FatsLeroy.com

The following articles caught my attention:

“There are likely many benefits of an electoral college voting system, but I would still like to see it dead. Because this is just crazy:”

‘The presidency could be won with just 22 percent of the electorate’s support, only 16 percent of the entire population’s.’

“That is, you could lose 78% of the popular vote and still gain The White House!”

[ Kottke.org ]

“The purpose of all these techniques is to alternately expand and then contract the number of options so as to convert circular vote problem into more transitive patterns—before voting. In short, when you come to a problem—don’t vote on it until you’ve redefined it to improve the odds of majority acceptance.”

[ TrustedAdvisor.com ]

I think that the point that I’m driving towards is that democracy, both in theory and in practice, violates the principle of the unalienable and natural rights of all mankind such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The reason is simple: Democracy is a system of majority rule. The majority rules over the minority. The either/or duality of democracy actually alienates the freedom of those that are subject to the popular opinion. The democratic governments of the world may be more tolerable than other forms of government, such as totalitarianism, fascism, etc., but it still requires the submission of individuals to the rule of the government in violation of Natural Law.

As USA progressed from the Declaration of Independence, through the ratification of the Constitution, to present times, the government has claimed more and more power. While in the infancy of the nation, democracy may not have represented such a serious detriment to liberty, the Civil War proved just how serious a threat that majority rule could be. According to the Declaration of Independence, allegedly drafted by Thomas Jefferson (a slave-owner), all men are created equal. The problem was that not everyone considered non-white people to be humans. The minority in the South were willing to defend this perspective to the death.

Added to this is the constant push and pull between the two primary political parties. As one party gains power, they pass legislation in their favor. Legislation is another word for a rule that limits the freedoms of others. I’m not talking about basic concepts of morality - everyone agrees (without the need for an imaginary deity) that murder, theft, child abuse, etc. are wrong. The bulk of the laws passed in the last 232 years of US history have to do with other things, like taxes and laws defining what substances adults can consume in the privacy of their own home. As the next party moves in to office, they pass laws to counteract the actions of the previous incumbents, rather than removing laws. Thus this vicious cycle leads to more and more laws, more taxes, and less freedom. And the choices that voters are given become more carefully defined by the politicians so that the choice invariably ends up being between the lesser of two evils.

The only move therefore is to eliminate democracy and eliminate the state. Allow the people to rule themselves. In other words:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Driving home today I was behind a Toyota 4Runner with the following bumper stickers prominently displayed: “Ron Paul” and “Yes on Prop 8″.

First some background.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican Congressman from Texas. He advocates libertarian ideals and most importantly is a Constitutionalist. He ran briefly this year for the Republican nomination for US President, but failed to get the nomination. Following this concession he has campaigned ardently for revolution and liberty. According to Wikipedia:

Paul has been described as conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian.^[2] His nickname “Dr. No“^[25] reflects both his medical degree and his insistence that he will “never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.”^[34] One scoring method published in the American Journal of Political Science^[159] found Paul the most conservative of all 3,320 members of Congress from 1937 to 2002 (wherein “conservative” is defined by a strict reading of the Constitution, rather than its common-usage definition of supporting restrictive, authoritarian, and/or traditional interests).

California State Proposition 8 is best described by Wikipedia as follows:

Proposition 8 is an initiative measure on the 2008 California General Election ballot titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.^[1][2] If passed, the proposition would change the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.^[3] A new section would be added stating “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Dr. Paul is very much against the involvement of the Federal government in matters of the individual states. However, according to Wikipedia, Dr. Paul’s stance (mirroring the stance of most libertarians) on marriage is clear:

If you believe in federalism, it’s better that we allow these things to be left to the state. My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony. And it should be dealt with religiously. The [government] really shouldn’t be involved. The government got involved mostly for health reasons 100 years or so ago. But this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations, whether they’re economic or social, should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary to define something that’s already in the dictionary. We do know what marriage is about. We don’t need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an Amendment. To me, it just seems so unnecessary to do that. There’s no need for the federal government to be involved in this.

So for the guy driving the 4Runner on the 94 today with the pro-liberty and pro-authoritarian bumper stickers - you sir are a douchebag. But then, isn’t most of America just like this guy? How many people support lowering or eliminating taxes, but support the Federal Reserve, or support the corporate welfare in the form of lucrative government contracts financed by tax dollars? Or how about the people that support legalization of marijuana, but think prostitution and pornography should be more strongly prosecuted? Or how about people that support the FISA bill/TSA/Homeland Security/Patriout Act and a foreign policy relying heavily on military force (or threat thereof) but think that 9-11 was “an attack on American freedom”? Or how about the people that support a nationalized healthcare system but don’t want the government to rule on Terry Schiavo or abortion? Or what about the people that want intelligent design taught in the schools and want more federal funding for education?

Maybe it is time to rethink the need for any government at all. Forget the polls on the 4th of November, instead “Remember, Remember the 5th of November…”

Apparently he is some sort of sports figure that plays on Mark Cuban’s team. I only know this because I subscribe to Mark’s blog - the only sports I have any interest in are billiards, sumo wrestling, competitive pipe smoking and the barista competitions. Mark had a couple of posts related to some incident involving Mr. Howard and some statements that were made and distributed through teh YouTubes. I think this is the original video (although I have no idea):

I think he said something to the effect of, “I don’t celebrate this shit, I’m black” in regards to the Star-Spangled Banner - a drinking song that was parodied by Francis Scott Key, later becoming the national anthem. I guess Mr. Howard also says something like, “Fuck Obama ‘08.”

These comments have made him an enemy of quite a few people. Cuban himself became a target because he allegedly said something inflammatory in reference to Howard as “being a nice guy.” The point of Cuban’s posts on his blog were to draw attention to the numerous racist and threatening emails that he received for calling Howard a nice guy.

Personally I couldn’t agree more with Howard’s objection to the US national anthem. I just wish he would have had the opportunity to more fully explain his dislike of the national anthem. I haven’t sang the anthem or saluted the flag in well over a decade. Howard’s ancestors were probably brought to this country in the cargo hold of a ship before being sold as livestock to a plantation owner. (Sadly, many people forget or do not know how the slaves got onto the slave ships in the first place - one tribe kidnapped another tribe and sold the prisoners to the the slave traders. Racism may have sustained and perpetuated the slave nation in the US, but tribalism is what made it possible to begin with.)

Read the rest of this entry »

For most of my life, when it came to politics, I simply chose to abstain. Initially (as a teenager) I found inspiration in statements made by the great John Birks “Dizzy” Gillespie. Following his conversion to the Bahá’í Faith, he adopted their precept of non-involvement in politics, even though he was a presidential nominee in 1964. I related to this idea (not just because he was a hero to me as a jazz musician) but I wasn’t sure why.

I also questioned the role that the government actually deserved to play in my life. As I learned more and more about history and politics, I realized how fucking corrupt our government was. And yet it was fairly obvious that the USA was not nearly corrupt as many other governments in the world. That questioning became a true disdain and I quickly found myself despising the entire concept of government.

After years of avoiding anything having to do with politics due to my distaste for government, I somehow found myself more and more informed and aware. Like many in the world, 9/11 was a watershed moment. But unlike most people, the first thought in my mind upon learning of the first plane’s crash (I tuned in just in time to see the second plane hit) was, “Shit - there goes our freedom.” I told my wife what happened and predicted that a) the government would use this opportunity to dissolve as many freedoms as possible and do their best to shit on the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and b) that they would declare war and use the opportunity to carry out even worse crimes against humanity.

For a while, I identified myself when asked, as a libertarian. Note the small “l” - I have not ever been, am not nor will ever be a member of any political party. Ron Paul seemed like a pretty decent candidate - in fact, probably the only candidate I would have ever supported besides Dizzy Gillespie.

I recently revisited a piece of American History that I never recalled learning in the public school system. This has to do with Thomas Jefferson and his war against the Barbary Pirates back in 1801. To sum it up, he decided to skip the provisions limiting power of the presidency in the Constitution and declared war against these foreign parties in an effort to a) protect the commercial interests of a few powerful corporations and b) to limit tax dollar expenditures that had been used by the federal government in ransom payments to the pirates. Congress forgave him and so did the nation. But that isn’t all - his actions became a blueprint for American foreign policies for the next 200 years. 

The thing is, no government will ever protect the freedoms of the people. The government rules over the people, whether it is a democracy, monarchy, plutocracy, theocracy, or whatever. So if “no government” will provide freedom to all, there should be no government. 

I have never, do not currently, nor do I ever anticipate supporting any government in any form. 

I am an anarchist.