It's true! There is not a single election that has ever required winners and losers. Every politician who runs for office can win any given election, and be replaced at any time the public disapproves of the job they are doing. How is this so?
Like everything else in social relations, voluntary interaction is superior to force. Those who want to follow Barack Obama, and let him decide what they will do, should be free to do so. If you want to follow Mitt Romney, and let him make your decisions for you, by all means, do as he says... but you're not permitted to force others to do the same, as such a use of force would clearly be considered a crime in a free society. Only defensive force is legitimate in a free society. If you want to follow Ron Paul, you are probably a hypocrite... (just a little joke to my fellow libertarians, as most of us would rather not have any "leaders").
I believe, despite what many libertarians and anarchists say, there will never be a society totally without leaders. Anyone who engages in any kind of education at all has leaders, and learning is a never ending thing in human existence. In a voluntary society, those with the most followers are those whom society choose to follow. In a society governed by the state, the majority are forced to obey those who have the most support during the election process. That George W. Bush's approval rating went literally to single digits had no impact as to whether or not he was to continue in his role as "our" leader. In a voluntary society, nobody would be forced to continue obeying the commands of a leader whom they lost respect for.
If there is a group who wants to follow Barack Obama and his staff, and have a healthcare system based on his allegedly wise instruction, they should be free to. If there is another group who wants to follow the medical wisdom of someone like Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, or Ron Paul, they should be free to do so... Voluntary obedience allows everyone to get what they want. Who knows, it just might be that trying multiple ideas at once would be a great strategy for society to determine the most positive course of action.
After all, a population the size of the United States' is bound to come up with great numbers of supporters for multiple candidates for any national office, especially the presidency. But who really has the right to say "everyone must follow the Santorum plan of action"? Or any other plan of action for that matter. Nobody does. If I choose to follow X, it can be deduced that I like and support the ideas of X. The same can be said for every other individual in the world... being free to choose allows us all to get what we want. Your candidate, or maybe even you, will never lose an election again. Want to jump into the race? Start spreading a message and plan of action and see if you get voted in... Just imagine the endless ideas that society could benefit from if only we were free to choose for ourselves, rather than fighting with each other... (and by the way, when the aim is to get someone with the power to make everyone's decisions, the fighting will never stop... it is inevitible that 330,000,000 people will not have a consensus on who leads, and as you may have read in my earlier blog, forcing others always means literally attacking the lives of others).
I will leave the reader with something to ponder. If obedience is based on force, how good is the leader? What kind of virtues do leaders who have to get obedience by forcing imprisonment really have? If our election process were based on voluntary interactions, isn't it at least plausible that the leaders to choose from would have more virtue, more value to offer? In politics, there is no need to debate things such as "Obama's qualities versus Perry's qualities" or whatever combination... but only to say, I should be free to follow whom I choose, and you should be free to follow whom you choose, and nobody should have the right to force anyone to follow anybody they don't freely choose.
No comments:
Post a Comment