How To Get There From Here Part 1… Guest Commentary

guest-commentaryI appreciate all the thoughts and prayers being sent my way in regard to my Grandmother. Rest assured they do not fall on deaf ears. I appreciate each and every one. I am doing really well with the situation. She has lived a good life. I have always been close to her so nothing is left unsaid. I truly hated not writing the last couple of nights. As all of you know, I am quite passionate about politics and the issues of our country. Taking away my time to write and more importantly, my ability to read all of your responses and debate with you all is definitely a tough thing for me. I enjoy it so much and consider so many on here to be friends. Tonight’s guest commentary comes to us from none other than Black Flag himself. You have often heard him make the argument against voting in one way or another. This expands on that a little…

How to Get There From Here – Part One
by Black Flag

blackflagsymbolDo not ever vote again!

You’ve read that refrain of mine on the blog many times. It generates a lot of emotional outbursts from many people.

But to my surprise, not one of you actually broke down my complaint and analyzed it. I was disappointed.

So, to refresh your memory:

Voting is worse than futile because it changes nothing and is merely the tool to accept your agreement of the system of rule over you.

Why? I offered 3 reasons:

1) You do not chose the candidates. They are presented to you.

2) You do not chose the issues. They are presented to you.

3) The elected candidate does not have to do what he promised. You have no control over them.

Thus, voting is only your agreement that the Power Elites have a right to rule you. It is nothing else.

Why do we know that voting in North Korea is a farce? Because there is only one name on the ballot and the people didn’t put his name there.

Why, then, do we not see that voting is a farce in the USA? There are only two names on the ballot and the people didn’t put them there either.

Does anyone really believe that just because there are two names on a ballot that the people didn’t choose makes any real difference from North Korea’s choice of one?

MILK PosterAnyone see the movie “Milk”?

It’s not particularly good movie, in my opinion, however it offers a good insight into political power (if you look for it and ignore the rest of the mush).

Are you ready for it?

Voting can change things! …. Now pick yourself off the floor; yes, Black Flag says voting can change things.

Smarten up! Re-read my complaints about voting, and THINK!

Now raise your right hand and repeat this vow after me:

“I will never vote for someone that I, personally, have not placed on a ballot!”

For those who have children, one of the lessons we teach our kids is how to manage themselves when they are in trouble or lost. This is one of the most important lessons because it may save their lives.

We taught our daughter that if she is lost or in trouble, she is to go up to an adult and ask for help.

We taught her to NEVER ACCEPT HELP FROM AN ADULT who goes up to her and offers it!

Why?

Because 99.99% of adults are good people and they will help a child in need. The odds that she will pick a helpful adult is 1000 to 1 in her favour.

But those that prey on kids look for and watch for children in trouble, and PRESENT THEMSELVES as helpers to the kids!

Now, many adults who do go up to kids to help aren’t bad at all and honestly want to help. However, the odds are significantly higher that a predator is among that group of ‘offering-to-help’ adults.

Therefore, our daughter would refuse help from an offering adult and instead go and pick out an adult on her own, thus keeping the odds of avoiding predators well in her favour. (This lesson applies to women in trouble (like a car problem) and hitchhikers)

The same with voting.

The man you do not want to give political power to is the man who wants it.

Yet, that is what is happening when you accept candidates on a ballot – all of them are the ones that want political power – precisely the ones that should not get it.

So, put your own candidate on the ballot!

Now I don’t mean go and accept some other person whose hand is waving in a ‘pick-me-pick-me’ sort of way.

I mean look around your community and ask yourself, “Who among us has the intelligence, the integrity, and shares the same values as I that will properly represent me?”

When you find that person, organize others who share those same ideals as you, get their names, and signatures, and then go to that person and ask them to run for political office.

Tell him that you and those that signed this piece of paper will work on the campaign to elect him, and you will help energize the community to support his candidacy.

Of course, he will be surprised. He never thought he should be running, didn’t want to run, and probably doesn’t want to run. He is the perfect candidate – the guy who doesn’t want the job. He’s not out to run your life or make the world into some perverted vision of his nightmare.

Because you picked him, he is probably honest and will do what he says he will do.

Because you picked him, he shares the same concerns about the same issues you do.

Because you picked him, you put him on the ballot and he is your candidate and representative in every sense and meaning of the words.

Now, your vote has power.

What are the implications of this? Well, take some time to think about that while I compose How to Get There from Here – Part Two – Civic Government and The Grassroots

(PS: That is a hint…)

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Hi Black Flag,

    Thank you for an excellent article with real life examples that I could easily comprehend. I hope you have a wonderful day!

    Best Regards,
    RS

  2. CWO2USNRet says:

    BF,

    I agree with much of what you are saying but take issue with “2) You do not chose the issues. They are presented to you.” Issues are ideas, not discrete take it or leave it propositions. The issues that any one citizen cares about are their own. If the candidates and media are spending a great deal of time on Issue ‘A’ but you only care about Issue ‘B’ then ignore ‘A’ and find the candidate that most closely aligns with your position on ‘B’. Nobody can impose their priorities on the issues on you.

    I think this weakens your argument some but overall there is much to consider here. Sounds like a well organized write-in campaign is the direction you propose.

    Also, your other reasons are, in significant part but not completely, addressed by the GOOOH concept.

    Off topic here BF, but I read an excellent piece by Dr. Clifford S. Asness titled Health Care Mythology that has your philosophy all through it. For the others here, I consider this a must read for those who wish to participate in the upcoming health care debate on this site.

    Best Regards,
    John

  3. I guess the phrase “work within the system” is not part of the BF vocabulary.

    I do see positives on what you are suggesting, but IMO unless you pick an incredibly honest and God fearing man he will end up just like the other politicians. Brainwashed by the cause of a political party or group and following along like a good lemming.

    “He is the perfect candidate – the guy who doesn’t want the job.”

    I agree with this statement but not with the means of selection because of my statement above.

    • Edward:

      “but IMO unless you pick an incredibly honest and God fearing man he will end up just like the other politicians”

      Now what does “God fearing” have to do with it? God did not create government so why should he give one whit about it?

      What you need are men and women who share YOUR CORE PRINCIPLES. An honest and God fearing man who believes the government should provided for the people is still “honest” and “God fearing” but does nothing to protect the CORE PRINCIPLES of LIBERTY and FREEDOM.

      Best Wishes this Sat Morning
      JAC

      • God-fearing is a phrase that I use routinely and was around when I was raised. The root of the phrase is that if you truly fear God then you have nothing to fear. So I guess a better term for this day and age would be “brave, benevolent,and fearless”.

        I think I mentioned this in a post last week but you’ll never have more freedom under a government than the day it is formed. After that first day the citizens are in an uphill battle for the way of life *promised* by the government.

        “What you need are men and women who share YOUR CORE PRINCIPLES.” I partially agree. What you need in this country is everyone to be raised being taught in the core principles of liberty and freedom. If you are brought up believing something its much harder later on to change what has been programmed in. The few that are willing to stand up to those principles now would be nothing compared to the tens of millions that could be raised knowing the true value of freedom of liberty. That is why our educational system is so scary – its almost diametrically opposed to this idea.

        Every battle against the tyranny of an oligarchy (the eventual form of gov’t in this country) is very critical. Education, health care, cap and trade, trade, finance, etc. – the growth of gov’t influence on these will continue unless true men of liberty and freedom come to the forefront and speak out.

  4. Actually, I have a different idea.

    I think government service in the legislature should be like jury duty.

    Two options

    1)Except on a tiered format, a group is randomly selected to serve in the local government, out of that group the most competent are placed in a pool to *possibly* serve (once again selected randomly) at the county level, out of that group the most competent are placed in a pool to possibly serve at the state level and so on. With a maximum service time of 2-4 years at any level. The same rules would apply for president.

    I’d love to see a farmer from South Carolina, a school teacher from Iowa, or a pastor from Arizona become president. No felons allowed.

    2) Similar to one. Except that the competent people from the local area are put on a ballot and the local populace “votes” to see who goes up to the state level. No campaigning allowed. A one page dossier is written up on why you want(or don’t want) the job and a breakdown of how you voted on the issues and is given to the voter at a randomly selected day (with at least one weeks notice) that the voter is required to show up and render their opinion (like jury duty). Same method used at the state and federal level.

    The Republic would still stand and you’d have a lot less of the problems that we face with politician’s today.
    Would it fix everything? No.
    Would it have problems? Tons.
    Would we be better off than we are now? No idea, but it would be interesting to try it.

    • So you want to use the “force of government” to make people serve?

      • Yes.

        Just like jury duty. You are FORCED to serve. You can do it with a smile on your face or by grumbling and whining about how life is unfair or you can suck it up and do your duty.

        • But how can Duty be forced on anyone?

          • Richmond Spitfire says:

            In Virginia (not sure about other states), the Jury pool is pulled from “Registered Voters”. So, if you aren’t a registered voter, then you name IS NOT thrown into the hat to be lottery-selected to report for Jury Duty.

            • Arkansas is the same, I have found it interesting that so many people I know have been
              called, but never me. But then, they know me, and probably don’t want me on a jury.

          • They’re the government. They can do anything! 🙂

            I know with this idea there are holes big enough to drive a truck through. I just didn’t like BFs idea the way it was and went a different direction.

  5. It’s been my experience that even an honest person with all the integrity in the world will become corrupt once they are in the “system”. We had high hopes in Argentine when a neighbor ran for the school board. He was against the increasing taxes and poor education that was resulting from an administration that was pretty holier than thou. He ended up going along with the group. I think no matter what, politics corrupts 😦

    • Richmond Spitfire says:

      That is sad Willo, when it is just the local government…

    • Just to help give you a wee bit of hope.

      I knew a wonderful lady once who decided the country was a mess and she would run for congress.

      She did and much to the chagrin of the establishment she won.

      I was the only one in my circle of friends who predicted, and bet good money, that she would win.

      She ran on the principles of liberty and freedom and put the govt back to what was intended.

      She promised to quite after 2 terms (don’t remember exactly but could have been 3)and she kept her promise.

      And the whole time she served she held true to those key principles. I never had to check on her position on any issue because I knew her position would be dictated by her Core. And it was.

      The result was that she was ridiculed by the left and some of the mainstream Republicans as an excentric loon. She questioned the government agencies about flying unmarked helicopters around her rural state of Idaho. They all laughed, except the citizens who were constantly seeing these “black helcicopters” flying around the forests.

      Others would call here Congresswoman and she would insist they call her Congressman, as that was the title conferred by our founders. I always called her by her first name and she never once voiced any concern over my use of her first name when meeting in public. She would simply shake my hand, give me a hug and say, “It’s so nice to see you again”.

      She was a trully wonderful person who walked the talk.

      And by the way, she volunteered to run for the office without help from others. She did it out of a sense of anger and frustration. I did not place her on the ballot, but I sure as hell did vote for her when the primary came along. She crushed the Party handpicked favorite, because she connected with the people at their level. In the General Election she unseated an incumbant Democratic Congressman. The unions sponsored the Democrat but the members voted for her, and the rest as they say was history.

      There is hope my dear friend, but it does take patience, concerted effort, and determination to find those small bits of light in the darkness.

      Just because it is hard is no reason to stop looking.
      Live Free
      JAC

  6. Interesting concept BF and my mind is spinning. Implications? Why would anyone (out of the blue) want to be involved?

    Ironically, as I’m typing this, there is a clip on Fox News about a couple of reps that are heading out on a roadtrip to look for fresh faces for the GOP and the guy talked about looking for regular citizens who perhaps have never considered holding an office, but are successful in their ‘regular’ lives and are interested in returning freedoms to the people and are willing to give some time to their country in this pursuit.

    • I tried to catch that too, Kathy. It’s raining like heck here tho, and my dtv blipped on us for about half an hour 😦

      • Hi Willo,

        Some good storms coming through southern WI this am also, but so far we’ve kept our signal. I didn’t catch the names of the two guys doing the roadtrip, but perhaps foxnews.com will have an article.

        Stay dry!

        • Hi Willo and Kathy

          Maybe you guys got the weather we were having for a couple days here in Reno.

          Hope you both are doing good today.

          Judy

    • Barbarian says:

      Government service in senate or house was never ment to be a full-time job. Only because of increasing involvement (interference) in the lives of the people has it become so. If we are to govern ourselves, the population, being well educated with respect to our governing principles (constitution0 has to be involved.

      As for corruption, absolute power corrupts absolutely. These positions were not intended to be positions of power but a proxy given by the people to their representitive to forward their concerns. When we ceased holding them accountable, allowed them to gain power by giving them the ability to grant entitlements, we created an environment ripe for corruption.

    • Not that this would be likely to happen, even on a local level, but I was thinking about someone getting elected involuntarily, ie: put on the ballot/written in whatever without their consent/approval. Since elected officials can resign at any time, this person obviously wouldn’t be forced to serve, and yet with the elected office delivered gift-wrapped, would they choose to do so anyway?

  7. BF:

    My dear friend, since no one else has asked I will.

    What is your definition of VOTE?

    Had enough cold rain yet?

    JAC

  8. So, are you going to run when we nominate you for president? Considering what you think the role of government should be, it will be an easy job, right?

  9. Hate to be the wet blanket (of course I don’t) but you’re dealing with a citizenry who needs to hear “fire” because “help” won’t elicit a response. Now you hope that a great seething mass of them pick their own candidate and through perseverance manage that individual into a position of power? That would be a hard pressed thing here in Canada where “help” gets the response hoped for and citizens go leagues out of their way to help others.

    Your left has the right (snicker: sad I know) idea. If the conservatives would become boisterous conservatives actively challenging their party and turning off that monetary spigot until someone gets thirsty enough to listen, they’d see an actuality of their will. Until the “Tea Parties”, I had not ever seen with my own eyes the men and women of small business step out from behind the counters to face off against government. This I believe was/is the key to a/the grass roots centrist movement in America.

    Small business actually standing shoulder to shoulder with their employees and customers, drawing a line in the sand and readying themselves for war is what has POTUS shitting his pants. Not senators nor congressmen could have caused that smiling mask of Obama’s to crack so. His “turn them in” knee jerk proved beyond a doubt that those very well spoken business people I watched in various videos successfully assailing the Obamabots rhetoric has earned his ire. From where I stand, Obama himself has shown you exactly where to push and whom to push with and neither is out of reach.

    • Barbarian says:

      An excellent assessment Mr. Alan F!

      But I take exception to your cdomment that our citizens do not go leagues out of their way to help others. Maybe I missed your point.

      • Some do and I’m friends with several who are pulling 20 hour weeks for little league and such but there are an enormous number of Americans who have “I, me, my” on the brain. Case and point the Kenneth Gladney beating by the SEIU parasites. That was a truly significant event and it raised what ire from those who have laid claim to the mantle of championing for the rights of EVERY AMERICAN? Bugger all.

        Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Susan Herman and POTUS Pilate himself have earned themselves a STFU.

  10. Hello Everyone

    I say we nominate Black Flag for our next pres since he knows so much. Whadda ya say about that. I bet he’d whip that government into shape, no bones about it. Who’s with me? Anybody?

  11. Black Flag says:

    CWO2USNRet

    I agree with much of what you are saying but take issue with “2) You do not chose the issues. They are presented to you.” Issues are ideas, not discrete take it or leave it propositions. The issues that any one citizen cares about are their own.

    But then why would you vote for someone on an issue you don’t care about?

    If the candidates and media are spending a great deal of time on Issue ‘A’ but you only care about Issue ‘B’ then ignore ‘A’ and find the candidate that most closely aligns with your position on ‘B’. Nobody can impose their priorities on the issues on you.

    Yes they do!

    Even in your case, you’ve assumed that either of these issues are your issues. But neither of them are – they are presented to you as if they were your issues. It is an illusion of great magnitude the Elites have pulled over the people’s eyes.

    My parable of peas or carrots for supper….

    Supporting Candidate on an issue you do not have will makes it an issue you do have

    This is how a mess gets created.

    If I say “Brown grass is an issue!” and you go “I don’t care, but I’ll vote for you anyway” – Brown grass is now an issue. I will tax you to fix the brown grass – taking money away from you.

    If the other guy says “No, wilted trees are the issue” and these are the only two options — what do you get?

    I think this weakens your argument some but overall there is much to consider here. Sounds like a well organized write-in campaign is the direction you propose.

    No.

    You do not control the candidate you did not directly chose to run.

    Edward

    I guess the phrase “work within the system” is not part of the BF vocabulary.

    No. The system is corrupt and evil to its core.

    You cannot change a systemic system of corruption from the inside. The only way you get inside is to be corrupt.

    Therefore, all you can do is make it worse.

    I do see positives on what you are suggesting, but IMO unless you pick an incredibly honest and God fearing man he will end up just like the other politicians. Brainwashed by the cause of a political party or group and following along like a good lemming.

    Where did you see anything about a political party in my post?

    That is why I said “not the guy who’s hand is waving in a “pick-me” fashion”.

    “What you need are men and women who share YOUR CORE PRINCIPLES.” I partially agree. What you need in this country is everyone to be raised being taught in the core principles of liberty and freedom.

    No. The ‘everyone’ clause is impossible, nor is it needed.

    It is a small, few, dedicated people that win the day.

    Edward

    Actually, I have a different idea.

    I think government service in the legislature should be like jury duty.

    Two options

    1)Except on a tiered format, a group is randomly selected to serve in the local government, out of that group the most competent are placed in a pool to *possibly* serve (once again selected randomly) at the county level, out of that group the most competent are placed in a pool to possibly serve at the state level and so on. With a maximum service time of 2-4 years at any level. The same rules would apply for president.

    I proposed this once before as well.

    The flaw is, you do not have a choice, on either side – the people or the representative. There is no control over the representative to act in the interests the people.

    Your system would be very much better than the current system – perhaps, in some modification, useful for federal politics – such as sending an already elected, civic, representative (in the BF way) by random to national level discussions to represent the people.

    Since the people have rightly chosen the fellow already, he would still be under their wishes.

    Willo

    It’s been my experience that even an honest person with all the integrity in the world will become corrupt once they are in the “system”. We had high hopes in Argentine when a neighbor ran for the school board. He was against the increasing taxes and poor education that was resulting from an administration that was pretty holier than thou. He ended up going along with the group. I think no matter what, politics corrupts

    But you didn’t pick him! That was the flaw.

    It was He who put his name on the ballot, not you.

    I see that you don’t understand the implications of what I have suggested. You fell into exactly the trap I explained – that a predator, while looking nice and well-meaning, put HIS name on the ballot and asked for your vote. You deserve what you got.

    Kathy

    Interesting concept BF and my mind is spinning. Implications? Why would anyone (out of the blue) want to be involved?

    They don’t. Which is why they are the best candidate.

    Ironically, as I’m typing this, there is a clip on Fox News about a couple of reps that are heading out on a roadtrip to look for fresh faces for the GOP and the guy talked about looking for regular citizens who perhaps have never considered holding an office, but are successful in their ‘regular’ lives and are interested in returning freedoms to the people and are willing to give some time to their country in this pursuit.

    Stay away from party politics – this is simply another means of the system (ie: find hands that wave “pick me!” More on party politics in another post, though.

    Just A Citizen

    BF:
    My dear friend, since no one else has asked I will.

    What is your definition of VOTE?

    An acknowledgment of representation.

    Had enough cold rain yet?

    A F1 hit nearby killing a person.

    Jennie

    So, are you going to run when we nominate you for president? Considering what you think the role of government should be, it will be an easy job, right?

    It would take more than a case of beer to convince me to run, and if I won, I’d probably be assassinated in a week.

    • More than a case of beer? What shall we offer you? Power? Prestige? Oh, wait, we don’t want you to want those things.
      As far as the assassination thing goes, that would be pretty much your entire job, not getting assassinated, and if foreign leader wanted to visit with you, you could have them over for tea and give them advice on how to not run their own countries

    • I do agree on staying away from “party politics” – this is a big change for me and I keep getting the calls wondering where my $$$ is that I’m not giving any longer.

      I just thought it was an interesting concept to go out there and look for “regular people”.

    • BF:

      “An acknowledgment of representation.”

      But that would not be a universal definition. It would perhaps apply only to those VOTES concerning the selection of representatives.

      Perhaps we should explore the “nature” of voting to determine its rightful and useful purpose?

      • I did that a few months ago: Voting is usually wrong

        • Question here. If voting is wrong, then why do we do it?

          • Conditioning and being told constantly that it is the responsible thing to do, and that you “have no voice” if you don’t.

            • Kent

              Thanks for the answer. Okay, it might be the responsible thing to do, but my feeling is, whether you vote or not, you still don’t have a ” a voice”.

              I say that, because I have yet to see where any politician listens to the peoples voice. But that is my opinion.

              • Judy S., I absolutely agree. I am “anti-voting”. But politicians and their handlers need to keep people believing this nonsense. It is only this that keeps their worthless corpses from cluttering up the trees and lamp posts.

              • Kent

                What do you mean about cluttering up the trees an lamp posts? I don’t quit understand that.

                But this has been going on since the first vote, has it not?

                If we were to all just quit voting, in your opinion, what do you think would happen then?

                Judy

              • I’ll reply below

        • Good comments Kent but I don’t think it gets to the essence of what a Vote is.

          If we accept that it is the delegation or imposition on the “whole” then we are accepting the paradigm that supports the definition.

          If we change the paradigm does the same definition still hold true? And if so, to what extent?

          My point of the question is that too many of us tie many things to the concept of “voting”. It may or may not deal with “representation” for example.

          In my view a vote is nothing more than an expression of personal preference, a decision to select a particular option based on my personal values, goals and objectives. Of course it is only needed when two or more are involved in the decision making.

          The effect of my vote however, must be evaluated in the context in which it is given. Thus the vote to impose theft on others versus a decision to paint the fence white, are differing contexts.

          And what if the group had unanimously agreed that either brown, natural or white was acceptable before voting? In this context I have agreed to help pay for a color I do not prefer, but I still participate in the vote, hoping my prefered color wins. If I lose then I still help. But you do not have to, because you did not agree to the three choices and in fact you wanted a wall and not a fence.

          Does the choice or choices include only evil or immoral options? If yes, then do not vote.

          What if only some options are evil or immoral? Now we have a conundrum on our hands. For if enough of us choose the moral, we win and evil loses. But if we do not prevail, our vote will be used by the evil winners to “validate” the choice of evil over good. This is the nature of the word “consensus”. A vote for evil over good will be viewed as a “consensus” among the public that evil is necessary.

          So if we can not vote when good and evil compete, how do we protect ourselves from the evil?

          Glad to see you stepping in more often. I will make a point to visit your site more often. Kind of got away from it these past few months as summer is busier for some silly reason.

          Best to You and yours
          JAC

          • As long as the “vote” is not on something which would violate another person’s rights, it can be a simple “personal preference”. Those are the kinds of votes I say are OK. Very, very few votes are of this kind. If the results of your vote would cause someone to have money stolen through “taxes” or would cause them to be subject to kidnapping (“arrest”) for something that harms no innocent person, then the vote itself is wrong.

            If evil prevails because good lost the vote, then it is time to move beyond electoral politics in any case.

            • In your opinion is it OK to vote when given a choice between good and evil?

              • For me, personally, no. If that were the case I would be agreeing that if evil wins, the result is legitimate. It is not.

              • Then the nature of VOTE is more than just expressing a decision or choice.

                It carries a characteristic of “validation” or “acceptance of any outcome” if I understand your response. Correct?

                Now, does it inherently include “acceptance” as a characteristic or is that dependent on the context. In this case the history and practive of voting within OUR systems as it currently exists?

              • reply at bottom

  12. Bravo, BF! This is the best outreach from an anarchist to the politically indoctrinated I have ever seen. This is something that could really work in the real world as it exists today.

  13. This is really hard for me to try and come up with something. but I will try.
    ________________________________________________________________
    What BF said

    I mean look around your community and ask yourself, “Who among us has the intelligence, the integrity, and shares the same values as I that will properly represent me?”
    _____________________________________________________________________

    When I read your statement above, it makes me ask this.

    How do you know who that person would be?

    Is this suppose to be someone you know personally, or just any person you see walking down the street?

    You can’t just go up to somebody and ask them what their core values and principles are, can you? My guess is,if you do, they’ll either bop you one, or perhaps just might answer you.

    There is only one person I can think of here, and she is on the city council. She is the only one I know of, that might actually fit that category that you are speaking of. If there is something the council might want to do ” for the city”, and if she thinks it’s not right, she will speak her mind and gives her reasons why she thinks it’s not the right thing to do.

    She actually gets out there with the people and talks with them about what they would like to see take place or what can be done to better the city here. What do the people here feel what needs to be done to make this place more attractive to bring others up here. She asks them what can she do to help that situation.

    I personally don’t know what her core values and principles are, but I do know, she is for the people, and just doesn’t vote on something, because the other member of council says so. She is her own person that I’m aware of, and for what I see of her, she is not of the same mold as what I see in the other council members. Apparently we like her here, because she has been voted for several times over all other incumbents. She is in her 30’s, and rather attractive too. At least I think so anyway.

    I hope this is kind of what you’re talking about BF. If not, then please by all means, correct me on what you mean. This is what Kind of person I would like to see in our government.

    • Look back at BF’s analogy.

      The idea is, you’re better off picking someone at random, than picking someone who actually wants to be picked.

      Even better, though – you don’t have to actually pick at random, but can choose among those who are not seeking selection, so the result is likely to even better than a random choice.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Not sure injecting “randomness” into such an important decision is filled with the brilliance you guys profess. Do you randomly choose your spouse? Job? Vacation destination? Workplace? Bank? (and so on and so forth.

        Think your idea needs some more baking.

        • Black Flag says:

          Ray

          DKII does have it right.

          This is picking a person that holds my best interest dear.

          This is also about avoiding a predator – a person who cares very little about my interest, and focuses almost solely on his.

          I mean, Ray, politicians have no problem sending young men to kill and die for a lie.

          Picking the next guy I see on the street would be a better choice than any professional politician. At least my odds are that he holds human life somewhat valuable.

          So, that is the point of my entire post – specifically going out and finding someone whose interests ARE ALIGNED with yours – not accepting the vetted list on a ballot.

          And yes, I’d agree-picking someone who has violent control over your life should be done with the greatest seriousness equal or greater than picking a wife.

  14. BF said:
    “But you didn’t pick him! That was the flaw.
    It was He who put his name on the ballot, not you.
    I see that you don’t understand the implications of what I have suggested. You fell into exactly the trap I explained – that a predator, while looking nice and well-meaning, put HIS name on the ballot and asked for your vote. You deserve what you got.”

    I guess I don’t want to become involved in any way. There is a reason I live in the middle of 60 acres. I don’t want to know my neighbors or their neighbors. At this stage I think we are in the “CYA” mode and just keep a low profile and hope for the best. Selfish I know, but I had no kids for a reason too 🙂

  15. I’m new to this blog, but I tend to agree with not voting, at least for now. The cause should be to get on the ballot for NOTA (None of the Above)so voters have a true choice. If NOTA get 10% of the vote then the parties have to go back and find another candidate to offer.

    It is true that others offer the voters a choice and we are only allowed to pick between 2 candidates that others picked for us and tell us ‘we had a choice’. The 2 major political parties are so tight that the average man/woman don’t have a chance to participate in the decision-making-process.

    • Welcome CTCT05
      I agree with the not voting unless it means voting no for a stupid millage that will raise my taxes.

    • Welcome CTCT05

      Welcome to the club, hope you will enjoy being here as much as I do. I’ve only been here a few months myself, and I really enjoy chatting with everyone. I find the people here to be very respectful of one another, and can also be very helpful as well.

      I’ve come to consider these people here to be my friends, and I hope you will too. Once again, welcome to the club.

      Judy

  16. Hi Ya’ll!! Rad the article very earlt this morning, had to travel to the hills and get some things done. Those that I e-mail have some pics and are able too share with all.

    BF, Your article was excellent, and very true. Even in the military, I have been involved with this very thing. On two occassions, I was involved with a change of certain leadership duties, that deviated from the rank structure, and it was extremely successful in both cases. One was peacetime, one was wartime. At this time of the night, I just don’t have time to go into details, but what you said is, through my experiences, totally true. Well done, and thanks for keeping in simple!!

    Recent events involving the healthcare issue continues to evolve. I have been very vocal with my notes to my elected jerks, but respectful. I’m not to happy with their resonses.

    With that in mind, I watched a movie, “Unforgiven”, with my Dad tonight. I suggest everyone watch it, as it may be the best example of what is happening today (if you can understand the underlying meaning). Check it out!

    Getting late, PEACE to all!

    G!

  17. PapaDawg says:

    I see that Mr. Black Flag is running for public office.

    I do not think that his idea is at all the right thing to do.

    If we all did that, then no one would know anything about the winner except for those that put him on the ballot in the first place.

    Which is exactly what we have now with the political party that puts a candidate on the ballot.

    Therefore eliminating all political party affiliations and making the respective candidates run on their own merits and beholden to no one would be a much better solution.

    A. No party to dictate to the candidate once elected.

    B. All candidates exposed to the people doing the voting.

    C. Any and all contributions to someones political campaign should be out there for all to see instead of being hidden in a party funded ad.

    This is a much better idea, don’t you think so Mr. Black Flag?

    • The only president to not be affiliated with a political party was George Washington. He didn’t think they were necessary and would hinder the “democratic” process.

      From this website:
      http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/history/politics.html

      Political parties did not exist in 1789. Washington despised the idea of political associations, formed in such a way as to pit one group of citizens against another. In his farewell speech in 1796 he said:

      [While speaking on the subject — The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.]

      “All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

      “However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

      As usually our founding fathers have a nice way of summing up the problems of today.

      • Now that you have said it, I happen to agree with President Washington 150% and then some!

        What bothers me to the gills is that no one else in these modern times can see the forest for the trees!

  18. JAC- I don’t honestly believe there is any election where one candidate would never enact anything that would violate the rights of the innocent. At best, you get a “lesser of two evils” situation. Now, it may be that those whose rights are being violated are extremely unpopular. That doesn’t excuse it. I can’t tell you what is absolutely concrete “right” in this situation, but for ME, I would not feel right about casting a vote for any person. Even in the case of voting against a “tax” I feel it is probably better to find ways to simply avoid paying regardless of the vote results.

    I have really come to see that participating in government at all is a very dirty business. “Jury duty” being the ONE exception I would make FOR MYSELF, if I got the chance.

  19. Dear Black Flag,

    For months now you have been writing, “don’t vote”. Now you say vote only for a person you persuade to agree to serve. You pre-suppose that any individual who decides to run is doing so for personal gain or reasons other than doing what is best for the country. JAC had an example that would argue against that. I simply do not agree, some who run for office, and even some serving are the people we need, because the share our core values. Even their being a member of one of the parties does not change their values, just how they see how they need to work in order to be most effective.

    Your proposal of selecting your own candidate is interesting, but lacks detail to be workable. If I choose such a person to run for Rep., how do I/we get people in the next town to support my pick, much less the next county. John Q. Public, in the next town, did not pick my guy, and by your argument, should not vote for him.

    The problem grows with the different positions, senator being the whole state I/we must convince that I have chosen the best candidate, and then the nation as we try electing a President.
    Life of Illusion say, Joe Bob James is who we should vote for, been hunting and fishing with him for 20 years, all he talks about is how the government is screwing things up, and how we ought to fix it. Vote for J.B. James to fix all that, and to shut him the hell up. All that talking scares the fish.

    So far (part 1), you do not have the means to get your guy elected. GOOOH, Tea Parties and Project 9/12 are at least organized, first and last calling for an end of the parties.
    Are they not in fact, attempting just what you propose, and doing a better job? I have not seen the media covering the Black Flag party, made up of independents who acknowledge only their core principals, not their fearless leader, or even the nation they have been selected to represent. (warned you I was sharpening knives)

    I see this problem being the same as it has been for years. Only the two parties have been able to promote their candidates to the public, much of that due to an agenda driven media, that chooses
    who to report on, and therefore, screens the candidates before most of the public is aware of them. The internet may be able to change that, but so far, I don’t see anyone who has organize all the interested public into looking for any one or dozen sites for information. I have written to USW about an ideal, having used some “find your candidate” match sites. I am not very liberal, but one site matched me to Obama, and it was accurate! Ask the right questions, framed the right way, and the chickens choose the fox to guard the hen house.

    I think that is where GOOOH and 9/12 are on the right track, they require candidates to define their positions on a variety of issues, which is not the same as explaining their core values.

    Think I will stop for now, and will look for part 2. I hope my sharp words have not cut too deep. More likely that you don’t have a scratch on you. A good article, thanks for sharing your thoughts, and a good day to all.

    • LOI

      If a candidate holds a core value that the federal govt has a role to manage certain affairs of its citizens for the supposed “good of society”, then why would you vote for such a person based on their stated position regarding other issues. Why would you not try to discover that he/she held this value, as it will surely affect how they make decisions regarding all issues.

      I again reference Mr. Steele’s comment that Republicans are working for “reasonable solutions”. This means Federal Govt solutions, which means loss of liberty, which violates the very CORE VALUES this country was founded upon. So why would we vote for anyone who proposes “reasonable solutions” without first understanding their CORE VALUES?

      Any process must start digging for the Core Values or all efforts at reform will be futile.

      I too hope you have a great day.
      JAC

      After all, my definition of “reasonable” would be quite different becasue of my Core, than say 99.9% of Republicans currently holding office.

      I would like to add one thing about PARTIES. It is not the organization or existence of a “party” that is the problem. Yes, they carry potential for mischief if there is no counter to their efforts. But therein lies the real problem. The two major parties have used the Law (federal and state) to create defacto MONOPOLIES on political discourse.

      • JAC:

        I agree.

        Congress and the President do mostly Un-Constitutional legislation.

        The best plan of two plans that are not Constitutional is no plan.

        Obamacare is Un-Constitutional

        GarthD
        Stand Up For Your RIGHTS and State RIGHTS.

    • LOI:

      What is your result from the following site.

      http://www.ontheissues.org/quizeng/XPolitics/start.asp

      I range from a Conservative Leaning Libertarian to a Libertarian Leaning Conservative depending how well I stay with my core beliefs

      GarthD
      Stand Up For Individual Rights

      • Will respond this afternoon, got some things happening now.

      • Garth,

        Libertarian Conservative, which I had issues with some of the questions. Military spending for example, I favor paying troops more, and a gradual reduction of foreign bases. They forced you to pick one, and I agreed with parts of all four, so none of the above, but I did have an opinion.

        Same problem with many of the find your candidate sites, the questions are framed in such a way, they can show Obama as a match for me, but I oppose late term abortions and more gun laws. I have trouble finding anything he and I agree on, but if a question is asked the right way, I would find myself having to think we view the world the same. So what I am saying, these sites all seem to have strong bias.

        • I agree with you. They had me as someone who believes the government should enforce my morality on others. Funny, I think the LBGT morality shouldn’t be enforced on others. Who’d thunk it?

    • JAC,

      “If a candidate holds a core value that the federal govt has a role to manage certain affairs of its citizens for the supposed “good of society”, then why would you vote for such a person”

      I hope I did not express such an opinion. I am looking for other candidates, those who favor getting government out of everyone’s lives.

      • What I got from your comment was that you didn’t need to find out whether you shared the “Core Values” with the candidate. You were going to evaluate them based on their response to issues.

        My point is that we need to focus on their Core Values. If those are correct it will be easier to get the rest and much easier to stay on top of them once elected.

        I may have misread you original so just let me know if it is so.

        The reason I don’t like the Goooh question method is it is focused on issues and not core values. If the questions were restructured and reduced in number I think it would make a better method for trying to find out what makes the potential candidate tick.

        I do like the idea of a Pledge of some kind. It is not binding but does give everyone a clear set of agreements from which to evaluate performance. If change is needed the politician can suck it up and come home to explain why he/she had to vote the way they did. Sometimes compromise is needed to gain the footing to move forward. But it should never be just to compromise in order to look reasonable.

        Let me know if I misunderstood your original post.

        The best to you this fine Monday morning.
        JAC

        • JAC,

          You misunderstood, its all your fault. Or I may have skipped parts for my personal, evil intentions. How do most people define their core values? It would be interesting to hear a politician express themselves, followed by an aha when an issue they support goes against their supposed values. People are living contradictions. I like your ideal, but don’t see it as much different than getting them to answer on enough issues, that will also show their values.
          Could be that I’m just shallow.

  20. Good Morning to All!

    Had some travel time to think about things, and there were good points brought up by everyone. I do believe that our government needs a major reworking, because it is failing the people, and could be on the verge of actually hurting the people. I also believe that everyone that posts here, believes strongly in “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”.

    We are all seeing and reading about the events surrounding the Healthcare reform issue, and it continues to heat up, and for good reason. This legislation will step all over those beliefs mentioned above.

    I’m not beginning a debate on the legislation, but rather continuing the one we are on. I, have never had any desire to engage in politics, to run for office, or have any kind of power over anyone. When asked to serve my community with jury duty, which I have coming up in two weeks, I’m am happy to do so. I did not ask for this.
    Now, based on BF’s article, it would seem that I would be a good choice for public office, because I don’t want position like that, but under his terms of choice, if I was chosen to represent my neighbors, by their choice, not mine, I would do so. I would also be very truthful with them, because they have put much trust in me.

    Let’s say that forty people are picked by their communities to run for U.S Representative. These forty people could come together, discuss the their values, then present them to the different communities. The forty epole can then meet, and based on what their communities opinions are, could come up with two or three who would actually run for that office. Hopefully, the people will vote for the one that best expresses their own values. The winner, who didn’t want the job to begin with, would most likely gain a great deal of pride in communities, and would legislate with honesty and dignity, and provide the kind of representation that we all desire today.

    While this process seems unusual, the end result would be a much need change in government. It would really be “of the people, by the people and for the people” Rather than the current “too the people” we all love and embrace now (LOL).

    Peace!

    G!

    • On a lighter note. Today will be the fist day that the temp will hit the 90 degree mark this year, and looks like the only day that will happen this summer. I’d like all of tou to join me in a virtual punch in Al Gore’s left eye!
      G!

  21. This news video says alot about our economic crisis and how it occurred. Not to change the subject, but this must see. Maybe we can debate this at another time.

    G!

    • Hi G

      Watched the video, and it’s too bad they didn’t listen, because look where we are now.

      Judy

      • Judy, the left can’t seem to grasp reality. They have no clue, completely tunnel visioned into their own agenda, not being smart enough to realize that it will destroy them first. Rule of thought “you can medicate the mentally ill, but you can never fix STUPID”

        G!

        • You delude yourself by assuming that the left is “stupid” and that the results are not exactly what they wanted from the very beginning. Assume nothing.

  22. Judy S.- I’m saying that if the majority of people came to realize how completely ineffectual voting is, and how they are being used and abused by those who seek political power over their lives, they might start lynching the tax parasites in large numbers (or doing the modern equivalent). And they would probably be justified in doing so.

    We “all” will never stop voting, as some people cling to anything that gives them a sense of control, even if it is a false sense. The vast majority of the population already does not vote, either out of apathy, understanding, or “legal” prohibitions. So many things now take away your freedom to vote. (Even though I disagree with voting, it is still a basic right. Not all “rights” should be exercised in every instance.) If somehow a tipping point of non-voters were reached, the government would keep acting just as it does now: as if it has the support of nearly everyone.

    Government is doomed one way or another. And probably sooner than you realize. The more it attempts to regulate and control consensual behavior between responsible individuals, the more those individuals (like me) live outside “the law”. At some point government will become like a crazy street-corner preacher screaming at all passersby, and being ignored. The question is, at that point, do we make the same mistake as usual and try to establish a new government, convinced that “this time we’ll get it right”, or do we simply take control of our own lives like responsible people (“adults”)?

    • Kent

      How do we know that if we do start a new government, it wouldn’t be the same way as it is now? What makes you or anybody for that matter think things would improve if we were to start one?

      In the last election, I admit, I voted for McCain, only because I did not like any of Obama’s policies and I still don’t. It wasn’t because he was black either, that had nothing to do with it. I figured that McCain was better than nothing.

      I guess I fall into that trap that Black Flag talks about and I vote because I feel it is my duty. I also figure that the way I voted would give McCain more votes, who knew.

      I don’t vote because of political party, I vote for who I think would be the better candidate, and always have. It doesn’t matter to me which side they’re on. If I like what they stand for, then I go with that person. If they go against in what I believe in, then they don’t get my vote.

      I feel instead of government dictating to us on what we are suppose to do, then we have that right to do what we see and feel is best for us, always have. This government is way to busy sticking there noses where it does not belong.

      For instance, my son is in pre-med right now, and he’s hoping with all his might, that this new bill won’t pass. I told him, don’t hold your breath. He says, and not only him, that government does not belong in the medical profession, not do they belong in the health insurance business. Who are they to dictate to doctors, and hospitals on who to do surgery on or who to see or not to see. And who do they think they are in telling doctors on how much they can charge a patient, or what kind and how much of certain medications they can pass out.

      I asked him, then if you feel that way, then why become a doctor? He said, it’s because he wants to be able to help people, and he has always wanted to be a doctor sine he was a little boy. He also said that if government tries and takes control of the medical business, then we will for sure lose a lot of doctors, they will leave the profession and find something else to get into.

      He’s got at least another 8 to 10years of schooling left and then hopefully he will become a doctor, after working his butt off to get that medical license.

  23. Judy S.- I think you misunderstand me. I DO think any government will be the same as what we have now. Maybe a little better at first, or a little worse, but heading in the same direction- toward greater power and more interference. This is why government is a dead end.

    You might want to read my Examiner column for more insights into my views. Black Flag and I are very much on the same page where government is concerned.

    • Kent

      If you think government will be the same, then why change it? Why try and establish a new one if that’s how you and others think and feel, that doesn’t make sense to me.

      How do you figure they are headed to more power and greater interference than they already are?

      BTW, sorry for all the questions, but I have a tendency to do that. I did that with Black Flag the other night as well. I’m just trying to learn still all the ways that everybody thinks here and it helps to learn even more.

      I will go on your site and do some reading. I’m sure I can learn more, never to old to learn.

      • Don’t change it; ignore it. The only legitimate form of government is “self-government” at the level of the individual (also known as “self-control”).

        If you don’t think government can have more power and interference than it does currently you need to look at history. It is BAD now, but can get much worse. The solution is to remove the framework of government. This is the equivalent to taking the gun out of the mugger’s hand and putting it where it belongs: in the hand of the intended target.

        • You really got me thinking now Kent. But just how do you ignore government, when it seems like no matter where you go, they are there in you face in one way or the other?
          I don’t think you can completely ignore government totally, can you?

          But if you take the gun our of the hands of the mugger, and putting it in the hands of the intended target, isn’t that just as bad? I mean, one of them is still going to get shot, possibly, right.

          So, if government is going to get worse,instead of better, outside of ignoring it, what can a person do then.

          It will be long hard road to try and convince people to ignore something that they have come to rely on. Damn, I forgot what I was going to say, but if I remember it, I will come back to it.

          • No, I don’t think you can totally ignore government. I do try, but I also keep my eyes open in an attempt to avoid being murdered by its agents. It is a fine line, but it really isn’t that hard. Think of it as a goal, not a requirement for freedom.

            What you can do is find ways to get the same results without relying on government to provide it. Don’t ask for permission to do what it is your right to do if you have a decent chance of being able to “get away with it”. This is what I call “Assume liberty”. Your first thought shouldn’t be “what permits do I need?” If you can find someone who can provide a service or product, as long as you trust them, don’t concern yourself about their “tax license” or “permits”. Buyer beware, of course, but how many examples do we have of “properly licensed” businesses causing problems? Plenty. Go about building a network of people you trust. Start now.

            You can’t control what anyone else does with their lives. If they feel they depend on government you will not change that by nagging. Don’t waste your time trying to convince those who love government that they don’t need it and would be better off without it. Don’t fret over their lack of self-ownership, but focus on your own life instead. An actual example is more powerful than all the logic in the world.

            As to the example of the gun being taken from the mugger by his intended victim- I would much rather the good people, those who have no intention to attack ohters, be holding the gun. If the bad guy gets shot due to his aggression, I will shed no tears. As L. Neil Smith has said, those who fear guns in the hands of the good people would rather see a woman raped and strangled with her own pantyhose in an alley than to see her standing over the rapist’s bleeding corpse with a smoking gun in her hand.

            • Well, what can I say, except that between you and Black Flag, I am sure learning a lot here.

              Never did remember what I wanted to say, but I’m sure it’ll come to me tonight sometime.

              Kent, I would like to say, it’s been really nice chatting with you, but I think I’ll go for awhile if you don’t mind, and do really do something here on things, Besides, my son is here, and I would like to visit with him.

              Catch you later if you happen to be here.

              Thanks for teaching me.

              Judy

    • Kent, Did some reading on your site, it’s actually a nice site and well presented.

      I have only found any form of anarchism in very small community settings (even in big cities). My neighbors (about 7) look out for each other, help each other when needed, and do not interfere with the personnal family issues, unless invited. This has worked well for all of us, in the midst of a much bigger community. It’s what I see as an example of what Black Flag and yourself believe in.

      If there were a place were this exists, with an entire population (country per say) I would like to live there.

      Sadly, it most likely will never exist anywhere. There will always be those that want power and will use violence to achieve that goal. One cannot fight violence or people who are violent, in our world, without violence at a higher level.

      Black Flag wrote about the Atomic Bombing of two cities in Japan near the end of WWII. I always liked his historical posts (I like history), and would agree that this should never happen again. And I blame government for all of this, in any form that it comes.

      We are facing a potentially very violent future in our lives, right here in our own country. I would have never believed I would here the word “revolution” by so many people. But here we are, and we need to think about this at it’s very core. I do not fear. It is not in my being. I’ve eliminated fear from my life, which allows me to think more clearly about the future, and what it may take to overcome the evil that has grown so much, in so short of time.

      Nice to have you posting here, as I cherish the opinions of everyone who does so.

      PEACE!

      G!

      • We all live individual lives, that is why anarchism works every time it is tried. We all live lives of anarchy. You don’t ask permission of the government when you are choosing what you want to eat, what movie you want to watch, or who you fall in love with, do you? You don’t attack people whom you interact with. The aggressors are rare, and are protected by government from immediate consequences of their actions. This encourages and reinforces their bad behavior.

        The mistake is in believing that what works for individuals won’t work for more individuals. It will. It does. I have never in my life had to interact with an entire “nation of people” at once. Have you? Instead, I deal with one or two people at a time, with occasional larger groups of individuals.

        I read all these posts, but don’t usually comment too much since BF does such an excellent job of explaining freedom. Ever so often, though, I feel inspired to jump in. My column keeps me pretty busy most of the time.

        • Kent, you’ve touched on something that has always left me with questions when BF has talked about this concept in other postings. I can see where it would work in small groups, ie families, communities, even regions. It’s when it gets big, like the whole nation that I struggle with envisioning what that would be like.

          You are right though, we don’t deal with the whole nation at once.

  24. Here comes the rain again-
    Falling on my head like a memory,
    Falling on my head like a new emotion.

    I want to walk in the open wind.
    I want to talk like lovers do.
    I want to dive into your ocean.
    Is it really with you?

    So baby talk to me
    Like lovers do.
    Walk with me
    Like lovers do.
    Talk to me
    Like lovers do.

    Here comes the rain again-
    Raining in my head like a tragedy,
    Tearing me apart like a new emotion.
    I want to breathe in the open wind.
    I want to kiss like lovers do.
    I want to dive into your ocean.
    Is it really with you?

    So baby talk to me
    Like lovers do.

    Here it comes again.

    Here comes the rain again-
    Falling on my head like a memory,
    Falling on my head like a new emotion.

    Here it goes again.
    Here it goes again.

    I want to walk in the open wind.
    I want to talk like lovers do.
    I want to dive into your ocean.
    It is really with you.

    Here comes the rain again-
    falling on my head like a memory,
    falling on my head like e new emotion.

    I want to walk in the open wind.
    I want to talk like lovers do.
    I want to dive into your ocean.
    Is it really with you?

    Here comes the rain again-
    Falling on my head like a memory,
    Falling on my head like a new emotion

  25. Question. Can someone name a society, in the last 200 years, that survived under anarchism, for longer than 10 years?

    G!

    • Nope. Some others who are more historical than I point to many examples farther back in time.

      The thing is, it doesn’t matter. New technology has made government obsolete. Just as a person 100 years ago never saw a flock of people fly over his head because there were no airliners, we have never seen a fully anarchistic society because the technology to support it wasn’t available until the past few years. It is now. This is why governments are doomed. This is also why they are all looking at ways to neuter the internet. Even if they pass “laws” to try, technology will work around it eventually.

  26. v. Holland says:

    I guess I have a different perspective-We have government, we have always had government, and I don’t think we will ever go very long without government, because Man seems to want government. I suspect more grass root people being voted into office would be good, but it seems that a lot of our politicians already start that way-they begin by serving in their local community and moving-up.

    As far as voting-my belief is that things can always be worse and if you want government to be better, you better get out there and vote and do whatever else you can to keep things from getting worse. I was starting to feel that nothing we do was making any difference but I’m starting to see people standing up and I have hope that our voices are finally being heard, and I think the main reason our voices have been ignored is because of people being apathetic and letting the voices of the extremist out shout us on both sides of the political spectrum.

    Anyway, you can disagree with me and sit at home and not vote, but I think that will have the opposite effect and it will make government stronger and larger. The reality is that government is what we have and some dream of it being gone, no matter whether the reasons are noble or not, doesn’t change the reality of what we have to work with and I believe that we do have power and it’s the power of our voices in mass, with the vote as the enforcement tool. If people had been voting in the past instead of being apathetic, maybe , just maybe things wouldn’t be as bad as they are now.

    • VH, I would have to say that what we’re dealing with today, is inevitable. Government has become far to corrupt to expect anything else. I’m just surprised at the speed that this has happened. I’m hearing people where I work talk about revolution, which I never would have thought would be talked about from them (very liberal democrats where I live).

      The sad part where I live, not one town hall scheduled in Ohio that I can find.

      I’m a vet, with a very strong heartfelt defense of our Seniors. That is not going to change, and I will fight however I may to defend our seniors.

      Someone wants to know my core values, I can make one real clear: Don’t F$%K with our senior citizens.

      G!

    • We have also always had disease. Is that a reason to wallow in sewage? Or, it it a motivation to find cures?

      People have always sought to “get out there and vote and do whatever else you can to keep things from getting worse”, but it never actually works, does it? Why keep trying a failed strategy?

      • Someone wants to know my core values, I can make one real clear: Don’t F$%K with our senior citizens.

        My statement has nothing to do with voting. I am not against what you are promoting Kent (and Black Flag). I am however, one that has a great deal of affection for our seniors. All of my life, it has been that way, and that will not change.

        Alot of what we have talked about here is long term solutions, and I’m onboard as far as that goes, but short term, thet doesn’t help our seniors. As I told my nieghbor tonight, you worry about all your kids (between them and one untimely death, it’s 12), let me take care of the rest. I keep my promises!

        G!

        • Then how can you not despise government to your very core? Seniors were lied to in order to get them into “Social Security”, tricked into counting on it, and are even now lied to about its viability? Don’t you think they deserve (and can handle) the truth? There is no “account” in their name- their money was gone long before their paycheck was even in their hands, paid to earlier victims of the theft- they are receiving stolen goods when they get the check- the “benefits” must keep being decreased, while the amount taken from the newer victims of this biggest of all the Ponzi schemes must always increase.

          • v. Holland says:

            I agree with you about social security and it is something that we need to find a solution for-How do we discontinue Social Security for the next generation without hurting the people who paid for it and deserve to get it.

            • Some harm is irreversable. This is quite possibly one such case. What we can do is take care of those around us who were victimized, defrauded, and impoverished by this socialist scheme.

              I would suggest that every current and surviving former congresscritter who participated in the scam be forced to pay restitution to those they defrauded. Any vote to continue, expand, or change the terms of “Social Security” would be evidence in black and white of complicity in the crime. Any judge, from the most podunk to the Supreme Court-jesters who ever upheld any provision of SS is also a co-conspiritor. Any president who supported SS in any way should also be held accountable. It’s past time to make those who commit theft pay restitution to their victims.

            • GW Bush actually had a good “compromise” solution out there.

              We all know what happened to that.

              Of course now we don’t have the financial flexibility so perhaps we just give back the money and cancell all the programs.

              Oh, but we don’t have any money. Perhaps we take the bailout and stimulus back and give it to all those who have contributed to SS/medicaid/medicare. And while we are at it, we also repay all contribution to Federal Unemployment, regardless of whether anyone has ever used the system.

              The payment comes from reducing all the other PET programs of the elected Bozos who helped construct the mess.

              Just a thought.

              Hope all is well with VH this fine day.
              JAC

        • G-Man:

          While I understand and empathize with your personal desire to protect the elderly, it is time to give you something to think about. Just a little headache….LOL.

          Is it not WE elderly who let this whole mess evolve to the point it is at today?

          It was WE Elderly who swallowed the Soc Sec bait, hook line and sinker. It was WE who accepted all the other social programs. It was WE who let our govt continue to send our military to foreign lands without being attacked or without a full vote by Congress to declare war. WE are to blame.

          So why shouldn’t WE have to pay a price for fixing this mess that WE helped create?

          I know this is a slightly different twist and not exactly what you are concerned about, but it is a key question that should be answered. WE should not be allowed to live off a system WE helped establish, then bitch about its existence and imposition on the freedoms and economic well being of our children.

          Of course the next question is what should the Price be for our complacency.

          The best to you and yours
          JAC

      • v. Holland says:

        No one said anything about not finding solutions, and if you believe that society would be better without government promoting your views is great but telling people to not vote when it’s the only real tool we have (unless you want to start a physical revolution or just wait for a collapse) is in my opinion wrong. I think most people who believe that government is necessary also realize that it’s dangerous and it is never going to be anywhere near perfect- but it is-and we can’t deal with it’s imperfections or limit it’s power by not using the one enforcement tool that we have -If you look back in history you will find times when the people have said enough and they have changed government. No the changes weren’t a permanent fix which is why it’s so important for people to vote and speak out-which hasn’t been happening in this country for many years except for the extremes on both political sides and unfortunately the extremist have been winning.

        I realize in this article that BF wrote- he is actually promoting voting with qualifiers but you seem to be saying never vote and BF has(I believe-if memory serves) also stated that he doesn’t vote, so I am a little confused by what you guys are advocating. Or do you and BF disagree in this area?

        • What makes you think voting is the “only real tool we have”?

          There is also the tool of jury nullification, which is much more powerful.

          There is the tool of living your life in spite of any “laws” or edicts, and not participating in the harming of innocent people that government depends upon.

          There is the tool of recognizing the truth. Don’t buy into the lies; don’t fall for the “you vs. them” propaganda which government promotes in order to divide and conquer.

          There is the tool of speaking out against an illegitimate system, as loudly and as often as you can. You think voting lets your voice be heard? Even in the best of circumstances, unless you are on the winning side, you are drowned out by the masses whose voices are “heard” saying the polar opposite of what your vote said. Remember, voting is an all or nothing proposition. If you get less than the winning number of votes, you lose by 100%. There is no second place in reality. Your time and “voice” would be better spent by doing something other than voting.

          And, I fully agree with everything BF said in this post. If you think that is contradictory, read his post again.

  27. Ray Hawkins says:

    Do not ever vote again!

    You’ve read that refrain of mine on the blog many times. It generates a lot of emotional outbursts from many people.

    But to my surprise, not one of you actually broke down my complaint and analyzed it. I was disappointed.

    So, to refresh your memory:

    Voting is worse than futile because it changes nothing and is merely the tool to accept your agreement of the system of rule over you.

    – Strange – given all the yelling and screaming now over change.

    Why? I offered 3 reasons:

    1) You do not chose the candidates. They are presented to you.

    – Wrong. Depends on where I choose to be involved in the process. I can have a list 20 pages long of shit I need to do around the house – I cannot do all things and priority will change from time to time. I accept that some things will be out of my hands some of the time. If I wanted to work on the list 24/7 other things in my life take a backseat. I rely upon a process, however flawed, to “present” me candidates. They will not get it right 100% of the time – but I financially cannot afford to surrender other aspects in my life to get involved earlier in the process. I still need clothes, a roof over my head, and food and diapers for my kid.

    2) You do not chose the issues. They are presented to you.

    – Same as above. I cannot worry about everything all the time. A beef I have with current POTUS is it seems we’re trying to fix everything at the same time – that is no better a solution.

    3) The elected candidate does not have to do what he promised. You have no control over them.

    Thus, voting is only your agreement that the Power Elites have a right to rule you. It is nothing else.

    Why do we know that voting in North Korea is a farce? Because there is only one name on the ballot and the people didn’t put his name there.

    Why, then, do we not see that voting is a farce in the USA? There are only two names on the ballot and the people didn’t put them there either.

    – Wrong. You have oversimplified an issue to try and equate North Korea with the United States. Its like saying if I don’t weed my flower bed in the U.S. then weeds will grow, and if I don’t weed a flower bed in North Korea then weeds will grow – therefore North Korea and the United States are one in the same.

    Does anyone really believe that just because there are two names on a ballot that the people didn’t choose makes any real difference from North Korea’s choice of one?

    Anyone see the movie “Milk”?

    It’s not particularly good movie, in my opinion, however it offers a good insight into political power (if you look for it and ignore the rest of the mush).

    Are you ready for it?

    Voting can change things! …. Now pick yourself off the floor; yes, Black Flag says voting can change things.

    Smarten up! Re-read my complaints about voting, and THINK!

    Now raise your right hand and repeat this vow after me:

    “I will never vote for someone that I, personally, have not placed on a ballot!”

    For those who have children, one of the lessons we teach our kids is how to manage themselves when they are in trouble or lost. This is one of the most important lessons because it may save their lives.

    We taught our daughter that if she is lost or in trouble, she is to go up to an adult and ask for help.

    We taught her to NEVER ACCEPT HELP FROM AN ADULT who goes up to her and offers it!

    Why?

    Because 99.99% of adults are good people and they will help a child in need. The odds that she will pick a helpful adult is 1000 to 1 in her favour.

    But those that prey on kids look for and watch for children in trouble, and PRESENT THEMSELVES as helpers to the kids!

    Now, many adults who do go up to kids to help aren’t bad at all and honestly want to help. However, the odds are significantly higher that a predator is among that group of ‘offering-to-help’ adults.

    Therefore, our daughter would refuse help from an offering adult and instead go and pick out an adult on her own, thus keeping the odds of avoiding predators well in her favour. (This lesson applies to women in trouble (like a car problem) and hitchhikers)

    The same with voting.

    The man you do not want to give political power to is the man who wants it.

    Yet, that is what is happening when you accept candidates on a ballot – all of them are the ones that want political power – precisely the ones that should not get it.

    – Not always true.

    So, put your own candidate on the ballot!

    Now I don’t mean go and accept some other person whose hand is waving in a ‘pick-me-pick-me’ sort of way.

    I mean look around your community and ask yourself, “Who among us has the intelligence, the integrity, and shares the same values as I that will properly represent me?”

    – What do you mean by “properly represent me”? I challenge you that there are too many interpretations of what this would/could mean so as to render your premise flawed. If that vote contrary to me once does that mean they have not “properly represented me”?

    When you find that person, organize others who share those same ideals as you, get their names, and signatures, and then go to that person and ask them to run for political office.

    – Impractical in today’s day and world. I rarely find anyone with the same values/ideals as I (even in my own family). At the end of the day we have to prioritize and pick the battles we choose to fight. You sometimes have to choose which hill you’re going to die on – dying on every hill is not an option. The mere nature of politics does not equate absolutes.

    Tell him that you and those that signed this piece of paper will work on the campaign to elect him, and you will help energize the community to support his candidacy.

    Of course, he will be surprised. He never thought he should be running, didn’t want to run, and probably doesn’t want to run. He is the perfect candidate – the guy who doesn’t want the job. He’s not out to run your life or make the world into some perverted vision of his nightmare.

    Because you picked him, he is probably honest and will do what he says he will do.

    Because you picked him, he shares the same concerns about the same issues you do.

    Because you picked him, you put him on the ballot and he is your candidate and representative in every sense and meaning of the words.

    Now, your vote has power.

    – You seem to assume a few things. You assume that this person who I think has the same values/ideals as I – really, truly does have the same ideals/values as I. Why should I assume that? Why should I assume that given situations and circumstances that may change post election he/she will remain as altruistic as I have believed he/she to be? Moreover – your approach has been tried and failed in avenues such as business. That person you ‘voted’ in may initially take such a role seriously, but over time they can begin to resent being put into a position they did not ask for. You assume that other communities will approach the problem the same way as you and use the same solution and produce the same result. Thats not any more practical than what is in place now is it?

    What are the implications of this? Well, take some time to think about that while I compose How to Get There from Here – Part Two – Civic Government and The Grassroots

    (PS: That is a hint…)

  28. Voting

    The key issue that we need to resolve, regarding voting, is the assumption that the act of voting is a validation or acceptance of the outcome. That is the core problem TODAY with voting.

    We have been taught that the unique thing about the USA is that we “pass the torch of power” every four years without a coup or violent revolution. The implication is that those who lose have agreed to accept the outcome for at least four years, because they participated by voting. This is a direct attempt to play on our “sense of duty” as “Americans”. “We lost fair and square”, we must be “good sports”. I think you all get the idea.

    Another common phrase, “I vote so I have the right to complain.” The implication is that those who do not vote DO NOT have a right to complain. The intent is to force participation in order to claim “legitimacy”. Why should a person be forced to vote for evil in order to have the right to complain about evil?

    No one should vote in those cases where bad and bad are the choices. We need to stop this concept of “voting for the lesser of two evils”. As my dear friend BF has so elloquently stated, a drop of sewage in a glass of water is still sewage. Instead, WE NEED TO FORCE A “NONE OF THE ABOVE” OPTION ON ALL BALLOTS FOR ANY OFFICE.

    This option does not have to be binding, but it will send a clear message of “I AM NOT ACCEPTING THE OUTCOME AS VALID”. Of course I would prefer it was binding but we must start someplace.

    If we can figure out how to remove this stigma of “validation/acceptance of the outcome” then voting in those cases where good and bad are the options should become more palatable to everyone, even the anarchist.

    Then we will have a chance to replace bad with good.

    But be warned, this is not enough in and of itself. The EDUCATION of America is absolutely necessary to effect any kind of meaningful and longterm change. The actions Kent has described above are part of that education process in my view. Once we understand, we can begin to act in ways that reduce the effectiveness of Force used by Govt. This will aid in making the changes once Good people can be elected.

    Now for one last thought for your consideration. It is a chicken and egg thing. Most folks here refer to voting in the context of electing representatives. Yet we have shown that even the best are corrupted by the “ring of power”. So which comes first? Electing good people, or destroying the ring? And of course, how do we destroy the ring without trying to elect good people?

    Warning, before you start to solve the last question you need to take at least two aspirin or your preferred headache medication. This will keep the throbbing at a minimum from the beginning instead of trying to reduce the pain once it is established.

    Hint: Think about levels and layers.

    The Best to All
    In order to live free you must be free
    JAC

  29. As expected, BF was a fantastic guest writer.

    I have always supported voting. I have also never supported voting for the two primary parties. Write-ins are often an even better option. The difficulty of doing a write-in in some voting systems and the difficulty of getting on the ballot in general if you are not one of the two primary parties are a huge infringement on our voting rights.

    My reasoning for voting and for not voting the lesser of two evils, however, is clearly laid out in BF’s posts and the subsequent comments above mine. Well done all.

  30. Black Flag says:

    Ray Hawkins

    1) You do not chose the candidates. They are presented to you.

    – Wrong. Depends on where I choose to be involved in the process.

    There is only one point of the process that you can be involved in – the selection of the candidate.

    There are only two ways a candidate can possibly be selected. 1) Via the party process. 2) Directly by the people.

    Choice (1) requires party politics. A candidate that comes out that process has been vetted by internal powers of the party independent of the general people. He is representing those that put him into power withing the party, and not the voters.

    The only other option is (2). If you chose not to act here, the default is (1), and as we see today, the people suffer the consequences.

    but I financially cannot afford to surrender other aspects in my life to get involved earlier in the process. I still need clothes, a roof over my head, and food and diapers for my kid.

    And, of your entire rebuttal, this is exactly the point and problem.

    The people do not prioritize the vital requirement of controlling the political power that eventually dominates their lives.

    I do not believe at all that you have no free time, even with all your duties you need to attend to for your family.

    You (and others) make a conscious choice to ‘blink out’ and rationalize such unforgivable surrendering of the control of your lives to those hungry for power with comments of “I don’t have the time”.

    And as such, those that excuse themselves this way deserve the disaster that will befall them.

    – Same as above. I cannot worry about everything all the time. A beef I have with current POTUS is it seems we’re trying to fix everything at the same time – that is no better a solution.

    You fall into a fallacy that I will address in a specific post in the future.

    – Wrong. You have oversimplified an issue to try and equate North Korea with the United States. Its like saying if I don’t weed my flower bed in the U.S. then weeds will grow, and if I don’t weed a flower bed in North Korea then weeds will grow – therefore North Korea and the United States are one in the same.

    That is not what I am saying at all – you have it backwards.

    The system is the same – providing a ‘vetted’ ballot.

    It matters not how many choices are on a ballot, if all choices are essentially the same.

    A choice between identical twins (excepting the color of their T-shirts) is not really a choice.

    The man you do not want to give political power to is the man who wants it.

    – Not always true.

    Not “always” true, but most significantly true. So why take a chance?

    Follow:

    1) A person who desires political power,/i> is someone who is unable to convince reasonable people of the merit of their ideas by use of persuasion by reasoned argument.

    2) A politician is someone, by their rhetoric, is capable of generating thousands upon thousands of votes in their favor. Therefore, their failure to convince reasoned men of the merit of their ideas cannot be a lack of articulation.

    3) Thus, they are unable to convince reasoned men of the merit of their ideas because their ideas failed reason. Therefore, the political power seeker is one who requires Force to enact his unreasonable ideas.

    – What do you mean by “properly represent me”? I challenge you that there are too many interpretations of what this would/could mean so as to render your premise flawed. If that vote contrary to me once does that mean they have not “properly represented me”?

    “Proper representation” simply means reflecting the same position you hold on your behalf.

    If I hire a lawyer, my full expectation is that he represents my best interests and my position – not his.

    Why would you not demand the same from your political representative?

    Why would you vote for anyone who didn’t do this?

    – Impractical in today’s day and world. I rarely find anyone with the same values/ideals as I (even in my own family). At the end of the day we have to prioritize and pick the battles we choose to fight. You sometimes have to choose which hill you’re going to die on – dying on every hill is not an option. The mere nature of politics does not equate absolutes.

    It is not a matter of finding the identical twin. It is a matter of finding a representative that aligns with your positions.

    – You seem to assume a few things. You assume that this person who I think has the same values/ideals as I – really, truly does have the same ideals/values as I.

    My assumption is very appropriate – if you purposely chose someone who has the same ideals and values.

    It is incredibly unlikely that someone you know, who has expressed opinions in alignment with yours over a number of years and circumstances is lying to you.

    Consider me. Do you believe I would change my principles simply because you happen to make me your representative? You would chose me to represent you because you know precisely my position on the matters you have chosen me to represent on your behalf. I cannot imagine you would pick me under the belief that I would suddenly Hyde/Jeckle myself!

    (And if I am a man, who over the number of years, convinced you of our mutual alignment on issues, and after you got me elected, I turn-coated you…. you were doomed anyway.

    Anyone with that forethought and planning to enact a strategy over numerous years to confound and fool you – my God, there is no way you could avoid the calamity and you were dead meat day one.)

    However, a man who you do not know, who is seeking political power by almost any means necessary is probably lying to you.

    Why should I assume that? Why should I assume that given situations and circumstances that may change post election he/she will remain as altruistic as I have believed he/she to be?

    It has nothing to do with altruism.

    Representation is a job like any other.

    The challenge is knowledge and control.

    Like in a poker game, you do not control your opponents actions, nor do you control the cards. However, you have knowledge of past actions and knowledge of the odds. You can make decisions based on past actions, and you can change the odds.

    The current system of voting removes the knowledge and sets the odds highly disfavorably against the voter. As I offered in my story, the predators present themselves as helpers – therefore, (in math-speak) the set of ‘self-presenting candidates’ has a significantly higher probability of predators then the set of ‘purposely selected candidates’.

    By purposely avoiding this scenario, and selecting one’s own candidate, you apply your knowledge and change the odds to your favor.

    Moreover – your approach has been tried and failed in avenues such as business.

    Your analogy of business is flawed because of ownership. No matter how the executives of a business is organized, the owners rule.

    You assume that other communities will approach the problem the same way as you and use the same solution and produce the same result. Thats not any more practical than what is in place now is it?

    No, I do not assume such at all. I do not care how other representatives are chosen – it is not in my power to chose how others select their representatives! That is their problem.

    It concerns me not how New Yorkers select candidates because I am not a New Yorker.

    Shorten the focus, Ray. (Hence, the hint: Grassroots).

  31. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    No one (except Kent) got it.

    Oh, wait… BF got it.. he wrote it.

    I refuse to let the cat out of the bag any further at this time however… I am being obstinate.

    Here is a hint though… think about the qualities a person would have to have in order to be the best qualified person to represent you.

  32. Black Flag says:

    In response to G.A. Rowe’s Guest Post, and the timing of mine:

    G.A., in a round-about way, was attempting to revive the 18th Century mind-set and re-apply it today.

    My position on his request essentially was that you cannot apply 18th Century mindsets without understanding the 18th Century. I suspect most haven’t spent the history study time to do so.

    When the Founder’s organized the Republic, it was based on citizen involvement. The intention was not have the Republic fall into ‘professional politicians’ hands.

    We all learned that Jefferson was a delegate to the Second Continental Congress. Few know how he got there. He was chosen by the citizens of Virginia. Jefferson did not volunteer, nor offer himself as a representative.

    Jefferson was not a good public speaker. He spoke too softly and mumbled. He was selected by his neighbours because his neighbour’s knew he was smart and honest and would represent them well at the Convention. By their request, he went.

    This is the manner by which the Founder’s thought how representation to Congress was going to be – that is, candidates selected by the People. That is the Republic Franklin spoke about when he quipped “A Republic, madam, if you can keep it.”.

    If for reasons of “being too busy”, the People are unable to hold up their responsibility for properly selecting their representation – and are willing to accept the false dichotomies of choices as presented, the failure of their Republic is borne solely by the People.

  33. I had some thoughts in response to the discussion on political parties above, so I’m posting down here since, as usual, I’m a bit late to the conversation.

    Consider that, by the best possible figures, no national election has had more than two-thirds of eligible voters participate, and often far less than half (particularly in non-Presidential years).

    Take that figure, and divide it roughly into three equal parts – 1/3 Democrat, 1/3 Republican, 1/3 None of the Above. That gives you about 22% of the voting population actively voting as members of a political party in a best-case scenario.

    In addition, most politicians are controlled by the extreme elements of their political party, and many common citizens that belong to that party do not agree 100% with all that that party does (ie: most party members don’t vote straight-ticket). I haven’t found any hard figures on these percentages, but the point can be made without reducing that 22% figure any further – just keep in mind that at best, 22% is an overly high figure – call it roughly 1/5 to keep the visualization simple.

    Now, in the election process, you basically have one of two results – control by a party representing at best 1/5 of the people. Every now and then, control switches over to a different 1/5 of the people. However control is always maintained by the sum total of these 2/5 – the other 3/5 basically never are truly represented. And remember, this is a best-case scenario – the actual figures would probably be much more depressing, with more than 80% of the people [b][i]never[/i][/b] seeing adequate representation.

    This is the primary result of the deeply-entrenched two-party system – two small minorities conspiring together to oppress the remaining majority for their own gain. But two is not the magic number; nor is three, or four, etc.

    Only if any political party [b][i]or individual[/i][/b] could have reasonable access to the ballot with only sufficiently small barriers in place (perhaps not even that), and were able to campaign on equal footing with any other candidate, would this problem be greatly reduced. Otherwise, the situation is little different than a one-name ballot in which twice as many people agree with that one-name as currently do with each of the two-names we have now.

    • Black Flag says:

      DKII,

      You got a good lead into my next post…. I guess being late in one conversation makes you ahead in a future one! 😆

  34. Black Flag says:

    DKII

    Not that this would be likely to happen, even on a local level, but I was thinking about someone getting elected involuntarily, ie: put on the ballot/written in whatever without their consent/approval. Since elected officials can resign at any time, this person obviously wouldn’t be forced to serve, and yet with the elected office delivered gift-wrapped, would they choose to do so anyway?

    I really doubt it – no likes to get railroaded….

%d bloggers like this: