~ is it possible to genuinely justify the means, via the ends - can we really, with clear conscience, condone that we must use a mob, to fix, the mob?
~ is not voting, the genuine equivalent of selecting which mob family we choose to make our protection payments (taxes) to, and, seriously, in the background, doesn't it feel like the families are one, and laughing hysterically, at the stage play?
~ can we seriously just compromise our spirituality a little, and vote, hoping for reform, from the beast? isn't this like expecting the beast to amputate its own leg?
~ is voting mature, intellectually sound, or responsible? it sure doesn't feel sovereign, to me ~
~ is voting loving, or fundamentally the equivalent to watching a gang rape?
__________________________________________________ _____________
~ what are we really condoning, by voting? ~
Making Game Rape Fair
"It is not possible for voting in a government election to result in a fair result. Predatory force is what you are dealing with, or as H. L. Mencken put it so well, "Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods."
There may be no simple way to get out from under the vast mechanism of the predatory state at this point, but we certainly don't need to pretend that it is just and fair. This is no different that the syndrome of spousal abuse.
Stop. Walk away. Don't keep feeding the ******* and doing his laundry!
If you vote, you deserve to get screwed, just on general principle. If you vote, you are responsible for giving credibility to pure evil. Voting is the same as saying, "Yes dear, I know I caused you to hit me. I promise to be better!" Pretending that your husband is not molesting your daughter is only destroying your daughter's life--voting and supporting the idea of government is killing millions of people worldwide and enslaving most of the rest. The total killed in Iraq so far is surely in great excess of one million, and that doesn't begin to describe the devastating destruction of their entire culture (not to mention what has been done to our own). Are you still pretending this is a good man you're married to? This is beyond disgusting.
You're better than this. Really, you are. Trust in yourself. Trust in others. Most people are really wonderful when you treat them with a modicum of respect. It is not other people we need to fear, it is gangs. Don't participate in gangs. You have nothing to gain and all of your humanity to lose."
__________________________________________________ _____________
~ so, is any government, really, legitimate, beyond the use of coercive force to bind? ~
Everyday Anarchy
"The justification for a government – particularly a democratic government – is really founded upon the idea of a “social contract.” Because we happen to be born in a particular geographical location, we “owe” the government our allegiance, time, energy and money for the rest of our lives, or as long as we stay. This “contract” is open to renegotiation, insofar as we can decide to alter the government by getting involved in the political process – or, we can leave the country, just as we can leave a marriage or place of employment. This argument – which goes back to Socrates – is based upon an implied contract that remains in force as long as we ourselves remain within the geographical area ruled over by the government.
However, this idea of the “social contract” fails such an elemental test that it is only testament to the power of propaganda that it has lasted as a credible narrative for over 2,000 years.
Children cannot enter into contracts – and adults cannot have contracts imposed upon them against their will.
Thus children cannot be subjected to – or be responsible for – any form of implicit social contract.
Adults, on the other hand, must be able to choose which contracts they enter into – if they cannot, there is no differentiation between imposing a contract on a child, and imposing a contract on an adult. I cannot say that implicit contracts are invalid for children, but then they magically become automatically valid when the child turns 18, and bind the adult thereby.
It is important also to remember that there is fundamentally no such thing as “the state.” When you write a check to pay your taxes, it is made out to an abstract quasi-corporate entity, but it is cashed and spent by real life human beings. Thus the reality of the social contract is that it “rotates” between and among newly elected political leaders, as well as permanent civil servants, appointed judges, and the odd consultant or two. This coalescing kaleidoscope of people who cash your check and spend your money is really who you have your social contract with. (This can occur in the free market as well, of course – when you take out a loan to buy a house, your contract is with the bank, not your loan officer, and does not follow him when he changes jobs.)
However, to say that the same man can be bound by a unilaterally-imposed contract represented by an ever-shifting coalition of individuals, in a system that was set up hundreds of years before he was born, without his prior choice – since he did not choose where he was born – or explicit current approval, is a perfectly ludicrous statement.