[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Try It For 5 Days! - The Most EFFICIENT Way To LOSE FAT

Number Of US Student Visas Issued To Asians Tumbles

Range than U.S HIMARS, Russia Unveils New Variant of 300mm Rocket Launcher on KamAZ-63501 Chassis

Keir Starmer’s Hidden Past: The Cases Nobody Talks About

BRICS Bombshell! Putin & China just DESTROYED the U.S. Dollar with this gold move

Clashes, arrests as tens of thousands protest flood-control corruption in Philippines

The death of Yu Menglong: Political scandal in China (Homo Rape & murder of Actor)

The Pacific Plate Is CRACKING: A Massive Geological Disaster Is Unfolding!

Waste Of The Day: Veterans' Hospital Equipment Is Missing

The Earth Has Been Shaken By 466,742 Earthquakes So Far In 2025

LadyX

Half of the US secret service and every gov't three letter agency wants Trump dead. Tomorrow should be a good show

1963 Chrysler Turbine

3I/ATLAS is Beginning to Reveal What it Truly Is

Deep Intel on the Damning New F-35 Report

CONFIRMED “A 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11” says Military witnesses on the scene

NEW: Armed man detained at site of Kirk memorial: Report

$200 Silver Is "VERY ATTAINABLE In Coming Rush" Here's Why - Mike Maloney

Trump’s Project 2025 and Big Tech could put 30% of jobs at risk by 2030

Brigitte Macron is going all the way to a U.S. court to prove she’s actually a woman

China's 'Rocket Artillery 360 Mile Range 990 Pound Warhead

FED's $3.5 Billion Gold Margin Call

France Riots: Battle On Streets Of Paris Intensifies After Macron’s New Move Sparks Renewed Violence

Saudi Arabia Pakistan Defence pact agreement explained | Geopolitical Analysis

Fooling Us Badly With Psyops

The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong

Put Castor Oil Here Before Bed – The Results After 7 Days Are Shocking

Sounds Like They're Trying to Get Ghislaine Maxwell out of Prison

Mississippi declared a public health emergency over its infant mortality rate (guess why)

Andy Ngo: ANTIFA is a terrorist organization & Trump will need a lot of help to stop them


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Be Patriotic: Don’t Vote
Source: LRC
URL Source: [None]
Published: Feb 05, 2004
Author: Thomas Di Lorenzo
Post Date: 2006-10-11 14:38:04 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 592
Comments: 43

Murray Rothbard once wrote that even the most brutal dictator ultimately bases his power on the opinions that are held by a majority of the population that is under his rule. After all, even dictators with large armies tend to be vastly outnumbered by the populations they rule over, and revolution is always on the dictator’s mind. That’s probably how he gained power himself in the first place – the previous dictator was, well, too dictatorial and created the conditions for his own overthrow.

Democratic regimes also base their legitimacy on their ability to claim that their rule is "the will of the people." They believe in democracy with all their will, they tell us, so much so that generations of American politicians have believed that it was legitimate to wage war on other nations and to kill thousands of their citizens to impose "democracy" on them. Lincoln’s armies killed some 300,000 fellow citizens and maimed for life an even greater number, supposedly so that "government of the people, by the people, for the people," i.e., democracy, shall not perish from the earth.

This of course was pure B.S.: Had the South seceded peacefully, democracy would have still existed in the U.S., the Confederate States of America, Canada, England, France, etc., etc. Nevertheless, that was an official purpose of the war, and of numerous other American wars. Woodrow Wilson brought America into World War I to supposedly "make the world safe for democracy." We are now supposedly bringing democracy to Iraq at bayonet point with numerous other Middle East countries in our sights.

But America was not founded as a democracy. It was a constitutional republic. The whole purpose of the Constitution, James Madison wrote in Federalist #10, was to control "the violence of faction," by which he meant democracy. That’s why, until the Lincolnian "Civil War Amendments" were added to it, every part of the Constitution was a prohibition of some kind of governmental power or activity. Democracy was made into a "civil religion" by Lincoln and subsequent generations of Lincolnites who have successfully overthrown the constitutional republic of the founding fathers.

These constitutional prohibitions or limitations are all but ignored today, of course. The Constitution does not provide for the central government to get involved in education, let alone sending a man – and untold millions or billions of dollars – to Mars. There are no longer any constitutional limitations on the central government. Washington politicians laugh and sneer at libertarian think tank employees who occasionally appear before their committees to oppose this or that government program on constitutional grounds. They laugh and say to them, "we’ve got the power to do it, and we’re going to do it." I’ve seen it with my own eyes on C-SPAN.

President’ Clinton’s Surgeon General, Joyclyn Elders, went so far as to assert that the constitution allowed for a federal masturbation education program. Even Bill Clinton thought that went a little too far and fired the good doctor.

The Republican Party today stands for an explosive growth of the welfare state and is spending money on such programs as fast as Lyndon Johnson ever did. The Democrats are as bad or worse.

On foreign policy the Republican Party is dominated by crazed Wilsonians who want to involve the U.S. military in perpetual global warfare "to spread democracy." As with all such imperialistic ventures, this would eventually bankrupt the country and create countless enemies who would like nothing better than to destroy us by the millions with nuclear weapons or poison. The Democrats are as bad or worse.

Both political parties are competing to grant amnesty to all illegal aliens, as the first step along the way to allowing completely open borders. Combining open borders with an explosively growing welfare state will invite all the deadbeats of the world to come to America, with all their extended family members in tow, to "celebrate democracy" by voting themselves more and more of the hard-earned dollars of those of us who work for a living in this country. This would cause the welfare state to eventually eat up a huge portion of national income, probably half or more. American taxpayers would be nothing but docile slaves to the Washington, D.C. plantation.

The government schools long ago gave up teaching anything significant about the founding fathers, the Constitution, and the philosophy of limited government – other than to trash and demean them. In a democracy it is not in the state’s best interest to educate its own citizens about the virtues of limited government, and ours doesn’t. And it certainly will never make any attempt to do so with the hordes of new immigrants it hopes to attract (and register to vote). Belief in the Constitution is essentially a lost cause.

That’s why it is unpatriotic to vote. Being patriotic in America means being devoted to the Constitution, if not the natural rights philosophy that motivated much of it. Since neither of the major political parties has any interest whatsoever in enforcing the constitutional limitations on the state, they are all traitors to the Constitution (with one lone exception, Congressman Ron Paul).

Anyone who supports them is also behaving in a traitorous manner. That is, anyone who votes for any of them. Voting only allows these traitors to the Constitution to proclaim that "the people have spoken" and "I am your president," or congressman, senator, governor, or whatever. Their legitimacy rests solely on their ability to make this claim.

Imagine what a patriotic thrill you would receive if, in the next presidential election, a mere 10 percent of the electorate, instead of the usual 50 percent or so, voted. The unconstitutional regime in Washington would be de-legitimized. The upside is that it might just be possible that some politicians in Washington would get the message and start behaving more like a George Washington or Thomas Jefferson than a Tony Soprano or Vito Corleone (with apologies to all the distinguished Italian-Americans out there). The downside is that they will keep on behaving as they do now – with complete contempt for the Constitution and the population it is supposed to benefit. So be patriotic: Don’t vote.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 21.

#10. To: christine, bluedogtxn, Mekons4, scrapper2, mehitable, Jethro Tull, randge, PnbC, It Is A Republic, Morgana Le Fay, ..., Cynicom, justlurking, Burkeman1, add925, Quatermass, lodwick, a vast rightwing conspirator, IndieTx, Arator (#0)

I disagree.

Sort of. I mean this write up is pretty pessimistic, which is fine (as in honest) as I have no qualms with his take on the state of the country. But his conclusion of "don't vote" is pretty much a protest in of itself that he thinks will get the attention of government.

To that, I say *No freakin' way*.

There's the pragmatic issue, the reality, that the fewer people who vote, the more sway each of those who do vote have. Knowledge of that fact pursuades more people to vote. This all assumes elections are fair, of course, but the same problem applies regardless -- any campaign to get people to stop voting will send an underlying message that if you break the ranks, you'll be rewarded extra.

It's just like the War on Drugs(TM). The more successful they are at intercepting drugs, the higher the street value, and thus the more incentive it is to smuggle. Both are self defeating goals.

Now he goes on to say:

Anyone who supports them is also behaving in a traitorous manner. That is, anyone who votes for any of them.

Any of *them*? Is he referring to Ron Paul? Should people not vote for Ron Paul either? I can see a campaign aimed at not voting for any Republicrat, but why should we not vote for independents & alternative party candidates? Where is the harm in that?

Thomas says the harm is in lending legitamacy to the government. Do you really think you could escape an unconstituonal criminal charge by arguing you didn't vote in the last X elections? (Though I do know Brad Barnhill defeated a charge by arguing he was *prohibited* from voting in Virginia elections, due to their SSN requirement). But do you think an unconstitutonal criminal charge against you becomes constitutional just because you voted? Both those positions are hogwash.

There are good people running for office. People who are expending a lot of time, money and effort to do so. Maybe they are asking too much, dreaming to hard, aiming too high. But there's absolutely no reason not to do at least the the bare minimum and help them out, just a little, by voting just for them. Help those out who are trying, if you're not doing anything else. Sure, maybe they'll lose but even then they'll appreciate you and do something for you someday and take your pessimism more seriously. Such candidates might also be gifted orators themselves, which may be good allies in the future. Maybe with something having nothing to do with elections.

That's my take. I'm voting this year, though I'm not voting for any R or D. (And voting absentee).

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-10-12   4:44:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Neil McIver, bluedogtxn (#10)

Thomas says the harm is in lending legitamacy to the government. Do you really think you could escape an unconstituonal criminal charge by arguing you didn't vote in the last X elections? (Though I do know Brad Barnhill defeated a charge by arguing he was *prohibited* from voting in Virginia elections, due to their SSN requirement). But do you think an unconstitutonal criminal charge against you becomes constitutional just because you voted? Both those positions are hogwash.

There are good people running for office. People who are expending a lot of time, money and effort to do so. Maybe they are asking too much, dreaming to hard, aiming too high. But there's absolutely no reason not to do at least the the bare minimum and help them out, just a little, by voting just for them. Help those out who are trying, if you're not doing anything else. Sure, maybe they'll lose but even then they'll appreciate you and do something for you someday and take your pessimism more seriously. Such candidates might also be gifted orators themselves, which may be good allies in the future. Maybe with something having nothing to do with elections.

ok..i think you made some points worthy of consideration. ;)

christine  posted on  2006-10-12   9:15:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: christine, neil mciver (#13) (Edited)

WARNING FOR TEXANS

Whatever you do, do NOT vote D for governor of TX!! This quack's [Bell] stand on immigration is straight amnesty [agrees with Bush] and he "stood up to Tom Delay!" LOL. Vote Kinky or [Strayhorn if you must], but do NOT vote D to keep Perry out...or nothing will change!

KINKY is the ONLY candidate who asnwered the questions and who is straight ahead honest.

IndieTX  posted on  2006-10-12   10:22:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: IndieTX (#17)

or nothing will change!

Nothing will change regardless. I'm voting for Kinky, but Perry wins this one walking away.

bluedogtxn  posted on  2006-10-12   10:28:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: bluedogtxn (#18)

Kinky is hands down my vote as well..but I'm afraid you are correct that the SHEOPLE and Fundies and senile old folks will go for Perry :(

IndieTX  posted on  2006-10-12   10:43:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: All, ALL (#19) (Edited)

PERRY IS A POMPOUS SELF-RIGHTEOUS ASSHOLE...as are Strayhorn and Bell. KINKY IS THE ONLY CHOICE.

All 3 called Friedman a RACIST during the debate.

IndieTX  posted on  2006-10-12   10:55:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 21.

#23. To: IndieTX (#21)

All 3 called Friedman a RACIST during the debate.

isn't that rich?

christine  posted on  2006-10-12 11:25:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 21.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]