The Back Alley Archives

Government is accountable to the voters, AA.

Slider...I am not a tea bagger...however, I am a Tea Party Patriot. And to be honest, I can't understand how any diehard Democrat could be happy about what the far left has done to your party. I read a blog on a daily basis written by gay guys from Chicago who were Hillary supporters and have now made it their mission to take down the current Democratic party which is now just a shell of what it used to be.

I wish we were back in the days when both parties could agree on the basics...smaller gov't, run by THE PEOPLE and individual liberty. Then we could just argue over the social issues at a local level. THAT would be MY utopia.

Slider...I am not a tea bagger...however, I am a Tea Party Patriot. And to be honest, I can't understand how any diehard Democrat could be happy about what the far left has done to your party. I read a blog on a daily basis written by gay guys from Chicago who were Hillary supporters and have now made it their mission to take down the current Democratic party which is now just a shell of what it used to be.

I wish we were back in the days when both parties could agree on the basics...smaller gov't, run by THE PEOPLE and individual liberty. Then we could just argue over the social issues at a local level. THAT would be MY utopia.

Quick question for you, and I am asking in all sincerity as I truely do not know - what does being a Tea Party Patriot mean, and how is it different than being a conservative? Not a slam, just looking for a clarification.

Slider...I am not a tea bagger...however, I am a Tea Party Patriot. And to be honest, I can't understand how any diehard Democrat could be happy about what the far left has done to your party. I read a blog on a daily basis written by gay guys from Chicago who were Hillary supporters and have now made it their mission to take down the current Democratic party which is now just a shell of what it used to be.

I wish we were back in the days when both parties could agree on the basics...smaller gov't, run by THE PEOPLE and individual liberty. Then we could just argue over the social issues at a local level. THAT would be MY utopia.

Quick question for you, and I am asking in all sincerity as I truely do not know - what does being a Tea Party Patriot mean, and how is it different than being a conservative? Not a slam, just looking for a clarification.

i think being a tea party guy is more than being a conservative in that tea party guys are more of a grass roots movement...not centralized...not nearly as organized in all facets...very much a simple, no-frills movement of the people which is not nearly as organized as the conservative republicans who know their way around capitol hill and all the 'ways of DC'

the tea party movement in my eyes are a movement, an organized effort...borne of the will of the people...i dunno...that's how i feel.

Really? Since when has there been a commentary about the Koch Brothers?

Here's one of many discussions of the Koch Brothers that is out there. And one I can conveneintly find this late at night.

http://www.readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/72-72/3749-the-tea-party-movement-deluded-and-inspired-by-billionaires

So, who will you vote for? The pusher robot or the shover robot? Those are your choices. Or you can choose to regain a bit of your dignity by telling them both to FUCK OFF.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E0ot9iJm_k#

I have long been of the view that parents have a moral obligation to keep their children from living under tyranny. As such, how do I go about the task of helping to make their world one in which they may enjoy the conditions of peace and liberty? My experience convinces me that participation in electoral politics is more than futile: it only adds energy to the system; it confirms the central premise of all political thinking, namely: important change can occur only within the halls of government. Besides the fact that the electoral process is unavoidably rigged in favor of the status quo, it also assures that, no matter who you vote for, the government always gets elected. Voting is designed to give people the false sense that they are in control of the machinery and the policies of the state. Emma Goldman got it right when she said that "if voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal."

My opposition to voting arises from the same sense as my opposition to other forms of violence. Implicit in efforts to persuade the state to act according to your preferences – whether through voting, lobbying, or threats of force – is the idea that, should you prevail, others will be compelled to abide by what you have chosen for them. Voting is anything but the peaceful alternative to violence: it is premised on the coercive machinery of the state being employed on your behalf should you prevail in amassing a greater number of people on your side than do others.

More direct forms of violence – as some suggest to be the ultimate solution to statism – is likewise inconsistent with a condition of liberty. Violence is an expression of reactive anger, born of unrequited frustration. Violence is the very essence of the state: can one expect mankind to free itself of political destructiveness by adopting its very essence?

We will not become free when the state goes away. Rather, the state will go away once we are free. "Freedom" is a very personal quality, wherein the individual enjoys a centered, integrated life, free of the conflicts and contradictions that make up our normally neurotic lives. We must learn to respect the inviolability of one another’s lives and other property interests if we are to enjoy this inner sense of being free. A need for liberty is what we have in common with one another, but we will only grasp this fact when each of us is free of the inner forces that keep us divided and in conflict.

“These voters, having given their votes in secret have put it out of your power to designate your principals individually. You have no legal knowledge as to who voted for you. And being unable to designate your principals individually, you have no right to say that you have any principals. And having no right to say that you have any principals, you are mere usurpers, making laws and enforcing them upon your own authority alone. A secret ballot makes a secret government; and a secret government is nothing else than a government by conspiracy. And a government by conspiracy is the only government we now have. You say that “every voter exercises a public trust.” Who appointed him to that trust? Nobody. He simply usurped the power; he never accepted the trust. And because he usurped the power, he dares exercise it only in secret. Not one of all the voters who helped to place you in power would have dared to do so if he had known that he was to be held personally responsible for the acts of those for whom he voted.”

AA, there is no argument against it that you would consider rational, because you're so firmly entrenched in your position that you see it as the only one logical.

I, personally, think yours is the one based off of illogical overreaction and emotion, and quite frankly, off the deep end. But, hey, what do I know? I'm just a statist.