I’m Thinking Clearly, Now

Earlier today, after reading this post, by Billy Beck, and a couple of others he penned, I dropped him an email.  In it, I said this, among other things.

I, initially, after September 11, had some respect for Bush.  Sadly, he is no different than any other politician.  He is simply a “professional jobholder.

What has changed, you ask?  Think about the steel tariff fiasco, think about Medicare, think about manned missions to Mars and the Moon, think about the truth of the following statement from Daniel Drezner, posted by Beck also in the link above,

If Karl Rove thought imposing wage and price controls would win Pennsylvania and Michigan for Bush, you’d see an Executive Order within 24 hours.

Bush is no different than any other politician out there.  Each and every politician is only concerned with staying in power and they will do anything, anything, to remain in power.  Promising the moon and the stars, they deliver only enslavement.

The last time I exchanged an email with Billy about voting, I stated something to the effect that I do not vote for individuals, I only vote on issues that effect my pocketbook, i.e. millage increases, tax issues etc.  I now want to formally state that I will not vote at all.  I acknowledge that my voting on issues that effected my pocketbook, affected each and every individuals pocketbook, and I apologize for contributing to the coercive power of the state, against each and every individual, both on a local and federal level.

I’m thinking clearly, now.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/31 at 06:28 PM

  1. Welcome to Voters Anonymous!

    My name is Lee, and I have a voting problem.  But I took my last vote some four years ago, and have been clean and sober ever since.  So, if you ever feel tempted to pull that lever again (or hang that chad), just remember that we’re here to help you.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/31  at  08:28 PM

  2. Lee - Kind of you to offer.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/31  at  08:46 PM

  3. Glad to hear it.

    Posted by shonk  on  01/31  at  09:12 PM

  4. “Suppose they gave an election and nobody came.”

    Good for you, John.

    Posted by Billy Beck  on  01/31  at  10:40 PM

  5. “Don’t vote, it only encourages them!”

    Some moral support for VA members can be found here: http://www.strike-the-root.com/vote.html

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/01  at  12:43 PM

  6. John -

    Thanks for the link.  I’ve a read two or three of the pieces in the past.  Additional thoughts are usually beneficial.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/01  at  01:35 PM

  7. You rock, John!

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/04  at  03:58 PM

  8. I understand the arguments against voting, but the wall I come up against is that as more people withdraw from voting altogether, don’t we concentrate all that government power into a smaller and smaller number of hands?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/30  at  05:01 PM

  9. John, I’ve come here as directed by Western Rifle Shooters, and like you blog.  I can’t, however, subscribe to your notion of recusing from the process.  If you’ve quit, perhaps then folks like me shall be there to replace you (because I didn’t always utilize that right, but do now).  I hope, like the previous commenter, that your voting replacements aren’t more of those willing to promote, for example, socialism.

    Vanderboegh has a picture of a rifle on his blog, and under it the caption: “When Liberty becomes tyranny, I still get to vote.”

    I voted with my pen Tuesday, and with my wallet everyday.  And if the day comes that it is necessary, I’d vote with my pitchfork and then perhaps with my bullets.  There is certainly the right to abstain, just as there is the right to choose, even if that choice is between a little bad and very bad.

    You linked (10/27/10) to Emmerich’s similar essay, wherein he states “But they became corrupted for the same reason that all of us would become equally corrupted. Because humans are so easily corruptible. We have good intentions, we have so much good in our hearts. But as the Apostle Paul told us, we also have evil in our hearts. Put any of us—Christian, atheist, city boy, farm boy—in power, and we’d all eventually sell out.”

    I believe that the image you project on others is a mirror of how you see yourself.  Emmerich thinks of himself with such limitations to his integrity.  But he doesn’t speak for me.  I seek the GOOD in others, and expect to find it.  I am frequently disappointed, but undeterred.  When I vote, it is me exercising that belief in my fellow man…that they possess an integrity which might be reflective of my own.

    Sorry, that’s much-longer-winded than I planned to be.

    I’ll try to check back in on you, though.  Tight lines.

    Posted by jeff  on  11/04  at  03:42 PM

  10. RB and Jeff, thanks for your comments.

    RB - ... the wall I come up against is that as more people withdraw from voting altogether, don’t we concentrate all that government power into a smaller and smaller number of hands?

    RB, the concern you state is legitimate, but I contend that if more and more people withdraw from voting, i.e. remove their consent to be governed in all aspects of their lives, will not power be put back where it belongs, in your and my hands?

    Jeff -

    I, too, “vote” everyday, in the ways you describe, with the exception of behind the curtain, and I will vote in the future, even if the manner of my vote is as pictured at Vanderboegh’s place.  My daily “vote” is to not compel you, force you, or other individuals, to conform to any particularly ideology or dogma.

    I believe that the image you project on others is a mirror of how you see yourself…I seek the GOOD in others, and expect to find it.  I am frequently disappointed, but undeterred.  When I vote, it is me exercising that belief in my fellow man…that they possess an integrity which might be reflective of my own.

    I agree with your insight above, Jeff, except that I believe that my fellow man does not need my vote behind the curtain in order to determine their integrity, or lack of it.

    You can only lead by example.  Guns at individuals’ backs is not leading.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  11/05  at  07:52 AM

  11. Excellent points, John.  And I agree to a extent that the more power remains in my hands (or more specifically *gravitates towards* my hands), the better off I am.  The result of anarchy, however, will be that having property and traveling freely will become mutually exclusive aspirations, because the power I immediately have in my hands will be the only power I can ever trust or rely upon.  Agreed?

    I’ll be fine in a society void of authority, and would survive, wielding my own limited authority as becomes necessary.  But will I be as free?

    On the other hand, the more of the left-leaning folks who can be convinced of the value of removing themselves from the equation, the better off we’ll all be.  I authored an essay lobbying for the legalization of all recreational drugs for any citizen who’d recuse themselves (permanently or for a prescribed period) from the voting process.  Not because I like drugs (been there, grew out of that) but because I’d like to see that gang of misfits voluntarily disenfranchised.  Whattya think of that scheme?

    Jeff

    Posted by jeff  on  11/05  at  10:38 AM

  12. Jeff,

    The result of anarchy, however, will be that having property and traveling freely will become mutually exclusive aspirations, because the power I immediately have in my hands will be the only power I can ever trust or rely upon.  Agreed?

    Agreed, if we are in agreement that in your
    utilization of the word anarchy we understand living without rules imposed by man.  The ability to live in this manner is contingent upon the point you made in an earlier comment in this thread.  I seek the GOOD in others, and expect to find it.  I am frequently disappointed, but undeterred.

    Break.

    I’ll be fine in a society void of authority, and would survive, wielding my own limited authority as becomes necessary.  But will I be as free?

    Jeff, I contend, in response to your question here, that you will be actually free.  Individuals cannot be free by degrees from the State.  We are either free, or subjects.

    I authored an essay lobbying for the legalization of all recreational drugs for any citizen who’d recuse themselves (permanently or for a prescribed period) from the voting process.  Not because I like drugs (been there, grew out of that) but because I’d like to see that gang of misfits voluntarily disenfranchised.  Whattya think of that scheme?

    I think the above is a concession to central, State, authority, Jeff, and thus I do not think the idea warrants any serious consideration.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  11/06  at  10:25 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: An Exquisite Scourging

Previous entry: A Psychiatric Experiment H.L. Mencken Would've Enjoyed

<< Back to main