I am outraged whenever I hear about how "X politician raised $150 million for his campaign yesterday" or how grassroots organizations contributed millions of dollars to some party or candidate. It is a total waste, for two reasons:
1) They will probably lose. How many dozen people ran for President, and only one won!
2) They won't keep their promises even if they win.
I remember hearing the analysts talking about how some left-wing organization representing low-income people gave millions to Hillary, because Hillary supposedly represented their interests. And she lost! That money would have been better spent on schools and homeless shelters and drug rehab for the poor people they were supposedly trying to help.
Likewise, various Zionist groups gave money to McCain, thinking he would support Israel as President. The only problem is, he is not supporting Israel from the White House; he lost. That money would have been better spent on gifts for the Israeli people. Food, synagogues, hospitals, bomb shelters, whatever.
I can just imagine what it will be like when various left-wing and right-wing groups realize this truth, and stop trying to manipulate the State to do their bidding. We would have more wealth, as money that was previously wasted on elections in invested in the private sector; more liberty, as federal politicians have less pressure and support from special interests compelling them to impose their retarded ideologies on society; and more independence, as the state is seen as less of a contributor and more of a parasite on society.
Some would argue, however, that their agenda depends on having an administration sympathetic to their goals, or not interfering. Gun-rights enthusiasts might make this claim. I would suggest that if they must have government policies favoring their agenda, they should try to affect it through litigation, public referenda, and electoral support for state and local leaders who will defy the feds, if necessary. Some mayors, for example, run "sanctuary cities" and refuse to enforce federal immigration policies. Supporting dissident leaders is much more cost-efficient than making somebody President.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
ama gi:1) They will probably lose.
That's probably true but a loss isn't always a loss. Ron Paul lost but he grew libertarianism how much? That being said Hillary and McCain did almost nothing for the causes they support.
ama gi: I would suggest that if they must have government policies favoring their agenda, they should try to affect it through litigation, public referenda, and electoral support for state and local leaders who will defy the feds, if necessary.
Keep in mind that these things are expensive too, the payoffs are less and the amplification of your actions (The RP Conversion Factor) are much less.
All I'm saying is that people undestand that these elections are expensive and do it anyway. It's not like the Zionist groups haven't heard your criticism before. That's why they buy both candidates. Expensive, but effective.
Poor people are a different story entirely. They just believe in the cult of personality. There's no way that's going to stop either as long as the government stands. Sure their money could be better spent but we won't find this out until AFTER libertarians win, not before.
First, the amount spent on elections may sound large, but it is a tiny amount in comparison to what the nation as a whole spends on silly things like soda or candy. And I'd say that an election puts more at stake than soda and candy.
Second, the money doesn't disappear, it goes to advertising agencies, TV networks, printers, etc. All these people are just as capable of spending that money on schools and homeless shelters.
Third, hey, it's their money.
They just passed an 850 billion dollar stimulus package and this is what outrages you? These are voluntary donations you are complaining about. (and before anyone brings up the government funds that go to elections, I already know. They weren't mentioned here). If people want to spend their money on stupid crap it's their business.
If it is illegal for me to hire someone to kill someone else, it should be illegal for these people to hire this gang of thieves to steal from others.
sirmonty:If it is illegal for me to hire someone to kill someone else, it should be illegal for these people to hire this gang of thieves to steal from others.
This analogy fails on many levels. Me donating money to a campaign is not analogous to hiring someone. Then you have the practicality problem. You can either choose to focus on the hundred million or so people donating money and voting for candidates or the (by comparison) relatively few people in government.
Stolz25: sirmonty:If it is illegal for me to hire someone to kill someone else, it should be illegal for these people to hire this gang of thieves to steal from others. This analogy fails on many levels. Me donating money to a campaign is not analogous to hiring someone. Then you have the practicality problem. You can either choose to focus on the hundred million or so people donating money and voting for candidates or the (by comparison) relatively few people in government.
It is analogous to you funding a criminal organization, unfortunately.
sirmonty:It is analogous to you funding a criminal organization, unfortunately.
No it isn't. Say all campaign money everywhere dried up, do you think that would stop elections or the government? The government doesn't depend on the campaign money, as it doesn't fund the criminal organization, it only helps people get into it.
Beyond that, it's a completely ridiculous stance to take. You're going to have enough resistance from people about anarchy without suggesting we prosecute anyone who has ever donated money to a campaign.
Stolz25: sirmonty:It is analogous to you funding a criminal organization, unfortunately. No it isn't. Say all campaign money everywhere dried up, do you think that would stop elections or the government? The government doesn't depend on the campaign money, as it doesn't fund the criminal organization, it only helps people get into it. Beyond that, it's a completely ridiculous stance to take. You're going to have enough resistance from people about anarchy without suggesting we prosecute anyone who has ever donated money to a campaign.
Who ever said anything about prosecution?
I was merely pointing out that it is the same as funding a criminal band of thieves.
As Mencken so observed: "government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."
sirmonty:Who ever said anything about prosecution? If it is illegal for me to hire someone to kill someone else, it should be illegal for these people to hire this gang of thieves to steal from others.
My fault, I guess I should have assumed you meant a non-prosecutable illegality, there are so many of those afterall.
You should have assumed that I meant that we shouldn't allow people to fund a band of thieves.
I said nothing about specifically prosecuting anyone who has ever given money to a campaign.
sirmonty: You should have assumed that I meant that we shouldn't allow people to fund a band of thieves.
And you plan to do that how? My point was this is a friviously stupid thing to waste time and energy on. If you convince people we shouldn't have campaigns without convincing them we shouldn't have government, you've done nothing. If you convince people we don't need government, then the campaigns are going away already.
*PEDANT ALERT* (me btw)
Stolz25: My point was this is a friviously stupid thing to waste time and energy on.
with respect, this is only your opinion. there can be no objective standard for this, if sirmonty or anyone else wants to spend thier time and money on it and thinks its worthwhile, then as Sirmonty or whoever wont be breaking NAP we can only have a gentlemanly disagreement with them over our different value scales.
-----------------------re-edit
This has become a Delete Worthy Post, that is staying for continuity.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK:with respect, this is only your opinion.
Of course it is. I'm sure he'll let me know if he agrees or disagrees with my assessment of why it's meaningless.
Stolz25: sirmonty: You should have assumed that I meant that we shouldn't allow people to fund a band of thieves. And you plan to do that how? My point was this is a friviously stupid thing to waste time and energy on. If you convince people we shouldn't have campaigns without convincing them we shouldn't have government, you've done nothing. If you convince people we don't need government, then the campaigns are going away already.
I don't see why one cannot point out that campaigns are funding criminal bands of thieves while trying to convince them that we shouldn't have the government cannot go hand in hand.
sirmonty:I don't see why one cannot point out that campaigns are funding criminal bands of thieves while trying to convince them that we shouldn't have the government cannot go hand in hand.
I didn't say you couldn't, I just said it's pointless. If you convince them government is a band of thieves you won't need to do any convincing that funding them is a bad idea.
Harksaw: First, the amount spent on elections may sound large, but it is a tiny amount in comparison to what the nation as a whole spends on silly things like soda or candy. And I'd say that an election puts more at stake than soda and candy. Second, the money doesn't disappear, it goes to advertising agencies, TV networks, printers, etc. All these people are just as capable of spending that money on schools and homeless shelters. Third, hey, it's their money.
First, if you look at the amount of money spent on Obama, Hillary, Edwards, Kucinich, McCain-Palin, Huckabee, Giuliani, Thomson, ad infinitum, you'll find it's more we spend on Pepsi and Coke in four years.
Secondly, I don't want the political class exercising economic power over (bribing) the major media outlets. That's why I cancelled TV service at my home.
Thirdly, people are voluntarily giving their money to these crooks. How outrageous!! I can understand people paying the IRS so they don't get harassed, but voluntarily supporting these dictators to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars is just crazy.
Stolz25:They just passed an 850 billion dollar stimulus package and this is what outrages you? These are voluntary donations you are complaining about.
I've already resigned myself to the fact that Washington is going to pad their men's pockets with my money. The fact that people are voluntarily propping them up is what drives me up the wall.
Stolz25:If people want to spend their money on stupid crap it's their busines
But it comes at the expense of my liberty.
sirmonty: Stolz25: sirmonty:If it is illegal for me to hire someone to kill someone else, it should be illegal for these people to hire this gang of thieves to steal from others. This analogy fails on many levels. Me donating money to a campaign is not analogous to hiring someone. Then you have the practicality problem. You can either choose to focus on the hundred million or so people donating money and voting for candidates or the (by comparison) relatively few people in government. It is analogous to you funding a criminal organization, unfortunately.
Not unless giving a birthday present to somebody who is in the Mafia is considered funding the mafia, no it isn't.
By the way, it's useless to talk about "funding the criminal organization", the state will get its funding one way or another.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
The vast of money raised for elections is voluntary. But are some of the rallies held for the two main US parties paid for out of the public purse? I am actually a UK resident so it's not something I'm up on, but I'm sure I heard something to that effect once, could anyone clarify?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap