Now obviously I am tickled to see the Donk have it handed to him, but let's get serious. Obviously you cannot vote against "big government" or "the expansion of government" or whatever; I mean, a vote for the Republican Party or the "tea party candidate" is many things, but it is obviously not a vote against government. It's a vote for a Republican in government; more broadly, toward a Republican government. Equally obviously, these Republicans in government aren't going to give up powers already claimed. Rather, they will arrogate to themselves those same powers, and then dream up some more. And this is really the genius of the system: it is incredibly elastic; it has an inexhaustible capacity to take rage and frustration at the government, the mechanisms of the state, and to direct that anger and frustration into a ritualized affirmation of the very government that you resent and despise.
21 comments:
One might substitute the somewhat cumbersome but accurate term "apparatus to provide political and legal cover for the moneyed and powerful to exercise their will by pretending that it's popular will" for "government;" that, I think, would really clear things up.
Well said. But!
Obviously you cannot vote against "big government"
Yes, you can. However, you cannot do so by voting for a Democrat (obviously) or a Republican (except maybe Ron Paul if you happen to live in his district). You can vote for a Libertarian most of the time, or a Constitutionalist in some places. You can always write in yourself, if you trust yourself. And last, but not least, you can write in None of the Above, or just select no choice.
All of the above options can be used to vote against big government. Of course, they all share the trait of being completely ineffective. So more correctly you might have written: you cannot effectively vote against "big government". But still, if you do vote, you can, and should, if you are a libertarian.
I write-in "big government" every election. That's how I ensure voting for the winner.
IOZ, does size matter?
I could just be sitting at home with pee stains on my rug.
Well, this is certainly the anarchist take.
The Marxist take is that the Republicans wold undoubtedly reduce the size of government if they could, but they can't. Shrinking government means full-blown Depression. It's a political-economy thing.
How on earth is that a "Marxist" take?
It's like Lenin said...
"And this is really the genius of the system: it is incredibly elastic; it has an inexhaustible capacity to take rage and frustration at the government, the mechanisms of the state, and to direct that anger and frustration into a ritualized affirmation of the very government that you resent and despise."
I am beginning to believe that the next step in evolution has already occurred. It's not computers or robots or nanotechnology, but the bureaucratic state which will become the supreme life form on this planet.
What we have now is a series of iterations in which the population bounces back and forth between the Welfare Party and the Warfare Party, allowing each party to assert a little bit more control over some aspect of our lives. Then the other party comes in on a wave of dissatisfaction with the previous party, but doesn't actually undo anything.
We're slowly painting ourselves into a corner. It's actually quite brilliant when you step back and admire it.
Actually the Marxist take is that the Republicans would undoubtedly arrange for a settlement. They'd take the children, the Democrats would take the house. Junior would burn the house, the Republicans would take the insurance and the Marxists would take the Democrats.
Or something!
And as for me, I'm going back in the closet where men are empty overcoats!
rowan @3:24 I am the Walrus!
Ron Paul hates government so much he's been a member of it for 4 decades.
@Leonard
Lynrd Lynrd Lynrd
what are you even doing here ol hoss? who are you talking to?
Nony: you.
I've heard in some fabled districts for some positions you can vote for "none of the above".
I believe that after WWII in the U.S and during the 1990s in Canada the government shrunk (in absolute terms) while the economy did fine. I can't think of instances where the government shrunk and then the economy crashed, possibly because it's such an obviously insane move than it is just about never done.
There are few things more simultaneously hilarious and deeply disgusting than that lying racist opprtunist Ron Paul quoting Lysander Spooner.
It's even worse than fascist followers of Mencious Moldbug like the ever-loyal Leonard sidling up and whispering sweet nothings in the ears of anarchists.
Mendacious Moldbug, I should say.
"Just literate enougth to trick nerds"
"Mendacious Moldbug"
You're in good company with that line.
It's an amazing blog.This was a very well-written and enjoyable post to read.Thanks for the info sharing with us.The way you have described all the things are superb.Keep it up.Keep blogging.
It looks like going to be a sunny day.Hope everyone keep good mood.I will continue reading your post for it tackles different issues in our society that keeps me interested and go on reading the rest of your articles.
Post a Comment