Rob Robertson <r...@gte.com> wrote:(eyebrows)
>Billy Beck wrote:
>> To the point: it is *far past* the time when individualists
>> *withdraw* their sanction of this government, JQ. There is no more
>> currently prominent exponant of "democracy" than the regime currently
>> in power and attributing every move it makes to "the American people".
>> *That* is the premise which must be refuted, person by singular
>> person, in order to make clear that our lives (yours and mine, for two
>> examples) are not subject to the whims of a Field Marshal Rodham, and
>> that our imprimaturs are not available to the chisling antics of her
>> cardboard excuse for a husband.
>> This is a matter of authentic principle, and there is no more
>> To the group: Stop voting. Do it *now*: *this* year. Do it out
> What a bunch of loony rot.
Why, Rob Robertson. How... *passionate*.
>If *noone* voted for *anybody* in '96,And the *lie* would be a lot more clear, wouldn't it, then?
>Clinton still would have won with two votes (his vote, and another
>he stuffed in the ballot box when noone was looking) and he would
>have crowed about yet another mandate from the people.
What's your point? Would you care to imply that The Lying Bastard
wouldn't be able to get away with such a thing because the manifest
absurdity of it would be evident even to the least politically aware
Sterno bum in the street? If *so*... then what does *that* mean?
Could it possibly mean that the very *premise* of "representative
democracy" is *bullshit* from the ground up?... that the very
existence of *dissent* - even if it were "polled" on every policy
question arising in, say, the legislature (which, as we all know,
never happens) - is disposed of at "law" (i.e. - by force), a fact
which flatly contradicts the idea of "representation"?
Tell me what you're getting at.
>Not voting accomplishes absolutely nothing when there is noVoting accomplishes absolutely nothing when an "authority"
>examination of *the root source* of authority, what to do with it,
properly examined, rationally validated, and exercised in the voice of
conviction is nonetheless overwhelmed by nothing but numbers.
Example: if the question of whether or not to put Jews to death
Try to think about this very carefully, Rob, because there are
The proper answer to the question is that the matter of the Jews'
Now, you could, if you wanted to, submit your "authority" to such
But I'm begging you to stop it, man.
I would never sanction such a thing against *you*.
> 'Freedom' may be inherent in Man, but the expression of LibertySwell. I've noticed how well it's been going. (Aside from the
>in our lives has come at the cost of blood, and sweat, and the
>intellectual struggle of generations of lovers of Freedom braced
>against the relentless tide of tyranny and oppression.
obvious abominations reeking out of Pennsylvania Avenue, I would
perhaps suggest that the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 was better
suited to the script for a way-off-Broadway musical of brief duration
than a "brace against the relentless tide", etc. ...all of which is
of a piece with pointing out that if you think The Lying Bastard is a
bad deal, wait'll you see the *next* one. *Mark my words.*)
Look: we've had rank leeches right here in this group crowing
Somehow, you don't strike me as the gang type.
> Freedom is a direction, and the path extends back to the Magna Carta,It could not *be* "corrupted" if it didn't *exist*.
>the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and the American Revolution, and it
>continues to this this very day, right into this very newsgroup. The
>idea that representative democracy should be abondoned simply
>because it has been corrupted by traitors is foolish,...
>...and in my view it is *exactly* what I would wish for if I were bent onWhy?
> It's ineffective to sit in the audience and heckle the choir; theFor god's sake, Rob: they are *using* the "constitution". It's
>truly insidious plan is to *join* the choir, then sing off-key! This
>is what I see happening today. The usurpers have attached themselves
>to everything that we hold in esteem in the hopes that, in our disgust,
>we choose to dismantle the one true light of Freedom in this crazy world;
>the U.S. Constitution.
their *tool of choice*. Further, I should not have to point out the
defects of such a premise for liberty to a man who knows where and
what Framingham Green is.
> It's short-sighted and foolish to believe that we can magically jump("SLOWLY I turned... STEP by step!...INCH by inch..!!")
>to an anarchistic utopia...
*Hey*, you. You're talking to the single most adept proponant of
>...when the majority around us have no clue asThat's their problem. Let 'em figure it out.
>to what freedom even means, let alone from whence it derives or why
>it is precious.
>You would create a vacuum for tyranny to come pouringNonsense. To begin with, it's already *here*, pal.
> There is much ground-work to be laid before we can even *think*That's right.
>about living the anarchist's dream. That requires rationality,
>and unfortunately we are surrounded by soulless weasels who would
>gladly, mindlessly, eat your eyes out of your sockets before they
>realize that when they're done with dinner, they are each others
So why are you so intent on taking up their premise?
VRWC fronteer - sigdiv
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.