Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Sartre, socialism, communism, other isms

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    ... wrote: I don t even think the masses deserve the right to vote.If you watch WWE, Big Brother, Survivor, and American Idol... do I want
    Message 1 of 40 , Aug 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Exist List Moderator
      <existlist1@t...> wrote:

      "I don't even think the masses deserve the right to vote.If you watch
      WWE, Big Brother, Survivor, and American Idol... do I want you
      deciding my future? I don't think so."


      The libertarian stance is about the disposition of the state toward
      the individual and vice/versa. I have detected neither a cape nor a
      hunchback in your pictures (Bourne), nor is there any real sense of
      libertarian capitalist (Rand) in your proposal to disenfranchise the
      media dazed masses.The libertarian hangs the stability of the state on
      a free and open capitalism that in a democracy allows the ignorant
      masses to pursue simple individual objectivist goals through the power
      of the vote albeit a vote to keep the state out of individual
      affairs.It is to be sure a combination of the pseudo-libertarian
      stance in populist politics,and a dimly educated media manipulated
      constituency rife with religious superstition,that has produced this
      current situation of ionized statehood from our democracy. The point
      is one may not speak of disenfranchisement and lay claim a libertarian
      stance as the vote is the only tool other than anarchy to keep a
      democratic state out of individual affairs and truly allowing
      individually sanctioned free market capitalism.I think you
      misunderstand the purpose of the vote to the libertarian. The vote is
      to maintain the least offensive and intrusive state - not to construct
      the future of individual humans or even humanity in general but rather
      the future of the state.Disenfranchisement of the ignorant masses is
      either an anarchists or an elitists view, absolutely not libertarian
      in a democratic society.

      Who calls the shots in a superstitious media dazed culture? One could
      argue it is politicians and compromised artists trying to make a
      living. Unfortunately in a philosophical sense in the absence of a
      hard scientific view those shots a simply pragmatic and driven by a
      sacrosanct capitalism headed for the destruction of the species just
      for an individual warmer place to sleep and a less invasive state.

      Trinidad Cruz
    • Exist List Moderator
      ... I do not misunderstand at all. What I do understand is that the dazed and confused tend not to vote, which is their choice. I thank them for not voting.
      Message 40 of 40 , Aug 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On Aug 01, 2005, at 5:57, Trinidad Cruz wrote:

        > current situation of ionized statehood from our democracy. The point
        > is one may not speak of disenfranchisement and lay claim a libertarian
        > stance as the vote is the only tool other than anarchy to keep a
        > democratic state out of individual affairs and truly allowing
        > individually sanctioned free market capitalism.I think you
        > misunderstand the purpose of the vote to the libertarian.

        I do not misunderstand at all. What I do understand is that the dazed
        and confused tend not to vote, which is their choice. I thank them for
        not voting.

        They voluntarily surrender their privileges and rights, as no one
        forces them to ignore absentee voting or taking a few hours to go to
        the polls. In effect, those of us most concerned with issues are the
        most likely to vote.

        What troubles me is that so many ignorance votes are manipulates with
        single-issue advertisements. Still, that is their right to be stupid.

        More importantly, allowing everyone to vote, but not mandating the
        vote, means politicians have to care more about those of us paying
        attention. I'm all for that. Just as a company has to pay attention to
        actual customers or the most likely new customers.

        But yes, I think the public has no clue what is in the Bill of Rights
        or the Constitution. They are ignorant by choice -- so they would
        choose to lose their rights, in my mind. If we do not check to see if
        people understand the basic laws, they then through a fit when an
        unconstitutional law is overturned.

        I have long favored "pre-screening" of ballot issues in California, so
        the public wouldn't be disappointed after an initiative is ruled
        invalid by the courts. Just block the unconstitutional laws from
        appearing in the first place.

        - C. S. Wyatt
        I am what I am at this moment, not what I was and certainly not all
        that I shall be.
        http://www.tameri.com - Tameri Guide for Writers
        http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist - The Existential Primer
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.