So Who Keeps Electing These People?
I think that future historians will look at the record and point to our current era and say, "This is where the Great Experiment in government failed".
I pray that I'm wrong.
I pray that I'm wrong.
You type: | You see: |
---|---|
*italics* | italics |
**bold** | bold |
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
http://no-ruler.net/3460/failures-of-the...
who created little other than yet another GOVERNment of Force to which all of us are Subjects/Slaves without our consent, which questionable consent may have been obtained by 1789, but cannot morally or legally applied to those who did not consent, nor to anyone born afterward.
Is not this what Ayn Rand was all about?
So again I ask how "republic" made much difference. Semantics is a bitch, isn't it?
It wouldn't take much to convince me that Rahm might hold something very much like that as a core belief.
1. Supreme Court: Not elected here in the Empire, which is no loss either way.
2. President: Bought by the special interests with the most money (Soros, Big Businesses (all allowed to pay for play by our appointed kommisars in the Supreme Court))
3. Congress: Repeat number 2, add in the huge amount of voter fraud (which can be added to number 2), rigged elections (remember the voting machine video that always came up Democrat, even when Republican selected?).
The most important part in the story:
"Just 1 in 10 independents expressed a lot of confidence in the presidency in 2014."
Those are the only people left who should be allowed to vote.
Your second point raises quite an interesting point of discussion. I am thoroughly familiar with the point of view of absolute freedom through anarchy (a poor choice of word application). Where is the balance point of accepting to live under a rational Rule of Law that is consistently applied (unlike today's chaos), and retaining the sovereign man principle and the right to pull out altogether? A tough one to evaluate, but worthy of attention. Probably worthy of a whole new post.
I wonder if the rest of the Gulcher's see this as a plausible scenario?
As to the other, I've written many articles which perhaps you'll appreciate my sentiment more once you get the picture. It's quite impossible to me to even imagine a libertarian/objectivist being rationally able to accept being Ruled!
I wrote this some time ago. I think its sorely needed more now than ever.
http://humanevents.com/2006/06/20/a-real...
Load more comments...