not.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

Mr. DeSalvo,

Billy may express himself roughly at times, but he's usually wide awake and willing to be corrected if he's wrong. I know this from personal experience, and I wouldn't bother to spit in his direction if he was a Snidely Sneerwell anarcreep who had no intention to do anything but carp from a position of
"superiority."

FYI: you might want to check out this latest citation from his blog:

http://eidelblog.blogspot.com/...

"Be it a question of science, metaphysics, or religion, the man who says: 'What is truth?' as Pilate did, is not a tolerant man, but a betrayer of the human race."-Jacques Maritain

"If we did have a Constitution that tried to enumerate every right, it would be a worse abortion than the EU monstrosity."

Billy changed my mind on that, though he could have been more civil in doing so. Once you attempt to enumerate rights, you put yourself in a box and close the lid.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

"then you're allowed to come to the conclusion (as I have) that there is nothing about voting that makes it worth one's time. "

There being an electoral college, voting itself is a mere gesture. A futile gesture.

In an election like this, with these candidates, who must be the worst in my lifetime, there is nothing about voting that makes it worth one's time.

"...you've already probably done more to benefit yourself (and, as it happens, those around you that you value) just by living as who you are than you can hope to accomplish by voting anyways. "

Also very true. Voting is not a substitute for living your own life and pursuing your chosen values.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!