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

Re: [existlist] Re: Sartre, socialism, communism, other isms

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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
    • 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.