Why are all the major cities in America mostly Democrat, while the suburbs (and outlying countryside) Conservative?

I was asked this today and I have a very simple answer…..

Because the more people you have, especially in a smaller confined area like a city, the greater the chance of oligarchic collectivism. This puts government more in control, which makes political connections matter more for/than actually getting things done. Decentralizing the population leads to less government control, which means people doing things for themselves and cooperating with neighbors to make things happen rather than sitting back & waiting for some government agency or official to ‘help’. Democrats want government control of most everything, Republicans less so, Libertarians least so. “Major cities” are full of self-aggrandizing big-government advocates who gain power by handing out government goodies (welfare, free health care, free food, etc, etc) to the leeches they call their constituents, at the expense of the taxpayers unfortunate enough to live, work or run businesses within their jurisdiction. Conservatives, for the most part, choose to escape the burden of taxation without representation.

Bookmark and Share This Entry

Whenever I speak of forcible resistance against “government,” some people respond with things like, “How can you be for violence?” And almost everyone who says that is both delusional and hypocritical.

I admit, compared to almost everyone else, my political views are very extreme. For example, I don’t advocate that anyone ever be forced to fund something that they don’t want to fund. I don’t support robbery, even when the stolen loot is to be used for something supposedly noble or beneficial. No Democrat or Republican can honestly say that. Though they differ on how the politicians should spend the loot, every single one of them advocates that I be robbed, under threat of violence, to pay for things that I don’t want. And, of course, they also advocate that you be robbed to pay for things that you don’t want.

I don’t. Ain’t I extreme?

The trouble is, even though every Republican and Democrat advocates the initiation of violence against millions of people who haven’t harmed anyone, the way people see reality is so warped by the “authority” myth that they can’t see that what they advocate is coercion. They think that calling it “law” or “taxation” somehow makes it legitimate and disqualifies it as violence. And yet they know that anyone who doesn’t pay the federal Mafia’s extortion fees will be punished, with either extra robbery or imprisonment (or death if they continue to resist). It’s not that they are unaware of the violence behind all “laws”; it’s that they think it automatically righteous when “government” does it, and so they don’t call it violence.

The most bizarre example is the people who say, “I abhor violence, so I’m for gun control.” Oh, really? And how, exactly, will this “gun control” be imposed? By friendly suggestion? By rational argument? By a group hug? Or by men with guns forcibly disarming the general public? “Gun control” is violence. Even worse, it is the initiation of violence against people whose only sin is having the ability to defend themselves. And using violence against someone merely because that person possessed the means to protect himself is violent, evil, hypocritical and insane.

And such lunacy is the direct result of the belief in “authority.” If, for example, a burglar broke into someone’s house, and the homeowner pulled out a knife and threatened to attack the crook if he didn’t leave, how would most people judge that? Most would obviously see the invader as the bad guy, and the guy trying to chase him away as the good guy. But if the burglar happens to be called a “tax collector,” and tries to forcibly rob someone, and his intended victim resists, nearly everyone would loudly condemn the victim of the extortion as being a nasty, “violent” criminal.

That is why, when I say that using force to defend against those who initiate violence–even when that violence is called “law” or “taxes,” and even when the attackers call themselves “government” or “law-enforcement”–most people view me as the violent one. This is because almost everyone truly believes that when you make an actual crime (trespassing, robbery, extortion, assault, kidnapping, murder, etc.) “legal,” it ceases to be a crime. They further believe that resisting a crime, when the crime has been “legalized,” is a horrible thing to do.

Almost everyone in this country advocates constant, widespread violence, but they are too deluded to know it. Often the violence is fairly hidden, because the mere threat of authoritarian retaliation (for not paying “taxes,” for building something without a “permit,” for possessing an “illegal” weapon or an “illegal” substance, and so on) is often enough to coerce compliance. In those cases, statists can pretend that people obey “voluntarily,” though that makes about as much sense as saying that someone “voluntarily” gave his car to a carjacker, in order to avoid being shot. But even when the government violence is overt and bloody, as with the “war on drugs,” or foreign wars, or even some traffic stops these days, statists are still unable to see that what they are advocating is BRUTAL, BLOODY VIOLENCE. Worse yet, when I suggest that it would be justified to use whatever force it takes to stop such aggressive force, the statists see me as the “violent” one.

To illustrate this hypocrisy, I like to make the following offer, to anyone and everyone who considers himself peaceful and civilized: “I will never initiate violence against you myself, nor advocate that anyone else do so.” When I ask if someone will do the same for me, he always says “yes.” And almost no one who says that means it, as a simple follow-up question easily illustrates: “So you don’t advocate that I be forced, via ‘taxes,’ to fund anything that I don’t want to fund?” That’s when they start to backpedal, make excuses, start to use vague euphemisms about one’s “fair share,” and so on. “Okay, so you won’t promise to refrain from advocating the initiation of violence against me. That’s good to know.”

Here is a very simple principle that almost everyone understands:

“Don’t ever start a fight, but if someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself.” And yet, because of the cult belief in “government,” that simple rule sometimes turns completely upside down: “It’s okay to start a fight with everyone in the country (via ‘taxes’ and other ‘laws’), and okay to violently crush anyone who tries to defend himself against your attack.” Well, if such lunacy is considered to be an acceptable, civilized, mainstream attitude–which it is in this country, and throughout most of the world—then I’m happy to be “extreme.”

http://www.larkenrose.com

Bookmark and Share This Entry

$69 Billion: The amount of new disposable income President Bush’s tax cuts provided to American households in 2002.

35-40 Percent: The average portion of their earnings Americans pay out each year in taxes.

$1,040: The average tax increase if President Bush’s tax cuts expire.

104 Million: The number of Americans who will be hit with tax increases if President Bush’s tax cuts expire.

$350 Billion: The amount of tax relief already promised to the American people that Ted Kennedy alone wants to revoke. Instead of going back to taxpayers, this money will be poured into new Big Government spending sprees such as government-run medicine and new welfare handouts. Hillary Clinton and others are also pushing to defeat President Bush’s new proposed tax cuts.

25 Percent: The number of small businesses — one out of every four — that will be forced out of business if the Death Tax is reinstated. Remember: The Death Tax is the leading cause of the termination of successful small businesses in America.

$1,928: The tax hike faced by a family of four making $46,756 if President Bush’s cuts in income tax rates are not made permanent.

43 Percent: The percentage of married couples affected by the Marriage Penalty before it was reduced by President Bush. These families will be hit hard once again if the Marriage Penalty is reinstated.

$1,480: The average penalty in 2000 for couples punished by the Marriage Penalty.

13 Million: The number of American seniors who will see their taxes reduced by an average of $920 if President Bush’s tax cuts are made permanent

Bookmark and Share This Entry

First let us postulate that computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better than human beings can do them. In that case presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort will be necessary. Either of two cases might occur. The machines might be permitted to make all of their own decisions without human oversight, or else human control over the machines might be retained.

If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can’t make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all the power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines’ decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won’t be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.

On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite – just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem.” Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they will most certainly not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.

Bookmark and Share This Entry

http://www.carolinajournal.com/jhdailyjournal/display_jhdailyjournal.html?id=4675

There is a famous saying that when the only tool you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail. For politicians, bureaucrats, and many activists when the only tool they have is coercion the cause of every problem looks like too much freedom. And make no mistake; if you are committed to accomplishing your social goals by using government power, then, by definition, your only tool is the hammer of coercion.

As George Washington pointed out in his second inaugural address: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.” And when people choose to use government to accomplish their goals they are choosing to use force, not reason and certainly not eloquence.

Even in America, a country founded on the principle of freedom, when peaceful means fail people have always turned to the coercive powers of the state to get others to change their behavior. Slavery and later Jim Crow laws had their roots in just such a mentality. So did the military draft, compulsory school attendance laws, prohibition, anti-smoking and anti-drug laws, minimum wage laws, price control laws, anti-sodomy laws, and anti-cohabitation laws. In each of these cases a social or economic “problem” of some kind was defined, often erroneously, which is probably why reason failed, and the root cause of the problem was identified as too much freedom.

True to form, governments at all levels in North Carolina are affirming George Washington’s observation. The latest example is the city of Raleigh’s approach to solving its water shortage problems. If a local grocery store’s produce department runs out of oranges or its deli experiences a shortage of roast beef, it doesn’t blame its customer for having too much freedom to purchase fruit and meat. It simply finds a way to accommodate that freedom and to meet the demand.

The city of Raleigh, because of a complete government failure to plan for the needs of its citizens, finds itself running short of water, one of only a handful of goods, relative to a grocery store, that it is charged with supplying to its customers. Its response is to blame its customers for having too much freedom — freedom to water their lawns, freedom to wash their cars, freedom to power-wash their homes, and now the freedom to enjoy the conveniences of a garbage disposal. Instead of city politicians asking themselves “how can we accommodate our citizens’ free choices,” as the grocery store would, they immediately blame the problem on those freedoms. This is their nail, and their solution is the hammer of force. No surprise to our first president.

City and local transportation planners have for years been faced with having to deal with traffic congestion problems in and around North Carolina’s larger cities. Traffic congestion is very much like the water shortage problem. In this case it is a shortage of road space. And like Raleigh’s water shortage problem, this is an example of massive government failure in its ability to service adequately the free choices made by citizens with regard to their transportation needs. And, like the water shortage, the cause of the problem is, of course, too much freedom. With respect to traffic congestion, the wielders of force are convinced that people are exercising too much freedom in using their cars. And, instead of better managing the supply of roads, they have adopted a policy known as “transportation demand management,” which is a euphemism for managing what would otherwise be people’s freely made choices. According to the North Carolina Department of Transportation:

“Transportation demand management (TDM) is…intended to encourage the use of alternatives to driving alone, increasing the efficiency of the transportation system by focusing on travel demand instead of supply. Most TDM strategies deal with the modification of travel behaviors…” (Emphasis added.) (pdf link)

This primarily means forcing people out of their cars, either directly or through artificial incentives, and onto public transportation. But this is feasible only when living densities are high, so not only does freedom to make transportation decisions need to be “modified,” but so also does freedom to choose living arrangements. Along with transportation demand management comes “housing demand management” and “land use demand management.”

In order to accommodate public transportation systems and to discourage driving, the plans include new zoning laws that attempt to cram people into congested living arrangements, with dozens of housing units per acre, in order to solve a problem of congested roads. As the DOT bureaucrats in Raleigh candidly acknowledge, the “vision extends far beyond public transportation. It embraces notions of how we want to live in the 21st Century and what we want our neighborhoods and communities to become.” (Emphasis added.) It is quite clear that the “we” being referred to is not individual citizens and families. It is instead the paternalistic “we” of bureaucrats and government planners.

In terms of the current public policy debate, probably the most pernicious example of George Washington’s dictum is the 56 policy proposals that have been offered up by North Carolina’s Climate Action Plan Advisory Group (CAPAG). The entire purpose of CAPAG was to find ways in which the citizens of the state could be forced to modify their behavior in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

While there are competing theories regarding the causes of global warming (for example see research by Duke physicist Niccola Scapatta and Bruce West), CAPAG was not allowed even to discuss any of them or to consult with the scientists advocating them. This would be important because other theories, such as those related to natural climate variation, would not imply coercive restrictions on people’s freedom.

In other words, the only theory of global warming they were willing to consider was the one that has freedom as the culprit. It is important to note that everything humans do, including breathing, emits carbon dioxide. The implication then was that all actions taken by North Carolina citizens were up for scrutiny and possible coercive control. The proposals are consistent with the mindset of coercion. They include, but are not limited to, restrictions on people’s freedom to choose the kinds of cars they can drive, the kind of fuel they can use to heat and light their homes, the kind of auto insurance they are allowed to buy, the lot size they can use to build a house, the size of the house they build, and the kinds of appliances they can purchase.

The interesting — and undisputed — fact is that these restrictions will not result in an overall reduction in global temperatures, even if the whole world adopts them. Yet CAPAG refused to take this into consideration during its deliberations. This fact was and is known to those who controlled the CAPAG process and devised all of the policy proposals.

The unfortunate implication is that these proposals are not really about global warming but are, instead, an exercise that could be called appropriately “lifestyle imperialism.” Like laws against homosexuality or gambling, they are, in fact, an attempt to legislate morality.

Given the principles behind the founding of the United States, policymakers need to view individual freedom as a moral imperative. They should first realize that it is not the fundamental role of the state to solve all conceivable problems but to protect liberty. To the extent that the state takes on a problem-solving role or the role of providing certain goods and services, the question that decision makers should ask themselves continuously is “how can we conduct our business and solve collective problems, without limiting people’s freedom to live their lives the way they see fit?” Instead, it is quite clear that for many if not most bureaucrats and policymakers, the first question asked is not how can we accomplish our objective while accommodating freedom but what freedoms can we get away with limiting. 

Bookmark and Share This Entry