[ale] OT: RE: [ale] Is there any way to stop this thread?

[F. Grant Robertson]

<Sigh>

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Marcus [mailto:CharlesM at Media-Brokers.com]
To: ale at ale.org
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 5:52 PM
To: Ale (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [ale] WAY OT: RE: [ale] Is there any way to stop this
travesty? -- NO, of course not!


> From: rhiannen <rhia at atlantacon.org>
> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 4:55 PM
>
> The universal, and with equal suffrage, right to vote
> and to be elected in periodic elections held by secret
> ballot is considered one of the basic human rights by
> nearly every civilized nation in the world.

Hah!  I'm really not picking on you, rhiannen.  :)

Voting is not, and can never be a 'Right', per se.  Government is a man-mad
institution.  Rights, by their nature, are such that are required for the
existence and health of the being.  Voting is not necessary to this end.

I submit to you that one of the biggest *contributors* to the problems we
face today is 'universal suffrage'.

Now, before you start calling me a male chauvanist pig - no, I am not saying
women should not be allowed to vote.  What I'm saying is, if the voting
PRIVELEGE was limited only to LANDOWNERS, 95% of the problem would be
solved. The vast majority of people who vote for these liberal bastards that
promise them bread and circuses do not own land.  People who own land,
generally have an understanding and respect for what it takes to acquire it
(like, hold down a job and have a stong work ethic) - and they also have a
much greater understanding of private property Rights, and are far more
likely to demand that government respect them.

> In 1872 England, William Gladstone and other reformers
> thought it important enough to get "The Secret Ballot
> Act" passed precisely because of the abuse occurring
> directly from having votes public.  Abuses such as
> people being turned out of their homes because they
> voted for someone other than their local landowner.

Ah. See, though - if voting was strictly limited to ONLY landowners, this
would not be nearly as much of a problem.

> A favorite voting reform trick by dictatorships around
> the world and throughout history has been the holding
> of "elections" without a secret ballot.  Amazingly,
> the side with all the guns would win the election!

False analogy. There is a vast difference between the instituting of open
voting in an existing (usually military) Dictatorship where the vast
majority of the population is living far below what we call the poverty
level, can't read or write, and will probably die before they are 25, and a
(relatively) free country where the vast majority of people can read and
write, and know what it means to be free and to be able to pursue and
acquire wealth.  There is just no comparison.

> So, somehow, I don't think the secret ballot is just
> a tool for the US gubment types to drain more tax
> money out of us or to "dumb us down".

Here's the thing.  When it comes to government power, I am a contrarian.  If
the politicians *want* something, *regardless of *why* they *say* they want
it, you can be damn sure the only reason they want it is to further their
power.  They don't know how to act any differently.

There has never been a government in history that voluntarily gave up power
on its way to becoming a dictatorship (which we are very close to becoming
now).

> Instead of just continuing on with my opinions on the
> subject, I would refer you, and any other interested
> parties, to the following scattered ramblings from
> some of my bookmarks:

<snip> some good point in favor of secret ballots

I agree that there are some good arguments, but there are basic tenets that
force me to support open voting:

a) Anything that is secret can be secretly manipulated, and because it is
secret, no one would ever know it had been manipulated, and

2) If the Government is in *favor* of it, then there is a reason, and the
only reason I can think of is, they *know* that if the ballots are cast in
secret, that the results can be manipulated and no one will ever know the
difference.

This, I firmly believe, is why they are now pushing so hard for electronic
voting.  Talk about a dream come true for the shadow government!  Now they
just pick and choose who they want to win.  No more problem children like
Ron Paul in Congress to be a thorn in their side.

An example of votescam was (1996?  2000?) election, when Pat Buchanan was
running, and took the first two Primaries, to the *great* surprise and
chagrin of the media slime, and was well on his way to doing the same in
Arizona when, all of a sudden (I remember this very well), the curve just
reversed.  Pat was receiving 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 votes over Bush, and then all
of a sudden, just like that, Bush started getting 2 to 1 or 3 to 1.  Sorry
folks, but voting curves just don't change like that - if anything, it would
be a gradula shift, but this was virtually instantaneous - and then you
never heard another word about it.

Call me a Conspiracy nut, call me whatever you like, but I say, if it walks
like a duck and quacks like a duck, there is a very good chance it is - a
duck.

Charles


---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.



---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002


---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.