Search Results for: vote

The Vote is In

And apparently, nobody is buying shares in the Republican Party.

And in a closed-door session at the Capitol, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole (R-Okla.) told members that the NRCC doesn’t have enough cash to “save them” in November if they don’t raise enough money or run strong campaigns themselves.

On a plain practical level, I can't understand why a person in the world would give a hoot about the Republicans, when they can simply get The Real Thing™ from the Democrats.

It's far and long from the time and place where there was any difference between Coke & Pepsi worth caring about, if there ever really was.

(Via a link from Billy)

The Cannibal Pot

Two pieces of good news, today, and one bad.

I showed up at the gym for my workout and though I've never discussed politics with him, my personal trainer says: "you didn't vote, did you?" Nope. With others standing around, he proceeds to tell me that when he was going over the list of appointments this morning, he thought of the election and then figured that every one of his clients would go vote, save one -- me. I was about his last and so far he was batting .1000. So for my money, it's astoundingly good news that I come off like that to people without even broaching the subject.

So then I figure, OK, since I've got them all here... I proceed to invoke the metaphor to Frédéric Bastiat's more concrete description of The State.

Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

I think I read Billy calling it Cannibal-Pot Hysteria back in 2003 and I've been stealing it ever since. So I tell them: "It's all -- soup-to-nuts -- just about the hysteria surrounding a cannibal pot; who gets tossed in, who gets to feast."

They all laugh, so they get it. More good news. But then I have to wonder how it is that if someone gets it, why they would laugh. Then it dawns on me: everyone thinks they're going to get to feast.

Of course. That's is why they vote, right? So there's your bad news. If I watch the local news I can see one-off incidents of depravity cross my TV screen on a nightly basis. Today I get to witness mass depravity. Bea just informed me she didn't vote. It's her call and I wouldn't say anything if she did, but knowing she didn't just fills me with pride and joy.

So here's to being a good citizen (don't vote) and to being a good parent (teach your kids that it's pathetic scam for herds, depraved at that, and not worthy of a rational person's time or attention).

The People Who Dictate Your Affairs

Jay says:

Jerry Springer nation is voting your life away one hoof-marked ballot at a time.

Billy adds:

Why on earth would you submit anything remotely having to do with your rights to these peoples' opinions?

Indeed; why on earth? Whatever for do you see the necessity? Now, I'll stipulate that I care not a wit how clueless, shallow, and ignorant these morons are, or remain. I couldn't care less how they manage their peaceful affairs. What's more, I don't care that you seem to see the necessity of making these idiots the managers of your own affairs -- knock yourselves out. I can't on earth see why, but it's an inescapable logic that you indeed want them to run your lives each time you fill out a ballot.

Go ahead and deny it, but your plain actions belie your words. It's Jerry Springer nation to be sure -- a nation of morons -- and if you vote you're enthusiastically going along for the ride.

I will never, ever waste my time with voting again. Even if it were a morally valid way to "run the country" (a phrase I loath for its implications) -- which it's not -- you'd still have to contend with the reality that even if you're a smart and informed person that would generally make the "right call" on matters of "public policy," there is simply no way on earth that you will ever be able to out-compete the moronic masses. (Just look at the evidence over the last two hundred years.)

Consider the often quoted and alluded to idea: "voting empowers the people." Question: why on earth do you want to "empower" fucking idiots? Huh?

I don't know what's worse, fucking idiots who believe themselves worthy of a general opinion because they carry the moniker of "voter," or the minority of seemingly smart and informed folks who "empower" them.

Newsflash: Whores Work for Money, Not Votes or Wishes

 It is so laf.

STUDY: You Have ‘Near-Zero’ Impact On U.S. Policy

A startling new political science study concludes that corporate interests and mega wealthy individuals control U.S. policy to such a degree that “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

And...

Who rules America?

The new study, with the jaw-clenching title of "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens," is forthcoming in the fall 2014 edition of Perspectives on Politics. Its authors, Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University, examined survey data on 1,779 national policy issues for which they could gauge the preferences of average citizens, economic elites, mass-based interest groups and business-dominated interest groups. They used statistical methods to determine the influence of each of these four groups on policy outcomes, including both policies that are adopted and rejected.

The analysts found that when controlling for the power of economic elites and organized interest groups, the influence of ordinary Americans registers at a "non-significant, near-zero level." The analysts further discovered that rich individuals and business-dominated interest groups dominate the policymaking process. The mass-based interest groups had minimal influence compared to the business-based interest groups.

The study also debunks the notion that the policy preferences of business and the rich reflect the views of common citizens. They found to the contrary that such preferences often sharply diverge and when they do, the economic elites and business interests almost always win and the ordinary Americans lose.

The article's author, Allan Lichtman, then goes on—in utter face-palming imbecility—to conclude:

Rich individuals and business interests have the capacity to hire the lobbyists that shadow legislators in Washington and to fill the campaign coffers of political candidates. Ordinary citizens are themselves partly to blame, however, because they do not choose to vote.

America's turnout rate places us near the bottom of industrialized democracies. More than 90 million eligible Americans did not vote in the presidential election of 2012 and more than 120 million did not vote in the midterm elections of 2010.

Translation: If a whore goes instead for the cash and ignores 125 million wishes, in order to spread her legs, then we simply need 90 million more wishes. What a moron. Lichtman: you're a fucktard.

Anyway, here's the study draft (PDF): Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.

Now, pop quiz: who wrote this and for how long has he been saying it in various iterations and forms?

"Voting: getting a 1/300 millionth say in your own affairs."

There's a good reason that 90 million American's are smart enough to not bother voting, ever. They understand this:

Voting
At least they have the common decency to cover themselves.

Source: Anarchy Begins at Home: The Blog Series Part 8 – The Quality of Neolithic Social Power.

Alright, onward. There's my toldjaso for the day. Take the fucking Red Pill already.

Update: George Carlin Doesn't Vote (and not because he's dead)

US Police Have Killed Over 5,000 Civilians Since 9/11

Story.

Though Americans commonly believe law enforcement’s role in society is to protect them and ensure peace and stability within the community, the sad reality is that police departments are often more focused on enforcing laws, making arrests and issuing citations. As a result of this as well as an increase in militarized policing techniques, Americans are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist, estimates a Washington’s Blog report based on official statistical data.

Though the U.S. government does not have a database collecting information about the total number of police involved shootings each year, it’s estimated that between 500 and 1,000 Americans are killed by police officers each year. Since 9/11, about 5,000 Americans have been killed by U.S. police officers, which is almost equivalent to the number of U.S. soldiers who have been killed in the line of duty in Iraq.

Now hurry. What are you waiting for? Arrange an election and vote your way right out of that disgrace.

Right? Isn't that how it works? Isn't it foolproof? Or, is it that you believe yourself to be at less risk of being a victim, and so you turn a blind eye to the plight of those less fortunate?

Death By Government: “Democide”

Encompassing Many Years of Research by R.J. Rummel

All of the following figures DO NOT include combatant war deaths.

Genocide: among other things, the killing of people by a government because of their indelible group membership (race, ethnicity, religion, language).

Politicide: the murder of any person or people by a government because of their politics or for political purposes.

Mass Murder: the indiscriminate killing of any person or people by a government.

Democide: The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.

1. 169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide]

I. BACKGROUND

2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide]
3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide

II. 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS

4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime

III. 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS

8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military
9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges
11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing
13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse

IV. 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS

15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea
16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico
17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia

References index

IMPORTANT NOTE: Among all the democide estimates appearing in this book, some have been revised upward. I have changed that for Mao's famine, 1958-1962, from zero to 38,000,000. And thus I have had to change the overall democide for the PRC (1928-1987) from 38,702,000 to 76,702,000. Details here.

I have changed my estimate for colonial democide from 870,000 to an additional 50,000,000. Details here.

Thus, the new world total: old total 1900-1999 = 174,000,000. New World total = 174,000,000 + 38,000,000 (new for China) + 50,000,000 (new for Colonies) = 262,000,000.

Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5', then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century. Finally, given popular estimates of the dead in a major nuclear war, this total democide is as though such a war did occur, but with its dead spread over a century.

~~~

OK, time to get out the "vote."

Word

I don't know that you can put the whole political enchilada any better than Kyle Bennett does here.

I don't vote. I don't believe in voting. I don't believe in democracy. I'm a capitalist and an individualist, and those are, separately but especially in combination, wholly incompatible with democracy. I believe in the ideals of the Declaration, and that the Constitution was a repudiation of them. I believe in governance by the *unanimous* and individually revocable consent of the governed. The only forms of governance that are consistent with that are self-governance or governance for hire by individuals.

Voting is a way of distributing power over other people's lives. I don't want any power over other people's lives, and I don't want anyone having power over mine. The only power I want to share in is the power to trade or not to trade, to associate or not associate, to respect or not to respect. Government itself is the second biggest scam ever pulled over on the human race, and it is the cause of most of the problems in the world today. Those that it is not the cause of are nearly insolvable because government won't get out of the way.

There's no utopias, but there is real freedom, real happiness, and a truly good life available to human beings. Government is an obstacle to that, not a benefit. Rules are absolutely necessary for them, but government is about the arbitrary, and the lawless when law is defined as natural law. Government is chaos.

This Should Be Easy

If you want to follow along (see comments).

Do you grasp the ignominy of it all? Americans; and the greatest political statement you can make for yourself is to go into a pathetically flimsy booth once every two to four years and have your one in 300,000,000th say in your own affairs.

Disgraceful.

Vote Or Die!

During my morning blog-browse, I ran across some reference to “Vote Or Die!” t-shits being worn by bunches of the get-out-the-vote [for the democrats] entertainers.

Presumably, the implication is that if you don’t vote, Bush wins, and you die. I wondered if any of the youngsters wearing these things ever stopped to critically examine this “logic” flow, but I digress. The simple bottom line is that whoever wins this election; things are going to proceed pretty much as they have been for quite some time. The government deficit is going to increase, the government is going to get larger as a percentage of your life; the government is going to increasingly determine what values you will be allowed to pursue, what you will pay for them, and when and to what extent you will give up your values for the sake of others who profess to need them.

Anyway, I then went poking around for any articles on the “Vote Or Die!” apparel, and I stumbled onto an article called Vote and die, by Ilana Mercer. It opens:

Rapper P. Diddy and actor Ben Affleck have something in common other than the asinine Jennifer Lopez. At Mr. Diddy's instigation, Affleck and a posse of "sexy people," as Diddy referred to their defining attribute, have joined together to persuade "young people and minorities" (not to be confused with white, older people who shoulder the tax burden) to vote.

And she can also talk some pretty good trash about republican TV pundits (useful idiot Kool-Aid pushers) that’s well worth considering:

There are the Republican panel-show Pattons, and the ever-multiplying Stepford sluts who stand by their man – Bush – uncritically. Barely out of short pants (Noah McCullough), neoconservative neophytes are solicited for their sophomoric opinions with a reverence befitting the developmentally challenged.

Yes, the so-called Right's representatives in the media are dopey faux conservative babes, blinded bimbos, and addled anchors, who can't tell their Left from their Right. If they could, they would identify uncontrollable spending, deficits, corporate welfare and subsidies, the invasion of privacy under the Patriot Act, the suppression of peaceful assembly with "free speech zones," and preemptive unconstitutional war, as the handiwork of an enemy of the Right. Their only talent is in out shouting their Democratic sparring partners, who, bar some hard-core socialists like the Nation magazine's Katrina vanden Heuvel, evince the same lack of cerebral agility.

But whether or not you agree with the war on terrorists or not, voting is certainly not the answer to any of your problems, as Mercer via Barnett demonstrates below in laying out an entirely different, and valid, logic flow than “Vote Or Die!” with respect to voting.

Unfortunately, he is wrong. In "Default and Dynamic Democracy," Loren E. Lomasky observed, "As electorates increase in size, the probability that one's vote will swing the election approaches zero" ... "[I]n large-number electorates, there is a vanishingly small probability that an individual's vote (or voice) will swing an election ... [F]or citizens of large-scale democracies, voting is inconsequential."

…and, further:

In "Restoring the Lost Constitution," Randy E. Barnett further homes in on why, contra Mr. Diddy, genuinely informed individuals have little incentive to exercise their "democratic right":
If we vote for a candidate and she wins, we have consented to the laws she votes for, but we have also consented to the laws she has voted against.

If we vote against the candidate and she wins, we have consented to the laws she votes for or against.

And if we do not vote at all, we have consented to the outcome of the process whatever it may be.



This "rigged contest" Barnett describes as, "'Heads' you consent, 'tails' you consent, 'didn't flip the coin,' guess what? You consent as well.'"

Just so I’m not misunderstood, here, my objection to voting is a moral one—It’s wrong to steal the values produced and owned by others. This means that I don’t walk into a 7-Eleven at 2 a.m. with a gun to stick up the clerk and empty the cash drawer. It means equally that I don’t step into a booth to affect essentially the same crime under the euphemism of “voting.” The only difference is that everyone else is there to steal from me, just as I am there to steal from them. As the article concludes:

His instincts are correct, although what Mr. Diddy has discovered are special-interest politics, likened by Lomasky to "Hobbes's war of all against all, albeit by democratic means."

I think that’s essentially what Beck means when he refers to the bi-annual event as Cannibal Pot Hysteria.

Why It’s Wrong to Vote

...Wrong taken two ways: to the principle and the practical.

I sat there figuring that since I blog a fair amount about it anyway, that I ought to put something up on election-erection day. I'll make it quick.

The Principle

  • I wouldn't do that to you.
  • I have no right to any say in your life and affairs, so long as you're not in my space.

The Practical

  • Not interested in my 1/300,000,000th say in my own affairs.
  • It's meaningless; and so perhaps this is why so many levels of government are interested in sponsoring various Lottery schemes. They have a certain expertise at it.

George Carlin Doesn't Vote

And now...

Watch in frustration as Jan Helfeld uses the socratic method to expose Sen. Inoue's inconsistent logic. But Jan, don't you know government is magic? It doesn't have to make sense!

This proper schooling of U.S. Senator Daniel Inoue (D) HI, is very well worth the watch and is perhaps the very most practical reason to not vote, ever.

You are voting for worse than "the lesser of two evils."

You're voting for your inferiors.

Deny Women the Vote!

Now, before you get your panties all in a bunch, keep reading. It may not be entirely what you think. John T. Kennedy found something. Just because I like it so damn much, I'm posting the whole thing here. It's not very long. Indulge yourself in some classical liberalism for five minutes.

Against Woman Suffrage
by Lysander Spooner
New Age, February 24, 1877

Women are human beings, and consequently have all the natural rights that any human beings can have. They have just as good a right to make laws as men have, and no better; AND THAT IS JUST NO RIGHT AT ALL. No human being, nor any number of human beings, have any right to make laws, and compel other human beings to obey them. To say that they have is to say that they are the masters and owners of those of whom they require such obedience.

The only law that any human being can rightfully be compelled to obey is simply the law of justice. And justice is not a thing that is made, or that can be unmade, or altered, by any human authority. It is a natural principle, inhering in the very nature of man and of things. It is that natural principle which determines what is mine and what is thine, what is one man’s right or property and what is another man’s right or property. It is, so to speak, the line that Nature has drawn between one man’s rights of person and property and another man’s rights of person and property.

This natural principle, which we will call justice, and which assigns to each and every human being, is, I repeat, not a thing that has made, but is a matter of science to be learned, like mathematics, or chemistry, or geology. And all the laws, so called, that men have ever made, either to create, define, or control the rights of individuals, were intrinsically just as absurd and ridiculous as would be laws to create, define, or control mathematics, or chemistry, or geology.

Substantially all the tyranny and robbery and crime that governments have ever committed—and they have either themselves committed, or licensed others to commit, nearly all that have ever been committed in the world by anybody—have been committed by them under the pretence of making laws. Some man, or some body of men, have claimed the right, or usurped the power, of making laws, and compelling other men to obey; thus setting up their own will, and enforcing it, in place of that natural law, or natural principle, which says that no man or body of men can rightfully exercise any arbitrary power whatever over the persons or property of other men.

There are a large class of men who are so rapacious that they desire to appropriate to their own uses the persons and properties of other men. They combined for the purpose, call themselves governments, make what they call laws, and then employ courts, and governors, and constables, and, in the last resort, bayonets, to enforce obedience.

There is another class of men, who are devoured by ambition, by the love of power, and the love of fame.

They think it a very glorious thing to rule over men; to make laws to govern them. But as they have no power of their own to compel obedience, they unite with the rapacious class before mentioned, and become their tools. They promise to make such laws as the rapacious class desire, if this latter class will but authorize them to act in their name, and furnish the money and the soldiers necessary for carrying their laws, so called, into execution.

Still another class of men, with a sublime conceit of their own wisdom, or virtue, or religion, think they have a right, and a sort of divine authority, for making laws to govern those who, they think are less wise, or less virtuous, or less religious than themselves. They assume to know what is best for all other men to do and not to do, to be and not to be, to have and not to have. And they conspire to make laws to compel all those other men to conform to their will, or, as they would say, to their superior discretion. They seem to have no perception of the truth that each and every human being has had given to him a mind and body of his own, separate and distinct from the minds and bodies of all other men; and that each man’s mind and body have, by nature, rights that are utterly separate and distinct from the rights of any and all other men; that these individual rights are really the only human rights there are in the world; that each man’s rights are simply the right to control his own soul, and body, and property, according to his own will, pleasure, and discretion, so long as he does not interfere with the equal right of any other man to the free exercise and control of his own soul, body, and property. They seem to have no conception of the truth that, so long as he lets all other men’s souls, bodies, and properties alone, he is under no obligation whatever to believe in such wisdom, or virtue, or religion as they do, or as they think best for him.

This body of self-conceited, wise, virtuous, and religious people, not being sufficiently powerful of themselves to make laws and enforce them upon the rest of mankind, combined with the rapacious and ambitious classes before mentioned to carry out such purposes as they can all agree upon. And the farce, and jargon, and Babel they all make of what they call government would be supremely ludicrous and ridiculous, if it were not the cause of nearly all the poverty, ignorance, vice, crime, and misery there are in the world.

Of this latter class—that is, the self-conceited, wise, virtuous, and religious class—are those woman suffrage persons who are so anxious that women should participate in all the falsehood, absurdity, usurpation, and crime of making laws, and enforcing them upon other persons. It is astonishing what an amount of wisdom, virtue, and knowledge they propose to inflict upon, or force into, the rest of mankind, if they can but be permitted to participate with the men in making laws. According to their own promises and predictions, there will not be a single natural human being left upon the globe, if the women can but get hold of us, and add their power to that of the men in making such laws as nobody has any right to make, and such as nobody will be under the least obligation to obey. According to their programme, we are to be put into their legislative mill, and be run through, ground up, worked over, and made into some shape in which we shall be scarcely recognized as human beings. Assuming to be gods, they propose to make us over into their own image. But there are so many different images among them, that we can have, at most, but one feature after one model, and another after another. What the whole conglomerate human animal will be like, it is impossible to conjecture.

In all conscience, it is not for us even to bear the nearly unbearable ills inflicted upon us by the laws already made,–at any rate it is not better for us to be (if we can but be permitted to be) such simple human beings as Nature made us,–than suffer ourselves to be made over into such grotesque and horrible shapes as a new set of lawmakers would make us into, if we suffer them to try their powers upon us?

The excuse which the women offer for all the laws which they propose to inflict upon us is that they themselves are oppressed by the laws that now exist. Of course they are oppressed; and so are all men—except the oppressors themselves—oppressed by the laws that are made. As a general rule, oppression was the only motive for which laws were ever made. If men wanted justice, and only justice, no laws would ever need to be made; since justice itself is not a thing that can be made. If men or women, or men and women, want justice, and only justice, their true course is not to make any more laws, but to abolish the laws—all the laws—that have already been made. When they shall have abolished all the laws that have already been made, let them give themselves to the study and observance, and, if need be, the enforcement, of that one universal law—the law of Nature—which is “the same at Rome and Athens”—in China and in England—and which man did not make. Women and men alike will then have their rights; all their rights; all the rights that Nature gave them. But until then, neither men nor women will have anything that they can call their rights. They will at most have only such liberties or privileges as the laws that are made shall see fit to allow them.

If the women, instead of petitioning to be admitted to a participation in the power of making more laws, will but give notice to the present lawmakers that they (the women) are going up to the State House, and are going to throw all the existing statute books in the fire, they will do a very sensible thing,–one of the most sensible things it is in their power to do. And they will have a crowd of men—at least all the sensible and honest men in the country to go with them.

But this subject requires a treatise, and is not to be judged of by the few words here written. Nor is any special odium designed to be cast on the woman suffragists; many of whom are undoubtedly among the best and most honest of all those foolish people who believe that laws should be made.

Comments are most definitely open. Come on. Give it your best shot.

Letting Women Vote, and Then, Letting Them Hold Political Office is Dumb

Because, if you do that, eventually, they'll go after Ice Cream Trucks (to protect the chillins—you have to protect the chillins).

Senator warns of dangers of Ice Cream truck chimes

Fine Gael senator Catherine Noone today warned that the "persistent use of chimes" of ice cream vans represent an "aggressive form of selling".

Ms Noone said she has been contacted by parents who claim ice cream vans visit their estates up to five times per day.

The Dublin senator said she believes the "pester power" of these vans are adding to the issue of child obesity.

Speaking in the Seanad, Ms Noone admitted that her call for regulation will be met with humour.

But she said the impact of these vans on obesity among children is very serious.

"As I talk about it, it does seem frivolous on the face of it. But it relaters to an issue of pester power," Ms Noone said.

"The reality is children are very interested in sugar and very addicted to it in lots of instances. It's not that I'm anti-ice cream but the persistent use of chimes in public streets and in estates is an aggressive form of selling and it wouldn't be countenanced in any other industry."

Seems that not all of the Puritans got on the boats way back—America being proof you ought never let too many in boats at one time.

Let's not disappoint Ms. No One, and meet it with a splash of humor.

Against Woman Suffrage

Women are human beings, and consequently have all the natural rights that any human beings can have. They have just as good a right to make laws as men have, and no better; AND THAT IS JUST NO RIGHT AT ALL. No human being, nor any number of human beings, have any right to make laws, and compel other human beings to obey them. To say that they have is to say that they are the masters and owners of those of whom they require such obedience.

Read the whole pretty short thing here. Barrel of lafs. It was written in the mid-1800s by the prefigure of FedEx, Lysander Spooner. It's particularly funny.

#UnintendedConsequences

Headline: “Stupid Party Caves Once Again to Evil Party”

What a "surprise."

But evil always trumps stupid, and the thing about stupid is that it is what it does. No way around it, no way to fix it.

That is all.

I’m Too Incompetent to Vote

I've been asked no small number of times this year why I am not voting. There are a number of reasons why, none seemingly satisfying to those doing the asking. Voting is a form of theft by proxy. No takers. It's self debasing. Still no takers.

Ok, how about I'm incompetent to decide your values for you? I think you should have a 100% say in the values you choose to pursue, how you choose to pursue them, and in whose company you wish to engage such pursuit according to whatever arrangements you mutually agree to undertake.

Let me provide an example. Go look at these pictures, read the commentary, and see if you get the idea.

My Hunter-Gatherer Social Experiment With Facebook

I've long written on this blog along these lines: we evolved to account for the values and actions of about 30 other individuals. The corollary: at that level, each individual has a real potential to influence the collective action of the entire group, should it be important enough to undertake.

And the general social corollary is that this does not scale to 230 Facebook friends, a half million citizens in your "tight knit" community, 300 million Americans...or, what, 7 billion Earth inhabitants? ...Hunter-gatherers might not scoff outright at the idea of voting, per se. But I'm pretty sure they'd scoff at it being secret and anonymous (no personal accountability), but then they're bound to it.

...I had pretty much come to hate Facebook. Many do anyway, but usually for different reasons than I. That runs the gamut from the envy over Zuckerberg's smashing billionaire success—to now gloating over the not-so-pretty public stock offering—to the constant hand wringing over privacy issues (that's the price you pay if you want free), to silly butthurt complaints about how their free service is configured, and the changes they make when they want to make them.

I signed up for Facebook way back when it went from college students only, to public. The strategy and timing of that, the elements involved in it, really ought to make a pretty interesting business book, I'd think. ...I signed up, did nothing with it for well over a year, began hearing the buzz, and started using it. It's a love/hate thing, as I suppose most good relationships are—because at least it's passion, heads or tales, and not indifference—which really, really sucks.

I don't think I ever acquired over 100 friends, and since FB is mutual, unlike Google+, that seemed reasonable. I have an FB page for this blog with almost 3,500 "fans," and a Twitter feed, with almost 5,000 followers. But in spite of stating on my About Page and elsewhere, that my personal FB is only for friends and family I know in realspace, I still get a number of friend requests per week I have to ignore. I used to take the time to send a "sorry" message—directing folks to the FTA Page instead—but I just don't have the time or desire anymore. Sorry.

...So, let's get to the thinking part, eh? Does anyone really have 100 friends? I mean, true friends in at least some very important context; that is, people with whom you keep up on all important details and events of their lives, attend every function you can, and they yours; or, perhaps someone with whom you might have some extraordinary, unique affinity that will always be present? How about 230? 450, 500 and on up, as I see on many FB profiles?

Or do you cheap and fake out? Do you accept their friend requests, then hide all their posts—rendering the whole thing a white-scam that diminishes you? What happens when they ask you in a phone conversation, an in-person meeting, an email, or even a personal FB message what you think of their FB contributions, or this post or that post? Or, will that never happen anywayand, I've made my point?

For far too long I've put up with stuff on Facebook that was of no interest to me. I won't bore you with the details. Everyone who's ever been on it on it knows what I mean. Essentially, we need a concise word for UltraBanal. And, I suppose that would go for me, too, in the eyes of some...which is fine—this is a two-way deal. After all, it comes to a point where, other than some nebulous mutual acquaintance, friend of a friend, a family member or "friend" you wouldn't otherwise see inside of 20-year spaces—or whatever—it's just not at all prescient. It's irrelevant. Which means: it really doesn't mean much of anything to you. Not...really.

So what do you do? You scroll through...scroll, scroll, scroll...and you're looking for rare nuggets. Well, how about stop digging for gold and think about what you're trying to do?

Where do you find them, those nuggets? ...How about you do a little data analysis? What if you recorded each time you click "Like," or you comment, or you post on someone's wall, etc? See how many people that is, and who they are. As a secondary experiment, record which people click "Like" on yours posts, comment, post on your wall, etc. Compare the two lists. Wanna guess how it might come out in terms of correspondence?

For me, since I already had only about 100 FB friends, I kinda winged it and just began the culling operation. I cut my friends list down to 29. This morning when I got up, I went to Facebook, and I had an epiphany. I kinda loved it. I had a great time, really. Virtually every post was something of interest to me. It was easy to click on the "Like" a few times, drop a few comments—all in the worthwhile endeavor of supporting and celebrating those closest to me,—friends and family. ...Real friends, family that are as good as friends—because you choose your friends, not your family.

Anyone else want to give it a shot or, if you've stayed away from FB for whatever reason, give it a try under that basis: 30-50 friends, and not a single friend more? See how it goes?

As a final aspect to consider, isn't it odd that human beings have socially developed such complex ways to place friends and family into hierarchies over millennia? Well, no, it isn't odd at all. It's a function or response to how we evolved as social beings to begin with. We simply aren't adapted to the notion or practicality of keeping up with the waxes and wanes of hundreds of other individuals with separate lives, and you know what? I think that's perfect.

Why? Because no matter what, there will still only be 24 hours in any given day.

Neolithic Mind Toxins: Animals Don’t Vote

Or, if they do, it's with paw or hoof, tooth or claw

I asked the 20-somethings at The 21 Convention why they would be interested in a one in 300 millionth say in their own affairs and, and, why they would clamor for who's gonna rule them next. That's kind of a melange of principle and practical, really, but it's often not a bad idea to hit a person with the practical first: how's it working' out for ya? Maybe you'll get their attention.

There was a lot more to that part of the presentation, of course, but that will come out in due course when the video is released. During the Q&A, I got predictable questions.

"How how hard is it to go vote; how much time does it take?"

The practical: Too much. And it's not just the little time and effort it takes to go vote. It's useless, nothing changes, and most voters spend a lot of time agitating months or even years in advance. It's a drain on your life that returns nothing if you're a producer and not a parasite.

The principle: I don't have a right to even a 1 in 300 millionth say in your affairs and I would not do that to you. In summary, I don't vote because I have no moral right to, even before the fact that it's totally masturbatory on a practical level.

Next question: "How about the lesser of two evils?"

Answer: Thank you for pointing out that it's all evil. I'm not interested in evil. Next.

Anthony, the organizer of the event asked me to clarify, and specifically, about any particular candidates I might judge differently. Well, of course, I immediately mentioned my infatuation with Ron Paul's campaign and money raising last time around for the next King...er...President.

Sure, admittedly, since nothing will really change, I welcome more rational depth than not. Obama is a commie. W. Bush was an elitist incompetent, far worse than his dad which isn't saying much, Clinton was a fucking liar of epic proportions and Reagan was a superstar personality who set us off on the greatest federal spending spree since Johnson. Carter is still an embarrassment in every way I can imagine as a man. Ford knew more about baseball than history and Nixon was a general shitbag.

That's the extent of my personal first hand knowledge. Fuck them all. Why the hell should I vote?

But again, that's merely the practical. It's a fucking waste of time and mental energy and you will do well to simply ignore it and channel that energy into life enhancement, entrepreneurship, creativity or whatever else floats your boat or gives you a hardon.

My curiosity is why a human animal would want to subjugate itself to such a process. We're social animals, but did not evolve in an ant hill or bee hive; we evolved in very small societies where you-animal could account for every other member. And every other member could account for you. Compromise is actually natural in this sort of setting. You compromise all the time in your close social circle and it's perfectly natural and makes the world go round.

We don't mind -- if we're rational -- lending hand, being generous, charitable, and on and on. But ants and bees are actually quite dumb individually. It is merely the fact of mass collectivization in the billions and trillions that has rendered an insect that collectively, does amazing things.

So that's what you want? You want to quit being a proud and capable individual animal in exchange for sacrificial insecthood?

Clap, clap, clap.

Be proud, America.

Beyond that, I simply cannot understand the desire to impose my will upon others simply because I can, by chance, happen to vote with the bigger mob.

I'd feel ashamed. Shit, I can even get my non human dogs to feel a sense of shame.

So what'll be the next Neolithic Mind Toxin? Given events in Norway, I was thinking: defenselessness. We'll see.

Update: A simple rhetorical question that I recall from USENET many years ago: what if they held an election and no one showed up? It's rhetorical, so give it your best.

Women: The State is Not Your Daddy or Husband and Your Sons Know It

One chart from this paper tells the whole story: Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?

Womens Suffrage
Womens Suffrage (click to open larger version)

It has been suggested for a long time that giving women the right to vote in 1920 in the US was the true point at which government began to tax & spend more. So John Lott and Lawrence Kenny gathered and crunched all the data. Pretty damn unmistakable. Here's a summary article from Lott.

Academics have long pondered why the government started growing precisely when it did. The federal government, aside from periods of wartime, consumed about 2 percent to 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) up until World War I. It was the first war that the government spending didn't go all the way back down to its pre-war levels, and then, in the 1920s, non-military federal spending began steadily climbing. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal — often viewed as the genesis of big government — really just continued an earlier trend. What changed before Roosevelt came to power that explains the growth of government? The answer is women's suffrage.

Seems pretty intuitive to me what happened. Politicians, to win elections, remain in office, continue to hold power and advance political carriers of even more power, influence and control did what any such humanoid would do: they bought their votes fair and square through a strategy of replacing fathers and husbands—men—with themselves.

Men in any capacity are no more of a panacea than any other class of people. But of course, neither is the State. More of course, that doesn't stop the State lying about it at every turn. They have and it's been tremendously successful. For women.

Sons, and perhaps daughters too, know better. 39 seconds out of your life. A segment on a daily syndicated women's talk show where they brought in a few "troubled" boys to face the wrath of a military drill instructor. One of the boys gave an unexpected answer to the question of whether he wanted that drill instructor to be his daddy for the next 8 years.

You've seen the look that sergeant gave before. 1982, An Officer and a Gentleman, Richard Gere and Louis Gossett Jr. Another minute of your time.

Or, perhaps this. Now here's a dad who knows how to give candy to both his 3-yr-old son and 4-yr-old daughter. Another minute for you.

Now that's a pretty good use for candy. And after all, it's probably the rare mom that's gonna teach her son this trick with chocolate.

Here's the hi-resolution version, just in case anyone needs a clearer look, in the interest of science, of course. I didn't see any panties in a bunch; that is, until I saw the comments when Robb Wolf shared that video on his Facebook page. Just guess.

Alrighty then... Is that about enough misogyny for one day fer ya?

A Valuable Lesson in Just About Everything

I got an email from Nancy Redd this morning. She's the nice and capable host at Huffington Post Live who did my interview on Friday about not using soap or shampoo for nearly 5 years, now.

She emailed to tell me that a clip and writeup had just hit the front page of AOL. Shortly after, I was contacted by CBS for one of their shows. I'll withhold any more info until it becomes a reality, if it does. At this point, assistant producer looking for show material, so I haven't made the cut, yet. Sure hoping to, though.

 

Richard Nikoley showers every day, but it's been more than four years since his showers came with soap and shampoo.

HuffPost Live's Nancy Redd hosted a discussion about personal hygiene, tackling long-debated questions like whether a washcloth or loofah is best or how important soap actually is. Nikoley, who blogs for FreeTheAnimal.com, said he's doing just fine without most body-cleansing products.

"I have been over four years now, almost going on five, with not using any shampoo on my hair nor soap on my body, just water," he said. "I may take several showers a day, but it's only with water, and it has been the most liberating thing of my life. Travel is easy."

Nikoley has continued using deodorant, which he said is important because of the "social aspect" that comes along with wearing it. But he still travels incredibly light when it comes to personal products.

"When I travel, it's a toothbrush and my Old Spice," he said. "In fact, I usually don't even use toothpaste because just the dry brush actually cleans your teeth way better than using paste."

That's the mundane to you, because you know this story and I wouldn't tax you again, except for the huge numbers of comments under the post. You really, really have to take a look, especially those who've known me for a long while, met me in person, etc.

This is a very rare opportunity to understand how seriously deluded people are in general on the slightest pretense. [Especially on the Internet?] I really can't even begin with the 300+ comments at this point, 99% negative, many just "me too." I did post one though, as serendipitously, it was right up at top when I scooted over first time. Ajtlawyer:

Me Democrat
Me...Democrat

You're welcome, Democrats, liberals, commies. Now you have proof of just how stupid Republicans can be. I replied.

Hey Ajtlawyer.

I'm actually a-political in terms of practical politics. I think Republicans are frauds, but Democrats are liars, and I lean towards the former if I have to.

My favorite quote is HL Menken:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed—and hence clamorous to be led to safety—by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

Just in case you're interested.

And in the words of George Carlin, "if you vote, you have no right to complain."

Alright. Between Marie, Tatertot, and now this, pretty interesting Tuesday. 1:36pm and I haven't eaten yet. Better get to that. Hungry.

...Can you imagine the comments on a post like that referenced above, where I'm describing how I don't actually eat any day until I'm actually HUNGRY?! ...which typically happens 10a-1p, daily? Can you imagine? Think and chew for a minute. Now, imagine other scenarios and then imagine what's behind all of it; because, as I told you: this is A Valuable Lesson in Just About Everything.

How many times...How. Many. Many. Times...have I told you that I live in a world of abject, hopeless morons? How many times? Are you believin' me, yet?

A Brief Lesson in Democratic Politics: Sometimes It Takes a King

Voters only insist upon one single thing of their elected politicians. Lies: If a politician wants to get elected and then re-elected, he must lie to voters, avoid the truth, obfuscate the truth, and most importantly, promise to give them stuff at the expense of others, all while leading them to believe they're getting it for free. This is what's known as being "artful." That's euphemism for getting caught in your own lies less than the other guy gets caught in his.

This is the basic ethos of all voters worldwide. Either they want someone to spend their time, energy, and other people's money enforcing the biggest mob's (euphemism alert: "majority") "values," or they simply want them to steal from the "rich" and give it to the "poor" in turn. Voters get weepy reading Robin Hood.

Bread and Circuses has been around since 100AD, folks (and that's just its metaphorical insertion into the political discourse of the day). It used to be simple appeasement, paid for often enough through State expansion and conquest. That's what Kings & Emperors did. They had the common decency to steal from people in lands far, far away. Now, democratically elected politicians just steal from your neighbors and you're totally fine with that.

It took an unelected State figurehead to deliver this message the other day: Dutch King Willem-Alexander declares the end of the welfare state. In the words of Margaret Thatcher, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

So let's get to The King, and then to why it's good to be King.

King Willem-Alexander delivered a message to the Dutch people from the government in a nationally televised address: the welfare state of the 20th century is gone.

In its place a "participation society" is emerging, in which people must take responsibility for their own future and create their own social and financial safety nets, with less help from the national government. [...]

"The shift to a 'participation society' is especially visible in social security and long-term care," the king said, reading out to lawmakers a speech written for him by Prime Minister Mark Rutte's government.

"The classic welfare state of the second half of the 20th century in these areas in particular brought forth arrangements that are unsustainable in their current form."

Here's the funny thing and why "it's good to be King." I posted that article link on the FTA Facebook Page earlier today and got the typical, predictable responses:

  1. So get rid of the UNELECTED King!!!
  2. He's just reading the Prime Minister's speech.

Both points are moderately valid, but they both also miss the wider picture. In the first case, on a practical level, all of the expenses for all of the old world figurehead royalty don't amount to a drop in the bucket for even one State's overall welfare burden. Worse, it implies that there's an important distinction to be made between monarchy and democracy in the post-enlightenment west.

The second is far more important, and is what motivated this post. It misses the nuance of the whole thing. How come the King had to deliver a message from the government? BECAUSE HE DOESN'T FACE RE-ELECTION PRESSURES. DUH!

Voters are so daft that they don't even recognize this simple point. European Socialism is like years now into "austerity measures." That's euphemism for running out of other people's money to steal and redistribute, incidentally. They're so clamorous to be led to safety...

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken

...that they'll suborn further lies, and lies upon lies, and shielding of the reality of things—all orchestrated by the politicians they elect. It's all about feeling comfortable. Democracy is the problem, and that fact is made manifest by the simple act of professional politicians in charge having a King deliver their hard truths to their constituency. What's old is new again, I guess. It's convenient to imagine that this really began going downhill fast with women's suffrage; but, as Lysander Spooner pointed out a very long time ago in opposition to women's suffrage...

Women are human beings, and consequently have all the natural rights that any human beings can have. They have just as good a right to make laws as men have, and no better; AND THAT IS JUST NO RIGHT AT ALL. No human being, nor any number of human beings, have any right to make laws, and compel other human beings to obey them. To say that they have is to say that they are the masters and owners of those of whom they require such obedience.

I'm giving the King of the Netherlands a pass on this one. It demonstrates clearly the utter bankruptcy of democracy and of the attempt to be in the bigger mob—to make 49% the slaves of 51%—via the vote. In these terms, I'd far rather be the hapless, defenseless, at-the-mercy-of SUBJECT of the King, than a pathetic piece of shit voter ("voter" ...that's euphemism for petty thug).

I wrote this in a post in 2007, making fun of Mark Levin for getting stiffed by George Bush:

So: the great king of 2000 is now the bad king of 2007. Wonder who'll be the great king of 2008...

I guess we know the answer to that, now. What's funny is that you ridiculous voters really think you've got the power. You proudly wear it on your lapels every 2-4-8 years.

Yep, you've got 'em just where they want you. What a laf you all are and I get to see clear evidence of that every day. So, there's that; and thank you very much.

Maggot Update “Don’t Let My Daughter Die, Governor!”: Chris Christie vs. Medical Marijuana

What a fucking fat fuck fucker. Governor Chris Christie: my sincerest hope is that you die writhing in pain. The sooner, the better. Let's toss in a bunch of other politicians, just for good measure. Nothing like a good start. All the smart people will laf and have a party.

You are irredeemably loathsome.

Just watch that pandering, fake, hand shaking fat fuck fucker for the benefit of equally fucked up "constituents" who're just dragging everyone down on so many levels because they see their participation in "the system" as fucking everything—which it is: and fucking bad. And I can't wait until Republican fucktards start telling us he's their pick for...what the hell is it? King shit confuses me and puts me to sleep..2014, 16? Fuck. Who cares? I don't. Different year, same unbelievably stupid shit. ...Every 4-8 years: get rid of the bad King, replace him with a good King. RWR. Stupid fucks.

I blame voters. This is your progeny. This is what you have begotten, maggots. Pat yourselves on the back.

If you vote, you are directly responsible and I generally wish the same for all of you that I wish for Chrissy Boy (writhing pain, slow death, etc.). Oh, did I misspell his name?

What a sorry fat fucking excuse for a human being. And you voters are a bunch of wretched Maggots. Did I repeat myself?

Are you shocked? OK, Then I'll make a bet with you. See that little girl in the video, 2-yr-old Vivian? The one with Dravet's, that thing that gives her epileptic seizures lasting up to an hour and more, recorded on video, life threatening, and for which compounds in marijuana alleviate even with no "high?" Whaddya wanna bet that if she actually survives—in spite of Chrissy Boy and all you whore voters—that she'll have once ounce of respect for your faux "protections" in terms of people using weed? I'll betcha. At best, she'll feel sorry for you...that anyone could possibly be that stupid, careless, heartless, callous...all over being on a team where the competition is about who masturbates the best in a voting booth.

She can't smoke it. She's 2...fucking fucktards. Voters. But I repeat myself.

Now, maybe you might be interested in spending a few minutes of your "precious time" on this and that video, because certainly, nobody was interested in the NJ Weedman who got a hung jury and then an acquittal, explicitly representing himself using jury nullification (yes, I know, it's way over your heads and weedman is infinitely smarter than you—but you're not excused, ignorants).

Fuck America. It really isn't worth a shit, anymore. It's only worth making fun of, at this point. And it deserves it, maggots.