Shut the Heck Up, Charlie Reese
So the State of California is a mess: lots of Mexicans, a budget deficit and an Idiot governor. Nothing new here, folks! Personally, I could care less if the Mexicans are "illegal" or "legal," the fundamental question should be: are they rightful property owners? Period. End of story. All other problems spring from an effort by ALL politicians and commentators to avoid this criterion.
The best attempt yet might have been from Charlie Reason if he had not muddled the discussion of property rights with pointless banter about the Founding Fathers. Does Reese really think the State of California was hijacked by the mob rule of non-property owners under the age of 30? Well, hey, the Founding Fathers "wanted to limit the vote to males over 30 who owned property" because these "people had common interests, and from common interests sprang political consensus." Hooray! Well, Chuck, why don't you do us all a huge favor and shut up with the 30-year-old-Founding-Father-garbage. Why? It merely confuses the real issue.
Amazingly, Reese does stumble across the key problem in voting: "The more government does, the more it must spend, and the more it spends, the more it must tax, since that is ultimately the only source of government income." That is, government by definition takes property from property owners and redistributes it to non-property owners (or different property owners) on the basis of appeasing the mob of voters. The problem is the coercion of property owners, NOT the demographics of the voters. Play with the voting population all you want, you still are faced with this evil regime and its immoral consequences, namely coercion and theft.
In the meantime, if there must be a "voting process" and a "political consensus," limit it to ALL property owners, not some group advocated by a group of dead white guys! Besides the whole property rights issue (yes, 20 year olds have a right to control their person and property!), white people are just plain boring!
(And just for fun I'm going to start linking every post/argument back to the Founding Fathers. Don't ask why, it just seems like an effective rhetorical tool. Thanks. Oh, wait, a bunch of Idiots already do that!)
The best attempt yet might have been from Charlie Reason if he had not muddled the discussion of property rights with pointless banter about the Founding Fathers. Does Reese really think the State of California was hijacked by the mob rule of non-property owners under the age of 30? Well, hey, the Founding Fathers "wanted to limit the vote to males over 30 who owned property" because these "people had common interests, and from common interests sprang political consensus." Hooray! Well, Chuck, why don't you do us all a huge favor and shut up with the 30-year-old-Founding-Father-garbage. Why? It merely confuses the real issue.
Amazingly, Reese does stumble across the key problem in voting: "The more government does, the more it must spend, and the more it spends, the more it must tax, since that is ultimately the only source of government income." That is, government by definition takes property from property owners and redistributes it to non-property owners (or different property owners) on the basis of appeasing the mob of voters. The problem is the coercion of property owners, NOT the demographics of the voters. Play with the voting population all you want, you still are faced with this evil regime and its immoral consequences, namely coercion and theft.
In the meantime, if there must be a "voting process" and a "political consensus," limit it to ALL property owners, not some group advocated by a group of dead white guys! Besides the whole property rights issue (yes, 20 year olds have a right to control their person and property!), white people are just plain boring!
(And just for fun I'm going to start linking every post/argument back to the Founding Fathers. Don't ask why, it just seems like an effective rhetorical tool. Thanks. Oh, wait, a bunch of Idiots already do that!)
Unknown @ 10:35 PM
Permalink
<< Home