Search Results for: vote

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.”


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:

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)

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.


Laf: 100% of Senate Democrats Vote Against Farmers and For the FDA

I'm not a huge fan of Natural News—not that I know a ton about it, either—because so often, to me, it's tainted by the Appeal to Nature logical fallacy and has a conspiratorial bent. I could be wrong. Just my general impression as I never explicitly follow it.

Anyhoo, Mike Adams pretty much nails it here: Freedom watch: Not a single Democrat voted in favor of ending FDA raids on raw milk farmers.

Here's some news for those who still somehow believe the political left in Washington cares about the People. After U.S. Senator Rand Paul introduced an amendment that would have ended armed FDA raids on raw milk farmers and legalized free speech about the curative properties of medicinal herbs, nutritional supplements and superfoods, are you curious how many Democrats voted in favor of this?


Big fat zero, to be exact.

Not a single Democrat in the United States Senate believes in fundamental food freedom, farm freedom or the principles of liberty. Every single Democrat in the Senate is a Big Brother sellout who supports the FDA having more guns pointed in the faces of raw milk farmers, arresting them and throwing them in prison, criminalizing real food and destroying America's small family farms.

Every single Democrat in the U.S. Senate believes that telling the truth about the beneficial effects of Chinese Medicine, or medicinal herbs, or nutritional supplements should be a crime that can also get you raided, shut down and imprisoned by the FDA. There is not a single Democrat who sees anything wrong with the government sending herbal product formulators to prison. There is not a single Democrat who believes that an Amish farmer has the right to milk a cow and sell that milk to their neighbor without being threatened by the government.

This is an astonishing milestone in U.S. history. When those in Washington who pretend to represent the People openly and publicly vote to crush the very liberties and freedoms they claim to protect, you no longer have a real Democracy. You have a police state.

Well, you've had a police state for a long time. They're just more open about it, now, with Democrats leading the way and Republicans not far behind—they being more like the Mafia Don who knows what's "bad for business." ...One might say that Democrats are more concerned with what's bad for the State, Republicans, what's bad for business. Only thing is, the State doesn't actually produce anything, just steals and redistributes.

I do find it gratifying, though. From almost total Democrat Party opposition to the 13th Amendment to end slavery (with all or nearly 100% Republican support), to its opposition to the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s, I'm reminded of what I heard P. J. O'Rourke say at a CATO luncheon I attended way back on the difference between the two parties:

Democrats: Smart politicians, dumb voters

Republicans: Dumb politicians, smart voters

The relevant juxtaposition, to me, is that of the patsy moron Democrat voters, combined with the appallingly stupid Republican Party elite. I suppose it's a balance of power, of sorts.

How many run-of-the-mill Democrat voters do you suppose are not wholly ignorant of the Democrat Party's 100 year history of staunch opposition to every single of dozens of federal and state initiatives sponsored by Republicans, that sought greater freedom and economic parity for blacks? Here, this guy runs them all down for you.

It is to laf. In the end, though, "smart politicians" rings true for Democrats. Once they were defeated in keeping blacks enslaved and dependent upon private party slaveholders, they adapted, and over the last 50 years have successfully re-enslaved and made them dependent on the State.

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

If You Voted, Shut Up!

Defending non-voting in bars across this great land, I often hear the ultimate "shut up"—that if you don't vote, you have no right to complain about politics or society. The reality is the exact opposite: By voting, you are playing a game whose rules are that the majority vote winner gets to control the reins of government, in all its unspeakable power. If you complain about the results of the game you chose to play, you're just being a sore loser—or winner.

But what if you believe that neither "winnable" candidate deserves power? Or that the whole game of majority-rule giving someone all the powers of the modern American state to wage war, arrest, tax, and regulate is inherently illegitimate? Then, don't vote, and complain all you want.

Brian Doherty, who's also not voting today.

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.

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.