If nothing else, the ballot can give someone a pretty horrible paper cut.

The article started out really good, Al ... then I sort of lost where you were going with this. Are you saying that you prefer bullets? I was intrigued with your comment that "way too many people vote". What did you mean by that, what would your criteria be for allowing voting, and why?

Please do finish the article; you started off wonderfully (and you know I rarely agree with you on anything, so this is obviously promising if I want more from you) & I'd like to know the conclusion of what you began. Thanks.

Nancy - in his linked article Al says:

*...you shouldn't vote just because you can. If you don't know anything about politics or issues DON'T VOTE. You're only going to contribute to electing a bunch of schmucks who are going to make things worse. Americans, if you have not read the constitution -which is supposed to be the basic social contract- then you have no business voting. None.*

and he's spot on

Brother Troll! Haven't run into you for a minute- glad to hear from you.

Nancy, I'm happy to at least partially please you. The "too many voters" link goes to an old story breaking down what I'd mean by that.

Generally, ballots are preferable to bullets, but not always. The point should be what the governments actually do much more so than how they got there. Usually, more democratic governments are less aggressive and do a better job for the people, facing accountability and all.

However, The People don't have some magic collective wisdom, and can choose very badly. The mullahs in Iran swept into power on a popular wave, but the Iranian people and the whole world would have been better off keeping the Shah. Hitler managed to get himself elected, and the Palestinians' Hamas government is utterly illegitimate and badly in need of killing.

In other words, people are putting some near religious import on the process of government rather than the results.

Philosophical musings for retards:

"...Perhaps you in fact think it appropriate to take some people's money at gunpoint to give to poor folks (like YOU, no doubt). But recognize that this is what you are doing, and don't kid yourself that it's something truly different than if you just walked into the 7-11 with a gun- other than that you're getting someone else to do your dirty work."

And as if that's not enough for the class in one day:

"...In other words, people are putting some near religious import on the process of government rather than the results."

Ugh.

As with our government -- on Blogcritics, we get the 'intellectuals' we deserve.

It WAS a good article, Al. I have to think about whether I agree about the voting thing, altho certainly I don't think cretins & idiots who know nothing of what they're doing should vote, but then, I also support mandatory civics classes in jr. high & high school, and after that mandatory voting a la Australia. Anyway, I just wish you'd have made it longer & more details. How 'bout THAT? It wasn't nearly long enough!

Miss Nancy, I am rarely told that I have spoken too little. Thank you.

Shark, on the other hand, doesn't seem to appreciate my thinking here. Then again, he doesn't much seem to appreciate actual thinking in general. Note that there's absolutely no criticism of the content of my ideas, but merely a personal insult. Mere hateful sarcasm does not constitute a rebuttal.

But Nancy, what do you think you'd be accomplishing by mandatory voting? That's just insisting on getting people who neither know nor care to make random choices.

Even the mandatory civics training strikes me increasingly as undesirable. I appreciate the intention of it, but if someone wants to learn the stuff they will read and pay attention. Civics training in government schools is pretty much going to inevitably largely amount to government propaganda.

People manage to get their attention grabbed when it is mandated they take driver's ed training, don't they? By hook or by crook they buckle down & study, when it's a matter of something they want badly enough. By the same token, if they want to graduate, they can manage also to pass a basic civics class. In my time, back in the Stone Age, it was also mandatory, and I don't remember ANYBODY ever failing it more than once, even the class clown/moron/jock (we were a small school, so some of us combined roles). Those that wouldn't bother are the same ones that would drop out anyway, so there's nothing lost by mandating it.

As for mandatory voting, if those disinclined to vote had the choice of either getting their butts in gear & going to the polls, or paying a hefty fine for the privilege of letting it slide, I would bet there'd be an increase in interest just because the average stupid but values-conscious American figures that if s/he's gotta vote, s/he may as well know something about what they're buying, so to speak.

Altho you may be on a better track in suggesting that by limiting it to those who are informed (i.e. you have to take a civics test & PASS before being allowed to register), the exclusiveness of the franchise may make it more alluring to the idiots who are then excluded: Americans just can't STAND to be left out because they can't measure up. Besides which the MSM would go berserk then, nattering on & on about how only the elites get to vote, etc. etc.

I don't know; it could call either way.

In any event, you didn't start this article off ranting, or with extremist views, or even being partisan, and it came off very well indeed, and as I say, I wish you'd written more of it. Please keep on in the same vein; when you aren't setting an example for JOM, you write some good stuff, y'know. Even if I don't often agree. So therefore it MUST be good, if even I liked it. Kudos, Al.

Seems like a pretty solid statement of a basic truth here, Al. We get the government we deserve. If we vote like idiots we get idiotic government. Clearly shark votes a lot.

Dave

This article reminds me of something P.J. O'Rourke wrote. (And from me, that's a pretty big compliment). Every government program is mandatory, and paid for by everyone, including your grandmother. If your grandmother doesn't pay her taxes, eventually the police will come for her. If she puts up a fight, she could easily get killed. Thus we have O'Rourke's test for a government program: would you shoot your grandmother to keep this program intact? If not, then the program should be abolished.

Thanks God most of the truly idiotic didn't vote for the truly idiotic Libertarian from Indiana.
Had that happened, then a call to arms would have been appropriate.

Oh no- some person named Martin Lav doesn't like me. I suppose I could go kill myself.

One thing though Martin- am I "idiotic" or simply going over your head?

Baronius, thank you SO much for saying that I reminded you of PJ O'Rourke. Obviously I'll consider that high praise.

Al, until you embrace the truth of Socialism Martin will never accept you.

Dave

Al Barger: Shark, on the other hand, doesn't seem to appreciate my thinking here. Then again, he doesn't much seem to appreciate actual thinking in general. Note that there's absolutely no criticism of the content of my ideas, but merely a personal insult.

Maybe he feels your writing debunks itself.

Let's look at those two quotes: "...Perhaps you in fact think it appropriate to take some people's money at gunpoint to give to poor folks (like YOU, no doubt). But recognize that this is what you are doing, and don't kid yourself that it's something truly different than if you just walked into the 7-11 with a gun- other than that you're getting someone else to do your dirty work."

And: "...In other words, people are putting some near religious import on the process of government rather than the results."

Now, one way of interpreting your bit about taking "some people's money at gunpoint" is as a criticism of the process of government. I mean, collecting taxes is how the government funds public works, national defense, and so on. If the results work, i.e. we can drive around on well-paved roads and we don't get invaded by other countries, why so concerned about how the government does it?

So there's a reasonable argument that your two statements are contradictory.

Oh, and Hitler never won an election he didn't fix. You might want to read up a bit more on that guy, 'cause this isn't the first time you've misrepresented the history on him.

JR, I wasn't saying that there wasn't any other way to look at things than mine, or any possible reasonable criticism of what I said- just that Shark wasn't making it.

You, on the other hand, have actually said something other than just that I'm a big dummie. There's something there to actually answer.

I'm not entirely expert on Hitler's election, so you might possibly have me there. However, the Palestinians certainly did freely elect this Hamas government though, which makes the same point. The people in their less than infinite wisdom can very well dysfunctionally pick fools that will cause a great deal of damage.

But are you thinking through just what you're saying here? "If the results work, i.e. we can drive around on well-paved roads and we don't get invaded by other countries, why so concerned about how the government does it?" That would go right along with the justification for Mussolini, on grounds that he made the trains run on time.

Going back to PJ's point that Baronius was invoking, government collects money at gunpoint. Perhaps some of that is simply a necessary evil. We really HAVE to have cops and roads. Those are necessary things for all of us to use, so maybe it's not so bad to demand that Granny pony up her part.

But is it even vaguely justifiable to demand money from Granny at gunpoint to pay for government funding of the arts, for example?

But you're definitely wrong in calling the collection of taxes "process." The process is that we elect a Congress and they have committees and such. The result is charging and collecting taxes, and fining or jailing those who do not co-operate. You might call that particular result justifiable means to an end, but it's not merely process.

Al Barger: "If the results work, i.e. we can drive around on well-paved roads and we don't get invaded by other countries, why so concerned about how the government does it?" That would go right along with the justification for Mussolini, on grounds that he made the trains run on time.

Indeed it would. I'm making the argument, not saying I agree with it.

But you're definitely wrong in calling the collection of taxes "process." The process is that we elect a Congress and they have committees and such. The result is charging and collecting taxes, and fining or jailing those who do not co-operate. You might call that particular result justifiable means to an end, but it's not merely process.

It's all process. Democracy is a process that seems to inevitably result in taxes. Taxes are a process which results in the the government's ability to provide public works. Public works are a process which can result in a higher standard of living.

Each process (or piece of the Process) can also result in excessive power in the hands of the government. The accumulation of power is an emergent property of government; unless you obsess over every process a government engages in, you're going to find that government increasingly co-opting said processes from the ends you intended to this unpleasant "side-effect". I use quotes because accumulating power is not just a side-effect of government doing things, it's how government does anything - if you could completely weed power accumulation out of a process, the process simply wouldn't work. If you charged government with limiting it's own power, you would have to grant it power just to do that. There's some kind of paradox here.

Anyway, the take-home message: no matter how much you try to manage process, you probably can't guarantee the exact results you are seeking (there's no guarantee you understand the results you're seeking enough to judge whether they are worthwhile anyway). But if you don't manage process, you can guarantee that the government will become obscenely powerful.

Nalle: "If we vote like idiots we get idiotic government. Clearly shark votes a lot."

Yah, Dave, 8 years of Bush and GOP dominance. Good call.

=====

re: deconstructing Barger's "thinking"

Al, I don't wanna parse yer little essay. Suffice it to say that you take a lot of words to say very little -- and went you do actually make a point, it's either stating the fucking obvious -- or an implicit critique from a Libertarian point of view, ie. "taking money at gunpoint" -- which was really just a fear-mongering bit of hyperbole aimed at Al's fellow armed-to-the-teeth paranoid Survivalist hillbillys.

btw, JR -- in a few words -- made YOUR MAIN POINT more articulately and succinctly than you did by writing:

"...no matter how much you try to manage process, you probably can't guarantee the exact results you are seeking"

Anyway, Al, I would imagine that in Indiana -- you're considered quite the intellectual -- but taking 900 words and a Roget's thesaurus to state the blatant fucking obvious in really not that creative and/or original. Sorry.

Al, I'll give you an example of FAUX-INTELLECTUAL BULLSHIT:

BARGER: "Allow me to extrapolate just a bit. <---[heh heh, this is fucking hilarious!] If you form a lynch mob to kill someone, then it's no less a murder if a majority joins in. If you extract protection money from people under threat of imprisonment, it's no less an act of violent intimidation because you had a vote. If I have no right to take someone's stuff, and you have no right to do so, how would the two of us together magically be right in doing it?"

Wow. I'll bet NO ONE HAS EVER THOUGHT OF ANY OF THAT BEFORE NOW.

Seriously, Al, thanks for the enlightenment!

~NEXT!

JR- By the end of comment 17, we seem to be singing out of the same hymnal. I particularly appreciate "If you charged government with limiting it's own power, you would have to grant it power just to do that. There's some kind of paradox here." I'll just note that this is the reason for the Bill of Rights, and particularly the Second Amendment.

Shark- you're still not contributing much to the conversation here other than that I'm stupid and paranoid- and everybody knew that already. You veer between saying that I'm just crazy wrong and that I'm merely stating the obvious. You should make up your mind.

Specifically "taking money at gunpoint" is not hyperbole or paranoia- it's the blunt, basic existential truth of taxation: Pay up- or else. If you don't pony up, it will in fact eventually literally be guys with guns coming for you. That's the facts, Jack.

Critiques of my writing are always in order, but you're just not saying anything right or significant. My simple point here took approximately 439 words, not 900. Also, I'm not claiming great originality in the basic point. I might hope to have some style or skill in the expression of the idea, but I'm trying to express truth- not just impress people with how personally clever I am.

The underlying point that government does everything by force of arms and collects money at gunpoint is indeed very obvious, but people mostly don't seem to act like they are aware of it. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you asked "Is this program you're proposing worth collecting money from Granny at gunpoint to pay for it?" then I doubt people would support half they do.

You may think of yourself as stupid and paranoid, Al, but I think you're cute as a button.

Thank you Brother Silas. I can feel the love. Love is good.

Al Barger: Specifically "taking money at gunpoint" is not hyperbole or paranoia- it's the blunt, basic existential truth of taxation: Pay up- or else. If you don't pony up, it will in fact eventually literally be guys with guns coming for you.

Actually the government takes the money out of your paycheck before you even see it. And if they think they haven't taken enough, they can take control over your bank account and help themselves. They almost never need guns; if they do, it's probably because you've upped the ante yourself in your efforts to resist them.

Realistically, the availability, obligations and benefits of money are so inextricably tied to the powers and functions of government, you have to wonder whether it can ever really be "yours".

BARGER TO SHARK: "...you're still not contributing much to the conversation here other than that I'm stupid and paranoid- and everybody knew that already. You veer between saying that I'm just crazy wrong and that I'm merely stating the obvious. You should make up your mind."

Actually, Al, I never said you were crazy wrong;

I said you wrote an essay of fake semi-intellectual, overtly obvious bullshit and/or implicit Libertarian bullshit meant to impress people with no critical thinking abilities.

BTW: To me, your initial "point" seemed to be the one about "don't vote if yer stupid" -- but that was just yer typical Provocative Red Herring [which attracted a motard crowd of admirers] while you managed to toss in/barely hide your "the government takes money at gunpoint" crap in the process.

I can parse high school level essays and debates, Al. I just don't like to that much.

===========





BARGER: "Is this program you're proposing worth collecting money from Granny at gunpoint to pay for it?" then I doubt people would support half they do.

-- unless IT'S MEDICARE and SOCIAL SECURITY FOR THEIR GRANNY -- who never had a "job", whose husband died at 65 -- right after he lost his pension --

oh, did I mention that Granny also has Alzheimer's, lives in a cardboard box, and eats cat-food?

MOST PEOPLE WOULD PROBABLY PICK UP A GUN TO USE ON ANYONE WHO TRIED TO CUT SUCH PROGRAMS, Al.

****

Your turn for more emotional, Libertarian hyperbole.

I will have to side with Al on this one for once.

This is one of the few articles he's written that's less than what a few thousand words.....

At least this babble didn't drone on with no end in sight (site) for once and the pain was over soon.

I also agree with you Al, I must be idiotic, because this article is way over my head as I didn't understand what the hell it was about.

"embrace the truth of Socialism" - Dave Nalle