Voting: Stupid Is As Stupid Does

By Robert L. Johnson.
 
Exclusive to STR
 
A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that 51 percent of the voting cattle are upset with Obama and the Democrats. Their solution is to replace the Democrats with Republicans! This is similar to actual beef cattle preferring Burger King to McDonalds. Either way, the cattle lose.
 
The Republicans, who the voting cattle are taking a shine to, send the children of the voters through the meat-grinders in Iraq and Afghanistan just as the Democrats do. The principle is no different than both parties sending them in years past through the meat-grinders of WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Both parties put America’s resources, including her children, at the disposal of Israel, both parties are trying to get a war started with Iran for Israel’s benefit, both parties keep the same gang of thieves in control of American currency, neither party helps the people to find employment. In short, both parties are full of liars and con-artists. Voting for either of these political machines is an exercise in “stupid is as stupid does,” which allows us to view those who vote as stupid based on the foolish/stupid act they commit which in this case is voting.
 
Albert Einstein once defined insanity as, “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”  By Einstein’s definition, it is very clear that voting falls squarely within Einstein’s definition of insanity. Every two or four years the politicians from both parties determine what the voting cattle want to hear and they tell it to them. The voters actually believe what they’re being told each and every time and do their duty to the national scam and cast their vote for their favorite liar. Then, after an appropriate amount of time passes, the voters realize they’ve been fooled by the politicians and get “mad as Hell” and vow to “vote the bums out of office” in the next election. A major problem with this is there are only other bums to replace the first set of bums with! However, since voting is much easier and safer than revolution, the sheeple are happy to perform their patriotic duty. They are so sold on the scam of replacing one group of charlatans with another group of charlatans, they tell people who are smart enough not to fall for the voting scam that they/we can’t complain about what the elected politicians do or don’t do since we did not vote. The fact that voting for one crook over another only reinforces evil and gives more life to the scam, the politically insane cannot grasp.
 
The article about the ABC News/Washington Post poll says, “Registered voters by 62-26 percent are inclined to look around for someone new for Congress rather than to re-elect their current representative.” It appears their insanity has blinded them to the fact that there is absolutely nothing new in either political party. This consistency in the commonality of corruption found deep in both parties is a primary reason America is consistently sinking. Voting only accelerates the decline in happiness and the quality of life as well as the continued erosion of our rights and liberties. By keeping their heads buried deep in the scams of politics as usual, the voters cannot possibly see the bold words of instruction written in the Declaration of Independence. The instruction reads, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,” (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the individual) “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,” which puts much more responsibility and risk on the individual than merely continuing the voting game/scam.
 

8
Your rating: None Average: 8 (2 votes)
Robert L. Johnson's picture
Columns on STR: 92

Robert Johnson is a paralegal and a freelance writer in Florida. He was raised Roman Catholic, but after reading Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason, he became a Deist. In 1993 he founded the World Union of Deists and in 1996 he launched the first web site devoted to Deism, www.deism.com.  He is listed in Who's Who in Hell and is the author of Deism: A Revolution in Religion, A Revolution in You and An Answer to C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity.  He wrote the introduction to The Age of Reason, The Complete Edition and also writes for Examiner.com.

Comments

Suverans2's picture

If one has the option of voting, or not voting, one is a "citizen".

"Government is an organization that consists not only of those who are "given the mandate" to assume authority, but also of all the "citizens" who support the imaginary enterprise. The citizen is just as integral a part of the definition of government as is the King, President, Parliament, or whatever other fancy label some of the participating humans choose to affix to themselves. All governments must have citizens in order to exist.
 
If one calls himself a citizen, then he is actively choosing to participate in the government organization." ~ http://www.strike-the-root.com/theory-of-natural-hierarchy-and-government by tzo

If you were a member of a gang and you found out that your gang was involved in criminal activities, would you simply abstain from voting or would you "withdraw from membership" in the gang?

NL.1.3.3
Certainly no man can rightfully be required to join, or support, an association whose protection he does not desire. Nor can any man be reasonably or rightfully expected to join, or support, any association whose plans, or method of proceeding, he does not approve, as likely to accomplish its professed purpose of maintaining justice, and at the same time itself avoid doing injustice. To join, or support, one that would, in his opinion, be inefficient, would be absurd. To join or support one that, in his opinion, would itself do injustice, would be criminal. He must, therefore, be left at the same liberty to join, or not to join, an association for this purpose, as for any other, according as his own interest, discretion, or conscience shall dictate. ~ Lysander Spooner

Secession. The act of withdrawing from membership in a group. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991)

B.R. Merrick's picture

Suverans2, as leftists have taught us all, semantics are indeed very important. I was on Marc Stevens's radio program a few years ago, and accidentally referred to people as "citizens." He dutifully pointed out, in brief, what you provided above. Most people have no idea what the word means.

I ain't no "citizen" anymore.

Suverans2's picture

It's not just the "leftists", my friend. I will post, once more, the first portion of the "A Final Word of Caution" found in the PREFACE of Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991).

"The language of the law is ever-changing as the courts, Congress, state legislatures, and administrative agencies continue to define, redefine and expand legal words and terms. Furthermore, many legal terms are subject to variations from state to state and again can differ under federal laws. Also the type of legal issue, dispute, or transaction involved can affect a given definition usage..."

And, it's not anything "new under the sun". Confucius, circa 500 B.C., reportedly wrote, "When words lose their meaning, people will lose their liberty"; and some man calling himself Peter, supposedly somewhere between 60 and 160 A.D., wrote, "through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you..."

I will assume, (a very dangerous thing to do), that the double-negative (I ain't no "citizen"...) was unintended.

"Citizens" are men and women who "are members of a political community", they are men and women who have "submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual...rights[1]", and if you have withdrawn your membership in that group, and you no longer ask for nor accept member-only benefits, then you no longer have the "PRIVILEGE of casting a vote at public elections[2]". And, if you have indeed "withdrawn your membership in that group, and you no longer ask for nor accept member-only benefits", welcome to the club.

[1] Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 244
Protectio trahit subjectionem, subjectio projectionem. Protection draws to it subjection, subjection, protection. Co. Litt. 65. ~ Bouvier's 1865 Law Dictionary
[2] Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1433

Suverans2's picture
    "...neither party helps the people to find employment"??????????????????????

"Voting only accelerates the decline in happiness and the quality of life as well as the continued erosion of our rights and liberties." ~ Robert L. Johnson

Actually, voting may slow down "the decline in happiness and the quality of life as well as the continued erosion of our rights and liberties", because it is most likely the litmus test they use to decide how fast they can erode your natural rights and natural liberty - they may fear that if they accelerate too rapidly the whiplash might wake the proles up and they could possibly have an armed revolt on their hands.

"The instruction reads, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,” (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the individual) “it is the Right of the People...to abolish it,” which puts much more responsibility and risk on the individual than merely continuing the voting game/scam." ~ Robert L. Johnson

So, Robert L. Johnson, how are YOU, all by your lonesome, going to "abolish it" when the majority of the proles are not only against abolishing it, but are in fact busy pushing and shoving to get their snouts in the trough?

Tom gave us a pretty strong clue with this, "All governments must have citizens in order to exist."

Paul's picture

"They are so sold on the scam of replacing one group of charlatans with another group of charlatans, they tell people who are smart enough not to fall for the voting scam that they/we can’t complain about what the elected politicians do or don’t do since we did not vote."

Whenever someone comes up with this line, I point out that in fact it is the reverse that is true. The only ones who can legitimately complain about the results, are those who did not give sanction to the system by voting. Those who vote implicitly agree to anything that happens, even if their guy loses the election. Voting is an implicit agreement to be coerced, on the off chance that the voter might get (through his favored candidate) to do the coercing.

I believe there is one case where voting might be legitimate. I call it "defensive voting". It is voting only against ballot measures to raise taxes or other such imposition. No humans are ever voted for in defensive voting. It still has the problem of giving sanction to the system (which means implicit agreement to be taxed), but voting against the tax provides more chance of success than not voting; certainly if the vote is going to be close. However I'm still not sure about this one.

B.R. Merrick's picture

Paul, you may want to read some of the comments that Glen Allport has left on some other articles, concerning what may be legitimate reasons for voting. It can be a very persuasive argument.

Paul's picture

Thanks B.R., I did look him up, e.g.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/allport/allport21.html
...and find his arguments persuasive. Between this view, and Per Bylund's that all voters are cowards, I'll take Allport every time.

To me it is a tradeoff. Either course (defensive voting versus non-voting) has some advantages and disadvantages. I don't criticize those who go for the strictly non-voting stance, nor do I criticize those who violate anarchist purity by making the occasional defensive vote. The problem is with mindless voters who merely slightly prefer one tyrant to another, but no matter what they are going to vote for a tyrant. As well the problem is with those who wish to improve humans via legislative coercion.

I have a technique for making clear the morality or utility of any action: imagine everyone does it. If everyone voted defensively, we'd quickly be more free. If everyone refrained from voting, thus making government illegitimacy plain to see, we'd also quickly be more free. So I think either course, at least by this measure, is a good one. It is counterproductive for advocates of either course to beat up on the others.

Suverans2's picture

Original comment removed by author because the modern definitions of anarchist are apparently as follows.

Main Entry: an·ar·chist
Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kist, -ˌnär-\
Function: noun
Date: 1678

1 : a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2 : a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order ~ Retrieved July 26, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchist