On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 09:25 -0800, Frank Reichert wrote: > Good morning Bill! > > Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert... > > > 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. > > Let's say for the sake of argument here, that you are charged > with a serious crime. Your first step would likely be to decide > rather quickly to seek representation in the case, or in some > cases, decide to represent yourself. You would therefore make a > deicision, and a binding voluntary contract for a representative > to represent your interests in the case, or to represent > yourself. > > In either case, the choice would be yours. It would not be a > coerced choice, but one freely and voluntarily entered into of > your own free volition. > > You suddenly lose such voluntarism when you suggest, as you seem > to, that there is somehow a binding contract between me and the > winner of a political race in which the winner is one in which I > voted against, at least in the above case.
Dammit Frank shut and listen for a change. ;) I explicitly said there was NO contract, as I have for years. How many times must I say in explicit terms before you will listen to it? It isn't nuanced, it isn't an 'intricacy" It's fricking english. How much clearer can this be: "It isn't a contract. It is an election." That was in the post you just responded to, yet you insist in saying I "suggest" a contract. It leaves me with two choices: you aren't reading and are just ASSuming; or you know I wrote it but don't care and think you will advance your cause by glossing over the clear fact I said there is no contract. > This only makes sense > if you believe that government has a right to utilize force for > force you into an involuntary contract, such as your argument > that I might have some contractual relation, forced upon me by > the State as 'my representative', in which I never voluntarily > agreed to, but in fact, voted against. Fine, I'll play your game for just a moment. Some people (libertarians even)Yes, you voluntarily consent to that person being your representative by participating in the election. How do they arrive at that? Well, you knew that the winner takes all and you still participated, You still took the chance and therefore legitimized the election, win or lose for you. I believe this is the basic position of Wendy McElroy, though I may be a bot off base in the details. However, it is not my position no matter how many times you claim otherwise. > > In the case of national Congressional races, I might go so far as > to concede that a particular State has representation in the > national Congress no matter who wins the election. I do not > believe however, that can legitimately be expanded to such a > degree that would suggest that individuals have representation > based upon a bad result in the case of what an individual is > willing to voluntarily accept from such an outcome, certainly not > of his/her own choosing. It isn't a matter of voluntarily accepting, any more than you voluntarily accept that gravity keeps your feet on the ground. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant to it's existence as fact. Heck, we can even disagree about the *nature* of gravity, without it affecting it's presence. > In an extreme case, hypothetical no less, if in Idaho's 2004 > election, two Communists were elected as a Representatives to > Congress, I would again concede that Idaho would be represented > in the national Congress by a Communist delegation. It would be > a huge stretch to suggest that individuals in Idaho, who strongly > oppose Communism, would accept that such representatives really > are 'their' representatives. Again you apply an unwarranted emotional "extra" attachment to the word "their". As I said, you may or may not choose to go pressure "your" representative to see things your way, but that does nothing to change the fact that they are your representatives. And That is precisely the point you lose credibility. Remember, by definition credibility is not what you think about what you say. Rather is it what others think about what you say. If you have a goal and you are trying to convince "Joe Average" and s/he asks if you've talked to "your senator/representative" (and just to preempt it, I -again- do not think Senators should represent the people) to which your response is "so-and-so isn't my representative" or "...doesn't represent me", despite being elected as such you lose credibility. You lose it two ways. One, you appear to be a stubborn oppositionist and two you admit you will not work in the system provided. Both of those are credibility losers to *most* people. At best you appear to be someone with his head firmly embedded in a big pile of hard packed sand. I have found that people are more willing to listen, even if the answer is instead "Yes, and s/he does not see it this way" or even if expressed in the negative "Yes, but s/he is too beholden to <insert special interest group the listener is likely to oppose> to do the right thing.". > Also in such extreme cases, as sometimes occur, revolutions > usually become the vehicle of final choice for overthrowing such > a condition, which is why revolutions occur from time to time in > the first place, that is, individuals refuse to accept > representation by an existing government in place, and band > together and seek to overthrow it. The American revolution itself > is a case in point. No, you are misapplying history here, Frank. First, the colonials in fact did try to use the government system in place. It did not obtain the sought goals. Second, the Colonial Empire was not a republic, nor a democracy. So they didn't *have* representation -it was a Monarchy. Do you think "no taxation without representation" came out of thin air? Not that taxation with representation is such a great thing either. At least under the old system we didn't fool ourselves about it. It being taxation. > I believe here that the basis of your argument is your inability > to distinguish between unique individuals, and that of 'the > State'. No, you are incorrect. The basis of our argument is that we are using a proper definition of the words, and you are attaching additional meanings not given. You come close to admitting it above, but still clearly refuse, despite the untenable position you hold. Not to dissimilar to when JQS was saying that energy certificates would not be money. And we (at least I) were pointing out it is still money. She was attaching additional non-accepted meaning to the word "money". Granted, she was limiting and you are expanding, but the principle is the same. > This is why, for me at least, elections become a weighty matter, > since I view what takes place with individuals in the voting > booth to be a contractural matter. When you vote for a winning > candidate, then for better or worse, the performance of that > candidate is a result of you, and the majority of others, who > brought them into power. You have therefore signed onto a > contract for this individual to Represent you. And again, that is not how we see it. There was no contract made. Contracts can be revoked. A "contract" that can only be renewed or not renewed, is not a valid contract IMO. There is nothing contractual about voting. You argue against the implicit social contract argument (which has not been made, it is another strawman), yet you certainly seem willing to apply it when it suits you. Does the person you are voting for acknowledge the contract? Nope. Now, if we had (as has been suggested other places) the ability to "sell" out votes as we see fit, then yes, certainly contracts *could* be involved in elections. I can even see big advantages to it. But that is not the case. Maybe the person you are voting for doesn't care if they get *your* support or not. You voting for them does not bid them to a contract any more that the other guy winning binds you in a contract. Contracts are consentual actions between two or more parties. As otherwise I imagine you would agree, one part can not enter a contract unknowingly with you. Therefore, the view you express, namely that voting is a contractual matter is indeed espousing an implicit contract of unspecified definition. What exactly did you bind that person to do for you? Agree with you 100%? 90%? Consult you on all issues? Most issues? Do what they think is best for you? For everyone? For the constitution or the state (not State)? Can they compromise on issue A to get issue B through? This is why libertarians in general oppose the "implied social contract". Contracts must be explicit, revocable, and made with knowledge and consent. If it is non-revocable it is without force. If it is vague, it is without force. If it is made w/o one party knowing it, it is without force. The "contract" you describe fails on all three criteria. > Again, I consider > it a far stretch to assume that individuals who strongly oppose a > winning Candidate, have some tacit obligation to accept such an > individual as their Representative. And, again, it is you stretching your strawman to claim we have stated you have any obligation (tacit or otherwise) to support that representative. We have stated, quite clearly, that that is the person you must turn to if you want to express your views to the congress they are in. You see, it works both ways. That person is also the congress' (state/federal/city/whatever) representative to you. Especially true for the "House" reps. They are your representatives of the congress they serve in. If you have any implicit obligation, I would say your obligation to your cause would oblige you to seek out the elected representative to make your views known to them in an attempt to persuade them. Preferably in a congenial manner. Often, letters are not enough. Partially because people who are willing to make the time and effort to physically meet with a representative represent (heheh) a greater force of potential opposition or support with regards to their re-election potential than someone griping on a mailing list, or even sending in an email. Case in point: my first and second State Senate races. I did have an impact on my opponent, the victor. I even had the support of the opposing Democrat who confirmed he was running "just to try to keep the party alive and bring it back to it's roots". Sound familiar? I used this to get things forward that sitting at my keyboard and pounding away furiously could never have achieved. I even made some issue-allies in the legislature. I intend to leverage them in some citizen legislation attempts in 2005. Of course, nothing obliges you to support those attempts, even if you vote against them and you lose. ;) I hereby refuse any contractual implications if you vote for my initiative(s). :p (you know what I look like, Frank. Now picture me sticking my thumbs in my ears, waving my fingers and you and smiling as I say pbtpbtpbtpbpt at you. ;) ) And if you don't like my closing levity, I fart in your general direction. 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
