I don't see more than superficial differences between the democratic and republican parties these days (perhaps for the last generation or so). They differ on a few key issues, but generally support most of the same policies, especially in economics, foreign policy, welfare, etc. I understand why many who frequent this and similar forums might sway toward the conservative side, but Romney is something different, but hardly an alternative to Obama, just as Obama is cut from the same cloth as Bush. These people are talking heads, faces for organizations, to be replaced as their usefulness expires, and replaced by another just like them. They are career politicians, with more conflicts of interest than one can shake a stick at. It is paradoxical to vehemently defend gun rights, yet wish to see the state coerce others to conform to differing views.
Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, and others like them are probably the last of the statesmen.
They actually defend liberty and are unwilling to use the force of the
state to inflict any majority or minority view on the population as a
whole. There are too few men and women in politics today with this view.
If not for the corruption in the media and within the politician
parties themselves, the public might know more about these candidates
who are attracting more than a small fringe of supporters. I hear
arguments that a vote for Johnson or Paul is a vote for Obama, as it
takes votes away from Romney. Others compel me to abandon my principles
and vote for the lesser evil. I will not apologize, nor will I submit. If I vote, it will be with my conscience. If I vote...
The voting process itself legitimizes the political system by which
those career politicians undermine the social governance they had sworn
to defend. They break their oaths, presenting and enacting legislation
that infringes upon the Constitution itself. This is nothing new, as
this has been the way to entrench themselves for a century or more. They
stand up and tout themselves as the alternative to the failures that
have come before them, yet every president leaves many of us yearning
for their predecessor, who only violated our liberties marginally
compared with the one we have now. Voting is immoral,
as most citizens see it as a way to promote a candidate who will defend
their beliefs by infringing upon the rights of some other group of
society. And the vicious cycle repeats every election season.
What is it they say about insanity? It's doing the same thing over and
over, yet expecting different results.
Like Spooner, I signed no social contract, nor am I bound by one that was signed by others centuries before my birth. This is why I support Libertarian
candidates, though discount the political process itself. Without
voluntary acceptance and interaction, the system of governance which
relies on the state's monopoly on force to inflict it's will invalidates itself. Voting is a mockery of a voluntary society.
Left and Right are both wrong.
It's time for something truly different. And people like Gary Johnson
or Ron Paul are a good start. Or we could just keep doing the same thing
that consistently leads to failure...