Friday, October 17, 2008

Hollywood wants your vote

Every election cycle we're being bombarded with requests and encouragements to "do our civil duty", "let our voice be heard" or "make a change". We're talking, of course, about voting. And just as it happens to be, many of our favorite Hollywood stars have taken their time this year to inform us about the importance of playing the state game. Let's hear what they have to say:

"This is one of the biggest financial disasters in American history!" - "Why would you vote?"

Of course, they intend to be obviously ironic, but from a libertarian perspective, this is deadly serious. Voting out of the financial crisis won't work, no matter how flowery the promises. Politics in collusion with big banking and big business started the crisis, and politics in collusion with big banking and big business is ready to prolong it and bail out the unfortunate casualties of this financial war game. For more information on the details, see this by Roderick T. Long for a short overview and this by the Mises Institute for a really comprehensive understanding of what happened.

So, indeed - why would you vote if you really care about the economy?

"Because who cares about your children's eduation?" ... "Reading? Literacy? Really?"

Indeed, who among the ballot crooks cares about your children's education? What is government doing about literacy, except diverting funds inefficiently?

I'd really like to know where the idea originated that government should care for schooling. Government is just as apt to care for schooling than it is apt to handle indoor plumbing. Why would you entrust a bunch of tenured lawyers, carnival orators and general do-gooders with raising your children? What a strange idea in the light of facts.

"Who cares about global warming and the fact that our global ice caps are melting?"

Quite a lot of people. But as I pointed out in my last post, government is not able to "restore climate justice" because it has never existed. Every state of climate favors some at the expense of others. Furthermore, we cannot even exist without fueling this "injustice" since the need for breathing and other basic human activities contribute greenhouse gases to the climate equation.

What you can do is try to convince people why one state of climate might be more beneficial to them than another. But always keep in mind: you can be wrong. That's why you shouldn't employ government force to promote your world views.

"Who gives a shit about terrorism?"

I'd recommend a read on blowback and American military history to find out whether another "commander in chief" will "get us back on track", or rather not.

"The right to choose, the right to life, any right ..."

I wonder whether the excited woman stating this actually believes that I need to genuflect before government for my right to life, or my right to choose, or, indeed, any right.

If so, I'd recommend reading the Declaration of Independence to find out on what premises the American government ought to rest, and then a little pondering about the contradiction in forcefully expropriating citizens via taxation to "protect their rights and property".

"Who cares about the War on Drugs?"

Indeed, that should make you think whether you really want to vote: for 20 years now, heavily armed police troops have been kicking in doors of peaceful pot users to put them in filthy jails where they are likely to get raped by real criminals and often start a criminal career themselves, all on behalf of "morally conscious politicians", elected by the concerned people of this fine nation.

The War on Drugs - voting's finest brew.

"Who cares about Darfur?"

How often has governmental military interventionism in the absence of a previous aggression helped, and how often has it created bigger problems in the aftermath? Who says we need politicians to solve this?

"Nobody's listenin' to you, so you know what - fuck it."

That's actually a good statement.

"Don't vote unless you care about healthcare."

Governments have always played a key role in making treatment unaccessible for the needy so they could buy them with their control scheme later on.

If you care about healthcare, better avoid the ballot box.

"If you care about gun control ..."

Now this was to please your average liberal watcher, wasn't it?

"If you care about forcefully preventing people from buying means of self-defense, then VOTE !"

"Women's rights, civil rights ..."

... are individual rights or no rights at all, and thus violated by the very premise of government: taxation.

"Rising gas prices ..."

... are mostly rising due to an inflationary monetary policy and taxation. Even if this were not so, government could only cause production bottlenecks to occur because government doesn't produce oil.

I won't go on here, you get the picture. Famous people who have accommodated to the existing status quo, the all-powerful and all-regulating state, want you to join their happy ban-and-tax festivity so it can go on for quite another while. I don't assume bad intentions by any of them, but by luring people to the state apparatus, they're willingly supporting a system that gets more intolerable every day. Thus, take their ironic advice serious and "just don't vote".

No comments: