Supermarket theory of government
Originally published at www.paganvigil.com/C127135145/E20071204130728
Supermarket theory of government
Demand your right to choose nothing and have it count
Sunni Maravillosa is part of a growing number of small "l" libertarians who believes that Ron Paul is no libertarian and voting for him sacrifices freedom.
I agree with her, but I don't think that is the whole problem. My answer is in the technopagan green.
Call me old-fashioned, but I still think the one True Answer is None of the Above.
If you HAVE to choose one from Column A OR one from Column B without the ability to walk away, that is not really a choice.
Oh, I may throw in refinements, like barring the losing candidates from serving in that office for the term of that office, or insisting that in order to "win" a candidate has to carry a majority of eligible voters and not just a majority of those who voted or a majority of registered voters. But in the end, it's the same thing.
Rejecting the choices offered is still a valid choice. Otherwise you're playing three-card monty and the red card is never where you think it is.
I call it the supermarket theory of government. I am not required to buy a cola, or even a soft drink, or any beverage at all. Indeed, I don't have to buy anything or even go into the store.
If there HAS to be a choice between 1, 2, or 3, there is no reason for 1, 2, or 3 to be significantly different unless there is a 0. And if it has to be 1, 2, or 3, there is no reason that the 1, 2, or 3 HAVE to appeal to the disaffected because 1, 2, or 3 will win no matter what the unhappy voters do.
I agree that RP is no libertarian. But he is a symptom, not the problem.
Posted: Tue - December 4, 2007 at 01:07 PMA class="pvc" HREF="http://www.paganvigil.com