On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 21:53 -0800, Frank Reichert wrote: > Good evening again, Bill! > > Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert... > > > I'm an opponent of democracy, favoring republican style governments, and > > you know it You are deliberately raising a strawman here. Your reaction > > was one of "forcing" a style of government on someone. Whether that > > government style is democracy, fascist, republican, or representative > > democracy is irrelevant to the argument. > > You assume far too much, Bill. I wasn't even aware of what you > favoured in the foregoing. Frankly, I don't know what exactly > you favour, or do not favour insofar as government structures. > You seem to assume I *ought* to know such things, but honestly, I > have no idea. > > Maybe, I haven't been paying appropriate attention to your > intricacies here,
It isn't an "intricacy" when I have been saying for years, with you even agreeing with me, that democracy is a fast track to tyranny of the majority. I've argued against democracy on this very list for years; very clearly as well. > but you often come onto questions as such, in a > combative mode no matter what the context of such conversations > honesty raise, that leave little inclination on my part for > responding. So, usually I have bypassed most of them over the > course of several months as irrelevant, sorry. In posting on > matters of real substance, I usually look closely at positive > feedback, and I haven't found a damn post, originating from you, > that is very possitive, only looking in the attack mode, at > picking apart areas for the sake of argumentation and > disagreement. Seek and you shall find. it would be trivial to go into the archives and get the hundreds of such posts you've read before, thanked me for, and so on. But your new M.O. is to ignore that fact. > > For example, I previously wrote: > > > I am NOT, and never will be, represented by the current regime in > > > office in the United States of America unless I signed on to that > > > in the voting booth! PERIOD! > > To which, you feebly made the following reply: Who's combative and argumentative here, Frank? > > Tossing into the wind will get you nowhere. The fact is that those > > elected to represent us are our representatives in government. Period. > > Our beliefs are irrelevant as to whether our representatives in congress > > are our representatives. > > Again. As I wrote last night, and probably even the night before, > as I will write forever: BULLSHIT! Well most of what you have been writing the last year or so has indeed been BULLSHIT, I'll grant you that. > You can't, and I will not allow you either, to define what > contract I sign onto in the Voting Booth! Nor have I said or attempted to do so, a fact you leave out. > When I vote, I vote on > principle, on the best candidate that will represent me if they > are elected. Those who I voted against DO NOT represent me, and > they therefore don't have my signature, or stamp of approval to > represent me on anything whatsover. This ought to be plain and > simple, so stop playing the damn mind games and get over it. It is plain and simple, you had your say and lost. That does not change the fact that those elected are in fact your representatives whether you agree with them or approve of them, or not. It's in the dictionary. It's in the constitution. It's a fact of life. > > > And as far as you being represented in the election; you were. You > > voted. Not all representation is a "win". You are saying that because > > your guy went to the Olympics but didn't win, you weren't represented. > > Sounds more and more like sour grapes to me, as opposed to realism. > > Sorry Bill, as per above, it doesn't work that way with me. Which > is why probably I never even had a clue as to which government > you accepted or not, which, to me, doesn't really matter at all. If it does not matter, why did you make such a big deal about it? You brought it up. Indeed, my post was pointing out that the type of government was irrelevant to the question. > I haven't paid attention, because I have gotten to know you, and > your methodology in respponding to posts such as this, and I > usually have looked for more substantive dialogue to respond to > around here. Yet when myself and others post such things, you ignore them or clip them out of your response. For example, the entire section about whether or not it is valid for one government to enforce any style of government on another political entity. Instead, you chose to make personal attacks against me, and set yourself up as the saint. Naturally, it fails as it did before with regards to you and other people when you make personal (and even sexist at times) attacks on others. > Sorry too, you failed, and I won't give you much > credit for inspiring anything much, other than bringing up > negatives in which are plenty of those around anyway! Of course you won't. You have become biased. I didn't sign on to your capitulation and personal attacks on other people in Idaho. I never will, regardless of who they are aimed at. Therefore in your mind, I am "not worthy". Funny thing, it nicely proves the libertarian mindset that people such as yourself will ostracize themselves. > So, no sour grapes are involved here. Only I never signed my > 'john henry' upon a candidate to represenet me expecting to win, > if the other guy does! It isn't a contract. It is an election. It is a rule of the government. If you don't like the rules, change them. If you can't, work to get there. But that will require acknowledging the other representatives you refuse to acknowledge. > So, as I wrote last night, if the Shrub Regime<tm> remains in > power, it is not by my support, and no, I never voted for it, > twice! If John Kerry had won, I didn't vote for that either, > ibid above. I have no personal allegiance to any politicians in > which I didn't vote for to support them in any way, form or > fashion, period. Which is irrelevant to the fact that they won. Here is the deciding question Frank: When a bill comes up for a vote, who does the voting? A) You as the elected representative B) The elected *representative* who is not you If the answer is B, then yes, that person is your representative. > Bill, if you don't like my kind words above, Hah! Kind? I needed a good laugh. Unfortunately that one only produced a bemused smirk. > then it sounds very, > very much like the sour grapes you allude to are entirely of your > own origin and making! Good luck in sorting this out. I don't > care. Which is why basically I don't care which form of > government you seem to believe is fashionable to any arguments > you care to make at the present. Then, again, why did YOU bring it up? Again for your recollection: 1. A post was made regarding "Total World Democratization", though not made by me. 2. You responded with a strawman about how it was wrong to force democracy on others because democracy sucks (paraphrasing). 3. I responded pointing out that you missed the argument; that you were making a strawman regarding the placement of a democracy where a different government was. 4. You made a set of personal attacks against me regarding my alleged support of Democracy as a form of government. Despite my years of posting on this very list that democracy was not what we were to have, and is not a good form of government. 5. I have now responded to your ad hominems and avoidance of the argument that was posited. I have, again, pointed out your use of a strawman as an avenue for attacking someone, and avoiding the point of the discussion. > There's a huge difference between me and you. I know when I sign > on the dotted line, who I voted for, and will accept as 'my Funny, we don't sign our names to our ballots down here. Maybe those of you in Northern Idaho have signed ballots? We don't. I've never had to sign my name to a ballot. Indeed, quite the opposite. Our ballots down here in Southern Idaho don't have any personally identifiable information on them. Sounds like maybe you guys have bigger problems up there. Perhaps you should organize a movement to get rid of that requirement. I'm sure it should be easy to do for such a friendly guy like you. > representative' for better or worse. YOU, on the other hand > simply imply that I have an obligation of some sort, to accept an > outcome in which I refuse to accept or support. I imply nothing. I state as a matter of fact, that whether or not you feel someone is representative of your personal views does not change the fact that they are the elected representative when they win the election. If you don't like that, you know how to change that. It's claims/rants like yours that destroy any credibility you may or may not have. It makes you sound like an ostrich burying your head in the sand. "I didn't vote for you, I'm not acknowledging you as the representative of <insert political entity here>, nyah nyah" is the impression you give. The "head in sand" methodology you assert here is in fact why you are so disenfranchised. I'm a member of several organizations that lobby various political entities. We don't stick our head in the sand and pressure the elected representatives. Through our pressure, we have had positive directional changes and adjustments. Sure, we don't always win, but we win more than if we took your route. Your way is a sure-fire losing way. The world is run by those who show up. If you can't win in the election booth, go visit your representative. Talk with them, work on convincing them. This is the aspect the LP forgets. If you are interested in liberty over Party, then you will work with those who do have the offices on power in an attempt to get them to move toward you. Sure, it won't always work because government is by definition a compromise; it is the art of doing what is possible given the people involved. Your attitude of "I didn't win therefore I'm done until the next election" is "not showing up" by another name. If you want to move the compass, you have to work at it more than just once every so often. Course correction on a large scale is often the result of gradual and increasing pressure, not occasional Hail Mary passes. > Sorry to burst your simplistic bubble. You couldn't burst any of my spit bubbles, let alone any others. Cheers, Bill _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
