Murphy’s Bye-Laws

According to Arlen Specter, people who have been angrily disrupting town hall meetings on overhauling the health care system are “not necessarily representative of America.”  Because when people don’t agree with the omnipotent seers of Congress, they obviously can’t be real or genuine, right? This is a common delusion among the “representatives” of the government, I mean the people, I mean…what do I mean?

Who are these people representing? Running around the country to meet citizens they are representing the government. The government represents those who have paid for it. Nobody but the citizens are representing themselves and nobody is listening to them. The disconnect between the people in the halls of power and the people who are duped into the silly process of voting for them is on open display over healthcare. One group is living amongst the hard realities of life, physical laws, and consequence while the other lives quite insulted from these.

The elections season is finally over.  No court battles.  No Recounts.  No Controversy.  The corporate consumption mechanism has the airwaves back to plant their ideas in your brain.  The election is over and the people’s voices were heard…or were they?

When it is said that someone’s voice is heard, isn’t it usually referring to the airing of that person’s original thoughts and opinions?  If an actor is reading from a script they didn’t write, their voice wasn’t heard, even thought they were physically speaking.  So how does an election actually equate to voices being heard?  And whose voices?

The election process in this country starts out with petitions.  Some petitions require a multitude of signatures to be accepted and the candidate added to the ballot; some petitions require a small fraction of those signatures so long as the candidate has the proper party affiliation.  In the very first stages, then, it seems a small portion of people have a bullhorn while muffling the voices of the rest.  Thankfully for the whole process, “the people” have a memory span of about two shakes, and they forget all prior knowledge in order to put their voice into the chorus already written by the few.

As the nomination process progresses through to the actual general election, fewer and fewer “voices” are being heard.  The voice of special interest and power players compose the chorus and direct the now-actors with the bullhorn of the corporate media.  When the election finally arrives, the scripts are written, vetted, and approved.  The voter simply chooses the script they wish to read and their “voice” is added to the chorus.  By this time, they have already forgotten that this wasn’t actually their voice but continue to believe it anyway.

All the world is a stage, and we are merely players.  Bravo, and I’m ready for my close-up.

Elections are nothing more than lopsided compromises. There is usually something that people will find to try and take away from the experience that doesn’t make them feel like a powerless tool. It has started early this time, just like everything else in this round of the rat race. As the Demoligcratic Party’s primary race drags on at the public expense (what’s next, publicly-funded elections for Fraternal Order of the Moose officers?), the nugget of dignity that people are holding up to justify their making a choice between bad and worse is the fact that a black man and a white woman are in the running for the nomination for the presidency. “We’ve come so far,” they say. How far toward what?

In the beginning, women and blacks were among the most oppressed and exploited class of people in America. There was also the poor white immigrants and, below them, the poor brown and yellow immigrants. While women and blacks have gained traction in the exploitation machine, they have achieved this progress by treading on those yet below them. So does progress mean privilege is expanded and there are more hands on the reigns of the political machine? As long as the goal is expanded exploitation of producers by the political class, then praise be to progress! If the goal is to remove privilege and achieve liberty for all, then more boots on our necks is not progress.

The candidates give lip service to the “progress” and oppression their race or gender have endured, then promptly fight to become the gears that crush and oppress. The institution of oppression is the same; changing the face, color, or gender of the institution won’t change its nature. To vote for real change, vote with your economy and your non-vote. The time has come to stop compromising for further oppression and start smashing the institution of oppression. The time is long overdue to smash the state!

On account of presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Faith-in-America speech last week, questions about the nature and existence of belief are on everyone’s mind. Romney made the argument that any belief – as long as it is monotheistic and similar enough to Christianity to be misconstrued as such – is far better than no belief at all. Backed up by polls indicating negative support for non-believers, it seems Romney made a sound political move.

Out this week is a new poll adding further weight to the push for believers in powerful offices. The poll, conducted by People for Pixies Party (P4PP) in conjunction with Pink Elephant Publishing, found that 61% percent of respondents wouldn’t vote for someone who didn’t believe in Santa Claus. SANTA CLAUS! How could better than 25% vote for such a nutcase that would not believe in Santa? Further questioning revealed that the preference wasn’t simply for Santa, but votes could be conscientiously cast for believers in Saint Nick, Chris Cringle, Father Christmas, Sinterklaas, or Papa Noel. Opposition to non-belief drops off in the electorate with the Easter Bunny and further still for the Tooth Fairy (much to the disappointment of the P4PP).

Many of the respondents sited tradition and a generally jolly attitude that is presumed to be attributed to and synonymous with their Santaism. The tradition argument seems to be grasping at garland, though, says Geoffrey Stone, a professor of law at the University of Chicago. He argues that the majority of the men that founded our nation didn’t adhere to Santaism:

These words no doubt sound shockingly blunt and “politically incorrect” to modern ears, but they were in fact the views of many of our most revered Founders.

It can’t be said for sure if our current sitting president is a believer, but it seems likely. I have to wonder though if Santa, who is bearded and probably looks kind of foreign, wasn’t a victim of extraordinary rendition and all his reindeer waterboarded in order to find any cells of rogue elves. I guess we’ll have to wait until Christmas Eve to know for sure. There is a ‘War on Christmas’ on, don’t ya know?

In light of these recent polls, will non-believers in Santa be forever in the powerless minority?

America has an appointment upcoming. They are due down at the crossroads for a meeting with a fork-tongued devil. I understand the meeting pertains to an offer for immediate results (of whatever they desire) for a relatively small price – their individual souls.

The common legend that I refer to is more popularly associated with blues guitarist Robert Johnson, who is alleged to have sold his soul to the devil for the ability to play a mean guitar. If the price seems steep, consider Tommy Johnson’s response in O Brother, Where Art Thou?: “Well, I wasn’t usin’ it fo’ nuthin’.”

The general idea around the theme of selling one’s soul to the devil is akin to a short-sighted shortcut. People are trading something presumed to be much more valuable in the long term for immediate short term results – whether it’s the ability to play guitar, riches, or fixing Social Security. In the mythical and modern-day fables, the deal is always successful and they always get what they want before some hidden clause in the contract gets the better of them, revealing their folly. Strangely enough, the devil doing the dealing is always virtuous and honorable, if not deceitfully cunning, in that the contract is always enforced to the letter. In that regard, America would be better off dealing with the devil than voting in the coming year.

After the electorate is lathered up into a frothy panic by a parade of bugaboos, the candidates and their entourages follow behind (driving the bugaboo parade like cattle) offering quick-fixes for the small price of a vote (with all vestiges of personal autonomy attached). Oddly, many of the bugaboos are magnifications of the problems caused by previous “solutions.” Regardless of the actual or philosophic validity of a vote – irregardless for whom it was cast – implying consent, these bearers of the contracts perceive it as such (note President Bush’s “mandate” after his 2004 election victory), and perception is reality in this case. Unlike with the mythical dealing devil, the products are never received as intended and the elected take payment before anything is delivered, thus eliminating the need to actually deliver.

After being bilked once, it must be thought that the betrayed will learn their lesson and not try for the quick fix again, right? How about being bilked, collectively, for almost 230 years or more? Similar to entering into a deal with the devil, which is done cautiously because it is the devil, afterall, the electorate are skeptical and even jaded when it comes to politicians. Unlike a mythical deal with the devil, the electorate get second and third and so on… chances. Still, they sign their perceived autonomy away again and again for the hope of a quick fix.

It isn’t always true that a real and permanent solution must take a long time and lots of work. But if the path to a solution is known and a shortcut is offered, there’s a pretty good chance the shortcut is a short-circuit. Like the Voluntaryist creed I seem to pound into the ground here, the destination and how fast one can get there is not a moral (or effective) way to reach the goal. Strewn along the path of the shortcut are unintended consequences and the detours they impart, making the destination farther away or completely unreachable in some cases. Thinking that a vote or a law is a quick fix is like believing that the deal with the devil was a good idea.

Office coffee smells like coffee in the little pre-measured pouch, aromatic and enticing, even hopeful. It looks legitimately like coffee when it brews. It even taste a little like coffee in the first few seconds of its existence. But all hope is quickly dashed after having more than a taste, and all that remains is the weak bitterness of dashed hopes and the stale shame of being fooled again. It reminds me of election years.

The similarities between elections and office coffee are many. Both are packaged, filtered and watered down. Inside those packages aren’t the best products either. Neither the coffee nor the politicians being sold would be desired in a free market with many choices. When the thin perceptions are stripped away to reveal the hoax that was lurking behind the mask, disappointment follows. Yet so many of us can be fooled into thinking this next batch, in essentially the same portioned packet with the deceiving aroma of freshness, can offer hope for something tasty and satisfying.

In the 2004 presidential election, I was taken by the hype of Micheal Badnarik and the enthusiasm for this new Libertarian Party candidate. Having never paid much attention to the elections and candidates with any more interest than a spectator (I was always skeptical of the whole process), the hope and rhetoric was infectious. I thought he had a chance (only to make some waves, which is victory enough for a third party in national elections). It was different from years past, better than ever, if the talk was to be believed. Alas, it was more of the same and not even as good as in previous years. My lesson was complete and I ducked off of the political merry-go-round for good.

This year Ron Paul, a former Libertarian Party candidate for president, has the hopeful hype behind him. Using the energy third-party candidates usually expend on actually getting on the ballot, trying to get media attention, and be considered for debates and election events, Dr. Paul has been in several debates already, is automatically on the primary ballots due to his affiliation with the Republican Party, and has raised several times the amount of money that Micheal Badnarik was able to muster.  On the surface it seems that liberty has a chance to be elected again, just in time for a big election.

There is always hope, that is until the product is filtered and watered down to generate the most appeal to the largest number of people possible.  Don’t be surprised when the brewing is done, all the votes are cast, and the bitter taste of the lowest common denominator is stuck in your mouth.  Some people try this charade over and over before they get any kind of eye-opening effect.  They brew the same coffee in the same manner several times a day, morning after morning, and they vote the same way for the same people (essentially), election after election.  Some coffee drinkers come to like the office coffee, but it is their tastes that change over time and not the coffee.  Some voters become happier and happier with results of elections not because the votes are working, but because their desires and expectations adapt to the results and their desires change.  Then there are those who think outside of the usual grind and drink tea, or those who decide to not bother trying to vote for their freedom or whatever ends they desire and just make it happen themselves.  There will always be another cup of weak, stale coffee in the office pot.  Some will continue to drink while complaining every time, trying to add sugar or creamer to dress it up and hide the awful taste.  Many more continue to vote, while complaining the whole time, and waiting for someone else to make the changes they would like to see.

Collectivization is an ugly business. It can be used to separate and dehumanize a targeted enemy or to socialize the costs and consequences of individual actions. The language of collectivization walks amongst us unnoticed; words like “our,” “their,” “they,” “us,” and “we” are used indiscriminately. Well, I say enough of this “we” shit. It is not “We” The People, it is not “we” Americans, and it is not “our” troops or “our” jobs.

This language is meant to draw everybody into culpability for wrongs done by a few. It is also meant to quell dissent by making everybody part of the problem. Are you feeling any ambiguous guilt about the slaughter of poor brown people across the world? Why? Do you feel some connection to a government because you wasted some part of one of your days to run through the motions of voting? Well, the bad news is the government is not yours, is not because of you, and is certainly not for you.

A great many people vote (though not as many as you’d think) and consider themselves to be living under a democracy because of it. Excuse the aside, but: First, no one should live under anything or anyone; and second, what is so great about democracy anyway? That doesn’t make dictatorship or any other government system any better; the choice is not one or the other. The people who present such a false choice can either fuck off or shove it up their ass. It sucks having limited choices, doesn’t it? – end aside. There are two reasons voting persists even though the choices almost all crawl from the same cesspool. The first reason is to keep those that are being extorted from flat-out stringing them up. This is accomplished by slapping some hooker-red lipstick on this pig and promising the booboisie anything they want, including respecting them in the morning. The second reason to keep up the voting illusion is to roll everyone, participant or not, into culpability for the actions of the few in control. It is all to make as many as possible feel involved and part of this collective. Theoretically, a democracy would have the many owning the government and its actions, but in reality we own nothing. The only thing voters and citizens have control of is the curtain hiding the folks at the controls.

If there is still some trepidation over the ownership of the doomsday device we call government, Dr. Denny over at Scholars and Rogues can help to ease a worried mind; you don’t have to take my jilted word for it. To wit, “…The candidates for national office do not speak directly with the citizenry —they speak only with the tiny percentage with the biggest wallets. The rest of us get the targeted leavings paid for by those big wallets.” The entire article is full of gems that take shots at the façade of politics and the bogus legitimacy of elections, though, unfortunately, not attacking elections themselves.

The same tiny minority that has bought and paid for the power of government are the same ones who are killing brown people at a profit; they are the same people who occupy the seats in this absurd game of musical chairs; and they are the same people who should be solely responsible for any of the actions taken by the government. They are the responsible class. There I go bringing class into it again!

At first glance, it would appear that class is just another generalization meant to group people superficially. But describing a certain characteristic which happens, in varying degrees, to be in common amongst many is but an observation and not fabricated for manipulative purposes. Besides, I’ll stop talking about very large numbers of people when we are all able to live autonomously and can group ourselves in voluntary associations rather than being chained to the same sinking ship. The way class should be properly broken down is by the actions of those involved in the analysis. Appearances can be easily deceiving.

It is no surprise that there was confusion regarding the class break-down of society for so long. What Marx and others were looking at was the result of the class struggle rather than the way the battle lines were drawn. It is not because the capitalist owner class was wealthy and getting wealthier that they are the “upper” class. The fact that most have become wealthy by political means (and continue to get richer) is where the class divide falls. In a means over ends approach of Voluntaryists, proper class struggle will be framed by means (political or productive) and not ends (rich and poor or labor and owner). The fact that the political class had such advantages and thus were much more prominent among the wealthy probably contributes to Marx’s confusion.

Marx was a big fan of collectives. Perhaps his disposition toward them were to garner the power of numbers and solidarity. That power is real. Like the ying and yang there is also a bad power to groups. Groups are easier to control and manipulate thanks to the “moron momentum,” that force that blocks logical thought, the real slippery slope from reason to boobery. The key to staying away from the dark side is individuality. A group of individuals organized in a decentralized group and never losing their unique identity is an unstoppable, unmovable, and unmanipulatable force. Groups are important but individuality, even in a group, is vital.

I first came across the writing of Christopher Hitchens in the forward of Choice: The Best of Reason. I recall him coming across as not particularly libertarian, though enough to qualify as a celebrity in libertarian circles at the time perhaps. It would be hard for me to gauge since I was rather new to the libertarian philosophy. What really grabbed my attention about Mr. Hitchens was his atheism. Since atheism was my channel into philosophy before I cared to engage in any thought about politics, this aspect of his writing stuck out.

Upon further reading of Mr. Hitchens I found him to be moderately libertarian and definitely passionate and outspoken. Then came 9/11 and Iraq and, like so many strong advocates for limited (or no) government, he was scared out of his wits and jumped on the war wagon. This hawkish shift was further emphasized by the fanatic religious nature of the “War on Terror.” Hitchens beat the anti-Muslim drum into battle sounding like a pro-government tyrant in the process.

So when I saw on Slate.com that he had a new book out, not about the wars but about religion in general, I was hopeful that he’d put down his drumsticks for a while. Based on the excerpts on Slate, there is some justification for that hope as he peels away the cake and icing of Islam and Mormonism to reveal the rancid creamy middle. For some reason I read those first and so didn’t notice the general essay on the evil of religion until after taking in a few specifics. Overall I can concur and agree with him on the vast majority of his points. In fact, I would only disagree on a matter of exclusion; an oversight maybe. Take this excerpt, for example, Read the rest of this entry »