Category: Politics

Why I Won’t Get Involved in Politics Again

I received an e-mail over the weekend from an individual begging me to get involved in the 2016 presidential race. More specifically he wants me to get involved in the Republican Party. Normally I treat e-mails as confidential but I asked permission to post this one and my response publicly. My reason for this is that I’m lazy and want a link I can send anybody else that urges me to return to politics.

Here’s the e-mail:

Chris,

What happened man? You used to be a strong supporter of the second amendment. Now you say you’re out of politics. I urge you to come back. 2016 is going to be the most import election for gun rights. If Hillary gets in she’ll be appointing at least 2 supreme court justices. You know they won’t be progun. They’ll undo everything Heller won. We need everybody working the GOP. It doesn’t matter who they nominate. I don’t like Bush either but he’s better than Hillary. At least he’ll let us keep our guns.

I’m begging you to set your pride aside this one time. Not just for yourself but for all of us gun owners. If you don’t get involved none of us may have any guns after 2016.

My position as an anarchist means I won’t help anybody achieve power over other people. Some may say, “But Chris, there will be a ruler either way!” That’s true but it won’t be by my hand. However, in the spirit of being thorough, I will explain several other reasons why I won’t get involved in the 2016 presidential election.

As a gun owner and an advocate of the right of self-defense one may assume that by not getting involved in the 2016 presidential election, specifically within the Republican Party, I’m throwing gun owners under the bus for my own selfish ideology. Here’s the problem, if I were to help get a Republican president elected I would be throwing many of my other friends and principles under the bus.

Let’s start with my gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender friends. Between the Republican Party’s push to prevent same-sex couples from marrying to it’s push to dictate what bathrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms transgender individuals can use there’s no way I could involve myself with that party without directly harming those I care about. I’m loyal to my friends and will not actively assist anybody who desires to oppress them.

Republicans also have an obsession with imaginary lines. I don’t believe people who obsess over imaginary things are in a sound enough state of mind to hold a position of authority. But the Republican Party is absolutely obsessed with preventing people born on the wrong side of the border from entering this country, at least without first submitting to an insanely difficult immigration process. What right does the state have to claim ownership over a landmass as large as the United States and go so far as to murder people who cross its stupid imaginary line? None. Yet the Republican Party seems to get its rocks off on the idea of using the state’s capacity for violence to prevent people from crossing its stupid little line in the sand.

Speaking of imaginary lines, the Republican Party not only wants to prevent people from crossing their line but it also wants to murder people on the other side of the line. It’s true that the Democratic Party shares in the Republican Party’s zeal for this, which means there’s no way to get involved with either party and not provide active support for murdering people in the Middle East.

Since the main topic is the Second Amendment let’s talk about the Fourth Amendment for a moment. The Republican Party has a well-earned reputation for being tough on “crime”. I put crime in quotes there because what they really mean is anybody who violates the arbitrary decrees of the state and a real crime requires a victim. This tough on “crime” position has caused the Republican Party to be major advocates of both the police state and surveillance of the citizenry. When you see a story of a cop murdering somebody for no reason chances are somebody high up in the Republican Party will excuse the behavior. They will certainly advocate for giving these violent cops more cell phone interceptors, armored personnel carriers, and other assets they can’t be trusted with. So long as we have an out of control police force there can be no protect against unlawful search and seizure so involving myself in the Republican Party would require me to shit all over the Fourth Amendment.

These are just a few of the reasons I won’t involve myself in Republican politics. You can claim I’m throwing gun owners under the bus but will just turn around and point out all of the people I’d have to throw under the bus to work within that party. If I’m not loyal to my friends then I’m not worth anything. Due to my diverse set of friends I can’t prevent some of them from getting fucked by whoever wins the presidential election but I can say that I didn’t provide material support to their oppressor. Being able to say I didn’t help my friends’ oppressors is the only way I can have a clean conscience.

Discrimination So Good It Has to Be Mandated By Law

The state is the worst discriminator of them all. While there are a lot of horrible bigoted assholes in the world they lack one thing the state has: the power to force others to discriminate. I can choose not to associate with a single bigoted asshole but if I refuse to discriminate in the manner decreed by the state I can face fines and/or be locked in a cage for years. Politicians in Florida have introduced legislation that would mandate discrimination but that state certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on such shenanigans. The French Parliament has introduced legislation that would require modeling agencies to discriminate against women who are deemed too thin by the arbitrary definitions of the state:

The French Parliament is debating legislation that would effectively set minimum weights for women and girls to work as models, a step that supporters of the bill say is necessary to combat the persistence of anorexia.

If it becomes law — it is backed by President François Hollande’s Socialist government — modeling agencies and fashion houses that employ models whose body mass index measurements do not meet minimum standards would face criminal penalties.

There are two points about this legislation I want to bring up. First it defines a minimum weight utilizing a stupid method. Body mass index (BMI) is a statistical index that doesn’t take any unique characteristics of an individual into consideration. For example, one of my friends is a body builder. He is pretty much the peak of male fitness. According to his BMI, which is calculated using only a person’s mass and height, he’s overweight because muscle weighs more than fat and he has a lot of muscle.

Second it legally requires modeling agencies to discriminate against individuals potentially suffering body image issues. Anorexia as a symptom of having a severely negative body image. As far as I know no mental health professional recommends discrimination as an effective treatment for any mental disorder. In fact I’m fairly certain that’s the exact opposite of what a mental health professional would recommend. If this legislation was actually about fighting anorexia it would do something different such as require modeling agencies to have a mental health professional interview applicants and offer assistance to those who are suffering a mental disorder (I’m not saying that’s a good idea, just something that would actually demonstrate a desire to help people with anorexia).

Turning this around a bit imagine if the legislation mandated discriminating against people who are labeled overweight based on their BMI. Would you find it acceptable if, say, restaurants were prohibited from hiring people whose BMI listed them as overweight? No (if you answered yes then you’re an asshole). So it shouldn’t be considered acceptable just because somebody falls into another defined category on the BMI.

Stupid shit like this is the result of looking to the state to solve a problem. Instead of solving the problem you end up having a bunch of politicians, who generally lack any training in fields related to the problem, making arbitrary decisions based on their political ideologies. Since almost every politician’s political ideology is fascism it means you always get legislation that decrees people obey or face punishment.

It’s too Late to Change Anything After the Polling Place Opens

What’s the solution to all of this nation’s problem? More democracy! At least that’s what Obama seems to think:

President Obama on Wednesday suggested that if U.S. voters want to counter the outsized influence of money in politics, it might be a good idea to adopt mandatory voting.

“Other countries have mandatory voting,” Mr. Obama said at a town hall-style event in Cleveland, Ohio, citing places like Australia. “It would be transformative if everybody voted — that would counteract money more than anything.”

Mandatory voting might have a transformative effect if ballots had an option to disband offices. But that option is never available so mandatory voting laws would just coerce you into choosing a master. And since money in politics shapes the ballots it’s already too late to counteract it by the time the polls open (but Obama isn’t an idiot, he already knows that). By the time you’ve gone to the polls the big money players have helped appoint nominees for the two major parties and electoral regulations severely limit what third-party candidates, if any, appear on the ballot (and they don’t have the money for a major media campaign anyways nor are they usually allowed into debates).

It doesn’t matter how many people vote because voting is just confirming the choices already curated for you by your overlords. Another comment by Obama points out another transformative effect of mandatory voting laws:

The president continued, “The people who tend not to vote are young, they’re lower income, they’re skewed more heavily toward immigrant groups and minorities… There’s a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls.”

The keywords here are lower income. Expropriating wealth from people who have little is difficult for the state to justify without looking like a complete asshole. Income and sales taxes don’t raise much money from people with little income to tax or buy things with. Civil forfeiture laws are limited in scope so can’t be applied across the entire demographic. But Australia has shown other states the way by fining people who fail to show up at polling places. Suddenly the state can justify expropriating more wealth from lower income people. It also knows that lower income people have a harder time getting to polling places since they often lack transportation, can’t get time off of work, etc. so the probability of getting to fine them under mandatory voting laws is very high.

Mandatory voting laws are just another sham to make people believe they have a say in politics and a convenient trick to steal their money. As an added benefit, as can be noted by North Korea’s bragging about 100% voter turnout, mandatory voting laws also provide the state with propaganda it can use to justify its legitimacy. How could one, for example, argue that Kim Jong-un isn’t a legitimate ruler when 100% of the population voted for him?

The Only Prison for Libertarians is On the Right

As a libertarian one of the things that greatly amuses me is how elements on both the “left” and “right” sides of the political spectrum attempt to court us. One minute we’re an ineffective minority of extremists and the next we’re supposed to have a lot of common ground with whatever side is trying to appeal to us.

One of the more entertaining articles that tries to court libertarians to the “right” is this fine piece. You know the article is going to be a doozy when it starts with “The talented National Review writer Charles C.W. Cooke…” If there’s are two things that don’t go together it’s talent and the National Review. The laughs don’t stop there. The author, Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, claims:

The political calculus for libertarians is relatively straightforward: They are a small minority — albeit an influential one — and are not completely at home in either party, but can get a lot done if they ally with one in particular.

See, when we’re being courted we’re influential! Gobry’s assertion that libertarians could get a lot done if they allied with one of the two major parties is particularly funny. A lot of libertarians decided to do exactly this and jumped onto the Republican Party ship only to get kicked off and boarded by many unsavory scoundrels. During this libertarian expedition they were told how valuable their views were and how they were welcomed with open arms. Then the Republican National Convention started getting closer and it appeared the libertarians captured a sizable number of seats in several states. This forced the Republican Party to show its true nature and it threatened to banish Nevada’s delegates if too many were going to vote for Ron Paul, had Ron Paul supporters arrested in Louisiana, and prohibited Ron Paul supporters in Maine from participation by forcing them to sign an oath of loyalty to Romney. As a final blow the Republican Party moved to change the rules to dissuade libertarians within the party from participating and even went so far as to hold up one state’s delegates to prevent them from hindering the rule change. Needless to say participating in the Republican Party didn’t do jack shit for libertarianism.

The article then makes the best argument against libertarians participating in either major party’s political process:

And self-delusion it was: On every issue of importance, the left has betrayed libertarians (if “betrayed” is the right word, given that they never actually bothered to promise them anything). Obama’s treatment of the Constitution has been as roughshod as any of his predecessor’s.

Saying Obama’s treatment of the Constitution, which libertarians are supposedly upholders of according to the author, was as roughshod as Bush’s really drives the point home that both parties give no fucks about any supposed restrictions to their powers. If both Republicans and Democrats are doing the same thing then why should libertarians support either of them? Here’s where the real laughs come in:

The reason why liberaltarianism was always doomed to fail is because, at the end of the day, progressivism is an all-encompassing ideology. And while libertarians won’t agree with conservatives on everything, the two can certainly agree on a lot, because of a key bedrock principle of libertarianism that is shared with conservatives but not progressives: the importance of localism.

Holy hell, that’s rich! Conservatives recognize the importance of localism? Is that whey the Republican Party is always pushing for national laws prohibiting same-sex marriages? Is that why they’re looking to replace the Affordable Care Act with another national healthcare scheme? Is that why they’re constantly supporting drug prohibitions on a national level? Is that why they’re always arguing that we need to keep “illegals” out of this country instead of allowing each border state to decide what it wants to do for itself? Conservatives lost the right to claim they supported local politics long ago. But the best laugh was saved for last:

It is exactly this sort of ideological, moralistic progressive urge that makes progressivism and libertarianism like oil and water and makes the conservative movement the natural home of libertarians. At the end of the day, an alliance with the conservative movement is the only plausible way for libertarians to effect meaningful political change in America.

According to Gobry the natural home for libertarians is an abusive one because, as I pointed out above, libertarians were living in that home and were beaten harshly for it. I think the biggest joke of this article though is implying libertarians want to effect political change. While some libertarians certainly do I am not one of them. I am part of the branch of libertarianism that wants to eliminate the state entirely. My goal, and those who share my goal, don’t want to put the right people in power, we want to remove everybody from power. In my opinion libertarianism’s natural home is in counter-economics. That’s because counter-economics allow individuals to act on their own accord and not as part of some political collective. Individualism is at the core of libertarianism so any collectivist strategy is going to be a poor fit.

Story of the Week

The ultimate story of statism run amok occurred in China this week when the country’s government decided that the Dalai Lama can’t choose to not reincarnate without government approval:

Party functionaries were incensed by the exiled Dalai Lama’s recent speculation that he might end his spiritual lineage and not reincarnate. That would confound the Chinese government’s plans to engineer a succession that would produce a putative 15th Dalai Lama who accepts China’s presence and policies in Tibet. Their anger welled up on Wednesday, as it had a day earlier.

Zhu Weiqun, a Communist Party official who has long dealt with Tibetan issues, told reporters in Beijing on Wednesday that the Dalai Lama had, essentially, no say over whether he was reincarnated. That was ultimately for the Chinese government to decide, he said, according to a transcript of his comments on the website of People’s Daily, the party’s main newspaper.

“Decision-making power over the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama, and over the end or survival of this lineage, resides in the central government of China,” said Mr. Zhu, formerly a deputy head of the United Front Department of the Communist Party, which oversees dealings with religious and other nonparty groups. He now leads the ethnic and religious affairs committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, an advisory body that meets at the same time as the Legislature, or National People’s Congress.

There’s nothing I can add to this story. It’s so ridiculous it stands entirely on it own.

Pro-Life Politicians Makes Best Argument Favoring Abortions

I don’t wade into the abortion debate pool very often. Part of the reason is that I cannot become pregnant so I don’t feel as though the qualifications necessary for this debate. The other reason I avoid it is because it gets very heated very quickly. But there are times when one side makes such a good argument that I feel it is my moral duty to share it. Jonathan Stickland, a member of the Texas House of Representatives and a pro-life advocate, ironically made one of the best argument in favor of abortion:

One of the signs appeared Wednesday morning on the wall outside Rep. Jonathan Stickland’s office. It identifies the Bedford Republican as a “FORMER FETUS,” using a format similar to the plaques near most members’ doors.

Imagine if every politicians’ mother chose to get an abortion. The world would be a far better place!

The President’s Negotiations with Iran

The big controversy this week, besides Hillary Clinton running her own e-mail server, is the president’s negotiations with Iran. That’s right, the president is negotiating with terrorists!

Not only did Reagan deal with terrorists as president, as revealed in the Iran-Contra scandal, the preponderance of evidence now supports the charge that his campaign negotiated with Iranian hostage-takers while he was running for president in 1980, to delay the release of hostages before the election, which could have helped Carter win reelection — what was known as “The October Surprise.” Given that Reagan wasn’t president then, but was negotiating to thwart a president’s attempt to get hostages released, this is not simply questionable behavior, it is arguably an act of treason. Democrats’ reluctance to vigorously investigate Reagan’s misdeeds — the exact opposite of GOP attitudes toward Clinton and Obama — has left much of the true story still shrouded in mystery, but what we do know is damning enough in itself, and still cries out for a truly thorough investigation.

Oops. Wrong decade and wrong party. My bad. As I said yesterday, this entire debate has nothing to do with ideology or stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The Republicans are butthurt over the possibility of President Obama successfully negotiating an anti-nuclear deal with Iran because it would be a feather in the Democratic Party’s hat. Historically the Republican’s darling child, Ronald Reagan (queue a chorus of angels singing as that seems to happen whenever a Republican mentions Reagan’s name), negotiated not only with Iran but with Iranian hostage-takers. In the end he also armed them as part of the Contra deal. So you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t find the Republican’s sudden outrage at Obama’s negotiations convincing. The only thing they’re upset about is that one of their guys isn’t negotiating the deal (which is probably good since the last time one of their guys negotiated with Iran it ended in the United States supply weapons to the country).

American Politics is Nothing More Than Disagreeing With the Other Party

People often ask me why I don’t participate in politics even in a very limited level. Even when I point out that I don’t believe any meaningful chance can come from politics they always claim that it doesn’t take much time to at least try. But American politics have devolved to the point where the only ideology that exists is one of “I’m for whatever they’re against.” Nowhere is this more evident that the supposed threat of a nuclear Iran.

Israel’s prime minster was invited by Republicans to give a speech in front of Congress without seeking approval from the president. The only apparent reason the Republicans invited him was because the president didn’t. Benjamin Netanyahu gave a fear filled speech as part of his reelection campaign and it created the desired effect of getting Americans to talk about a nuclear Iran again. Obama has been in talks with Iran for a while now so the Republican Party, which claims it also wants to stop a nuclear Iran, is obviously glad to see progress being made, right? Wrong. The Republican Party just sent a letter to Iran basically threatening the country if the American presidency switches over to their party:

WASHINGTON, March 9 (Reuters) – Republican senators warned Iran on Monday that any nuclear deal made with U.S. President Barack Obama could last only as long as he remains in office, in an unusual intervention into U.S. foreign policy-making.

The letter, signed by 47 U.S. senators, says Congress plays a role in ratifying international agreements and points out that Obama will leave office in January 2017, while many in Congress will remain in Washington long after that.

“We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” the letter read.

“The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of an agreement at any time,” it read.

Herein lies the problem. Obama has been heading discussions with Iran. His status as a Democrat means that anything he does is automatically opposed by the Republicans (and vice versa). So they’re knee-jerk reaction to Obama’s discussions is to make vague threats at Iran instead of involving themselves in the process.

This is the biggest problem in American politics today. In this case Obama and the Republican Party want the same thing, an Iran without nuclear weapons. Considering this you would think the two parties would publicly work together even if they were stabbing each other in the back behind the scenes. But even the illusion of civility and logic is gone. The only thing that matters is being against anything the other party does. Watching American politics is like watching two religious zealous trying to prove who is more zealous than the other while also insinuating their opponent is Satan and can therefore only express ideas that are evil.

The American empire was an interesting experiment in genocidal “liberty” but it’s over now. Any fantasies of logic, decency, and good governance is entirely dead. All that remains are a bunch of pathetic politicians trying to steal whatever they can before the empire burns to the ground entirely.

Social Conservative Argues Why Social Conservatives Should Support Prison Abolition

Within social conservative circles there is a man championed as a hero of the movement. That man is Dr. Ben Carson. While Caron’s credentials as a medical professional are impressive his politics aren’t. However he did, albeit unintentional, make an argument for why social conservatives should climb down from their tough on crime pedestal and join us[*] proles in the prison abolition movement:

Dr. Ben Carson, the conservative activist who is considering a run for president in 2016, said Wednesday that he could prove that being gay is a choice since people “go into prison straight and when they come out, they’re gay.”

Appearing on CNN’s “New Day,” he said that people “absolutely” had a choice over their sexuality. Anchor Chris Cuomo then asked him why he thought that.

“Because a lot of people go into prison straight and when they come out, they’re gay,” Carson said. “So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question.”

If there’s one thing social conservatives hate more than people who violate the arbitrary decrees issued by the state it’s homosexuals. Therefore, if as Carson claims, homosexuality is a choice and prisons create homosexuals then, to remain ideologically consistent, social conservatives should support prison abolition as a means of fighting homosexuality.

This does put social conservatives in a tough spot. Either they must admit their tough on crime attitude is breeding homosexuals or they must admit that Carson isn’t the ideological intellectual they hold him up to be. Whichever path they choose to follow I will certainly derive a great deal of amusement from it.

* Just kidding, guys. We don’t want you.

South Carolina Republicans Demand Oath of Purity

Although I hate both the Democrats and Republicans equally I have to say that the Republicans certainly give me more material to work with. The Democrats tend to keep their stupidity aimed at policy whereas the Republicans spread their stupidity out to include their policies and the things many of their members say. Case in point, the Republicans like to make public statements about their social conservatism. In the Republican Party in one South Carolina county took such statements to the next level when demanded its members take a pledge of purity. This pledge included some real gems:

“You must oppose abortion, in any circumstances.

“You must uphold the right to have guns, all kinds of guns.

“You must endorse the idea of a balanced state and federal budget, whatever it takes, even if your primary responsibility is to be sure the county budget is balanced.

“You must be faithful to your spouse. Your spouse cannot be a person of the same gender, and you are not allowed to favor any government action that would allow for civil unions of people of the same sex.

“You must have:

“A compassionate and moral approach to Teen Pregnancy;

“A commitment to Peace Through Strength in Foreign Policy; and

“A high regard for Unites States Sovereignty.”

Now I question a the sincerity of many of these points. For example, I doubt they mean members must uphold the right to have all kinds of guns. In my experience Republicans, while claiming to support gun rights, tend to get very squeamish around things such as grenade launchers.

The statement about spouses really takes the cake though. Republicans, at least the ones I know, seem to have a problem with faithfulness. I know several local Republicans that ended up having affairs at the last Republican National Convention and a few even ended up getting divorced. From what I’ve been told this is a common problem within the party. The fact that members of the party must also pledge against supporting any government action that would allow for same-sex marriages is laughable. Republicans always claim to be the party of small government. Getting the government entirely out of the marriage game would greatly reduce the size and power of government but would necessarily allow for same-sex marriages. Catch-22, Republicans.

I also enjoy the quip about a peace through strength foreign policy. Do you know what that makes me think of? Kane:

peace-through-power

Granted, unlike Republicans, Kane was actually competent at fulfilling his goals. But it’s nice to see the Republican Party’s rhetoric reflects that of the supreme bad guy of the original Command and Conquer series.

Besides being incredibly pathetic this pledge also demonstrates why the Republican Party is having such a tough time getting new suckers members under the age of 500 billion years old. My generation cares far less about social issues than the one before it and it’s likely the generation after mind is going to care even less. So as long as the Republican Party continues pushing social issues it will find itself becoming more and more irrelevant in this country’s politics.