Lance M. Brown
Views On The "Two Evils":
Lance responds to Augie:
Augie, your post:
the only reason I support a party who supports this here war on drugs, is for the lesser of two evils.
Does this mean that not supporting the War On Drugs is the greater of two evils? And Libertarianism is the great evil, while Demorepublicatism is the lesser evil?
And if you're simply saying that the Dems and Reps are The Two Evils, and you are choosing one (which you presume is less Evil)-------Why are you choosing evil? Presumably it's because
At least I have a say in the system.
You have a say in the system that arrests 500,000 people each year for marijuana crimes, and self-admittedly is graduating millions of morons annually from its schools. Congratulations.
The founding fathers had "a say" in the British-ruled government of their Colonies, too. Over the distance of a vast, vast sea. Just like us. In order to change the rules that they lived by, they had to go begging to the Motherland. Since the Motherland didn't actually live under the rules, it was dificult for It to understand the implications of those rules locally, or to care. It didn't work then, and it isn't working now.
Augie, you "have a say" within a very limited framework, one that will perpetrate evil no matter what you say. The implications of the level of involvement in our personal and financial lives that the Two Evils advocate and enforce is unmeasurable. The agency in charge of collecting almost 2 Trillion Dollars from us (IRS, don'tcha know!) hasn't released a conclusive organizational budget (their own budget, not the big one) in years, and the number of deaths caused by over-reaching military involvement (also unmeasurable) is something that you couldn't lower if you wanted to.
We all know the atrocities; The list is practically infinite. How many involuntary experiments on citizens and soldiers? How many unjust wars? How many oppurtunities stifled? A biggie- How many people unfairly jailed?
Under a Libertarian Government, the capacity for these atrocities would be diminished severely. Indeed, the government's near-sole purpose would be to eliminate the use of force against others.
While you might have to work to stay alive if the Libs were in charge, you sure wouldn't have the government spiking your punch, or eradicating innocent foreign folks without cause.
Lance Brown - 12:21am May 13, 1997 PDT
Much of this is not ultimately Ross' fault. In '92, he was largely thrown into it, and I can well understand why he was reluctant, and unprepared. In '96, he was already spoiled, and should have known that for him to run would set the election (for Bill). In my opinion (and the media's, the voters', and the Washington Establishment's), there was virtually no way (aside from a phenomenal Two-Evils scandal) he could've been elected in '96.
I think that Ross would have been wiser to use his time and resources to pick and groom a viable candidate for '96. I hope (with great vigor) that he will have the sense to do so in '00. Ross, if you're reading this- Please don't waste another election! I do not (can not) know if Ross' media pullabitity and millions of dollars and birth-child Trying-To-Be-A-Reform-Party could get a truly "presidential" presidential candidate elected. I think he (it) could.
It was Ross Perot's ability to become a serious potential independent candidate, despite his crippling political defects, in 1992, that first inspired me to consider the office- and to understand the value of preparation and presentation.
Jerry Brown, Pat Buchanan, and Steve Forbes, despite their alignment with the Two Evils, all made "independent" efforts. All failed, not due to the media's portrayal of them (or lack of attention), but due to their flaws as candidates. They were portrayed as fringe, because they acted like fringe. Steve was visually unelectable, plus a one-issue candidate; Pat's problems are many, but, at the root, his ideology is not in line enough with the population; Jerry never made a serious effort to remove his 80's flake reputation, and thus, it never left him.
I was days away from joining Jerry Brown's campaign in '92. I had spoken with his primary campaign staff, and had warned my employer I might be leaving abruptly. He had won the CT primary, and temporarily turned the campaign on its ear. It was like a week 'til the NY primary, Brown's make-or-break-er. He (if I remember the timeline right) was being hounded about an alleged "coke party" back when he was CA governer. He was also getting stress for what would come to be known as "Forbesitis"- a refusal do do anything other than tie everything into the "flat tax." I waited to see if he would rise to the challenge (which he could've done, I think). He did not. Jerry Brown was on a blue-streak rampage, visibly shaken by his time in politics, and wildly driven to do something about it. You could watch the fervor of his campaign eat him up. He lost his voice, he lost 20 pounds, and he didn't have the proper handlers to keep him alive. I really came to admire him, but it seemed he never really took the time to think about what was going on. He had the ball, and he ran with it, but his eyes were closed.
One of my biggest intended advantages in the '08 campaign is preparation. In '88, my politics were disinterested, and still primarily my mother's (an unwavering Democrat). In '92, I kept a pretty good eye on things, as did many people. I voted to keep George Bush out (yes, I voted for Bill), because I knew Ross had blown his chance. I also began to think that maybe I should run for President. I was enjoying a lot of political success in college, and when Newsweek called me (for a story on young people doing impressive things, which never ran), I came to some conclusions about my political viability. When Bill Clinton fired Joycelyn Elders, I lost all respect for him, and for the Two Evils system in general. That was a defining moment in my life, and the seed around which my campaign has grown.
Since then, I have a much more focused view on politics, and I observed Campaign '96 voraciously, following every relatively major candidate, every day, with a strict analytic view. There were about 20 of them altogether, and only one won. In fact, he never had a serious competitor. But I watched all the others fail, and made sure to understand why. IMHO, the only other electable candidate (except maybe Lamar Alexander, but I don't feel like talking about him) last year was Harry Browne, who was substantially lacking in both dinero and media attention. If he had had equal exposure to Bill and Bob, or even Ross, I believe we would have a substantially different American Political Scene right now. And I'd like to believe that he would've had a chance.
Before anyone discredits that statement, please acknowledge that there is no way to even conceive of what a race with equal Libertarian exposure would be like. For now, it defies the paradigm of our political landscape.
But anyone who saw Harry in the 3rd party debates, try to picture the impact of Harry's words on the national (or even studio) audience. He got debate-stopping applause when he said we should end the "insane War on Drugs." At speeches (everywhere) the same statement gets standing ovations. "End Social Security, Welfare and Medicare," "Eliminate the Income Tax," "Bring All Troops Back Home" were other things he said.
I think it's fair to say that those statements would have made the election quite a bit more interesting, and October '96 a much-less already-concluded month of politics. There is a huge # of people who are so frustrated with the crap that they would gladly vote for someone who wanted to clear-cut the government, and could avoid looking like an idiot for days at a time (unlike Ross, Steve, or Pat).
Lance Brown - 02:54am Jul 24, 1997 PDT
I do, however, find it reprehensible (intolerable, in fact) that our current system requires the use of force (coercion) to "solve our social problems." It bothers me a lot that the people setting the rules of society are: a)primarily not interested in the welfare of individuals, b)in charge of nearly half of the money in America, c)the only legal monopoly, d)the only people allowed to use force legally, e)the largest employer in the country, and f)guilty of daily attacks on personal and public liberty, in the name of solving problems.
"This country is the best in the world, so that makes the atrocities tolerable,in some twisted, brainwashed way, right?"
Wrong. An atrocity is an atrocity by any name. Our government should quite simply not be committing human rights violations, ever. If something it is doing has the unsavory side effect of directly harming others, it should stop doing that thing. The (social or physical) machinery that creates the harm should be dismantled. The easiest and most sensible way to do that? Take the gun out of the process. That way, no one gets hurt.
Guns don't belong in the processes of feeding people (in the U.S.), or helping pregnant girls, single moms, black people, kids, or anyone else. Those processes belong in the realm of society, as its own, free entity.
Please note that I am not speaking here of military defense, or of the policing of direct harm. These functions, along with a much-improved court system, are necessary functions required by government to provide for our basic safety and freedom.
Ultimately, I think many here would agree that a society that solved its problems without using force on each other would be a better ideal than one that resigned itself to the use of brute force to get things accomplished. Everyone knows it's better to talk things out than to fight.
But as long as the sheep among us continue to provide their ever-more-hesitant support to the TWO EVILS and their ilk, the current structure of things will never change. jim coil has made that abundantly clear.
I have given up on the Two-Party system entirely, if for no other reason than their united stand on the Drug Washout. I now seek to engage the task of developing a new formulation for society, and, with support, acting to provide private, non-force-based replacement infrastructure to our country, to provide in advance for the necessary and inevitable end of "the old way."
I believe that the government has invested enough in the development of our society, and that we are getting ready for a separation with our Mommy of the past 100+ years. Mommy's tired. She is, in fact, just about wiped out. She has raised herself the most prosperous society in history; by providing essential infrastructure, such as highways, the internet, the railroads, the postal service, and more; by pouring billions of dollars into educating, defending, uplifting, supporting, and counseling its citizens; and by preserving enough freedom so that we can still overturn her if necessary.
And our Governmom senses that the time draweth nigh. The numbers don't add up anymore, the stock market's bound to crash, and the people are getting restless- voter turnout is super-low, homeschooling is on the rise, as are home offices, community policing, and local social services.
The G is losing its grip. Those who can are planning now for the time when Mom isn't there anymore. Those who can't are scrambling to the trough, trying to get as much as they can while it's still being handed out. As a whole, our society is preparing for self-sufficiency, whether it likes it or not.
I simply desire to make a more specific, directed effort at bringing about our society's freedom and self-sufficiency.
Our current government is not the ideal way to resolve society's problems.
Yeah, it's real good , but since we're so close, why don't we finish the American Experiment and go all the way?
It could be centuries (or forever) before another society is in the position that we are to create a truly free, self-reliant society. Unless we succeed. Then we would be a model for the world, of a free society, as we have been (but moreso), allowing others to follow in our gleeful footsteps.
But we can't accomplish any such thing with 50% of our collective lives being woven into the chilled molasses that is our behemoth government.
Our current system of gives and takes is fatally flawed, because the line of people wanting a bully will never end, and the government will perpetually be doling out appeasement to opposing interests.
The bitter reality is that we are "democratically" strangling ourselves with our own government. If the Ds and Rs have their way, third parties will be effectively eliminated, and they will secure permanent jobs as Our Leaders.
"Yes, Master, I will vote for you...I must vote for you...to vote otherwise would be wasting my vote." ;)
Wasting my vote indefinitely,
Lance
Lance Brown - 10:24pm Aug 5, 1997 PDT
It is a nice thought that people would look out for people. Where I live it use to be that way until the "Watergate" scene.
Strange how things went downhill after the FedGov took over Public Education, and expanded its role as society's guidance counselor. Combine that with the FedGov's repeated betrayal of its citizens (Watergate, Iran-Contra, experiments on citizens and soldiers, etc. ad infinitum), and you have the formula for some pretty serious social rot.
We've hired ourselves a babysitter who is not equipped to handle the job.
A scenario:
You've got 10 kids, all with serious emotional problems. You hire a baby sitter/nanny/tutor to take care of them and help you raise them. You pay her $1000 dollars a day, because she says she's the best in the world, and that's the price you have to pay.
She beats the "bad" kids, and sets the good kids against each other (by taking away all of their toys and handing them back out according to her Master Plan.) While the kids are outside breaking things, fighting, and running around in the road, the Nanny calls up all of her nanny friends, and invites them over to take all of your stuff and eat your food. While her friends are over, she spends her $1000 (and any other money she can find or borrow) on lots of heroin and Prozac.
Around 7 or 8 at night, she shoos out her friends, gathers the kids she can find, stuffs them with Prozac, cleans up as best she can, and nods out on smack in front of the T.V. until you get home from work around 9 or 10.
And isn't it wonderful. The kids (who are home) are snuggled up in their beds, wide-eyed and blissful, the babysitter's so calm, and you think you can get into this 'minimalist' thing.
You love your babysitter so much, you give her a 10% pay raise every year. On occasion, you come home early, and catch her throwing one of her loot-and-shoot parties in your house, but eventually you just make sure not to come home early- lest you be forced to doubt your loving, caring, compassionate, kind babysitter.
After all, she is the best in the world, so why complain? And the kids always look happy when you get home. And now that 2 have run away and 1 killed himself, there's less mouths to feed, and less names to keep track of.
And most nights you still have time to search the house for a snack before you sit with the Nanny and watch the 11 o' clock news.
of composition