I absolutely agree with your sentiments, Sunni.

What is also interesting to me is that I just happened to visit the website of one of the Canadian "libertarian/anarchists" that I have a great deal of respect for - Pierre Lemieux. If you are not familiar with him, I'd encourage you to visit his website, http://pierrelemieux.org/ wnen you have time and read what he's written over the years.

I had the pleasure of first meeting Pierre about four years ago, and then two years ago, was honoured with his invitation to me to meet with some folk at a semi-formal luncheon he had organized to discuss freedom and strategies for accomplishing more freedom.

Meeting him in person drove home my own realization that one's projections upon the words authored by a person can be and probably are totally false - what I envisioned Pierre to be like in person after reading many of his works was totally different than what was reality.

Which is interesting and a side point to my comment - I've often found that after reading some Libertarians' and Anarchists' writings, I "expect" to find grizzled, hard, and unfeeling sorts of folk - but what I end up discovering are people not much unlike myself.. lol.. that smile as much as possible! :)

There are two people I have met after reading their work that surprised me in ways I can't describe after meeting them in person: Jay Jardine and Pierre Lemieux.

I wonder if Billy Beck might offer the same surprise!

In person, Jay Jardine is the most wonderful person one could ever want to meet! Well, maybe second to Pierre. Pierre is probably one of the most charming persons that I have ever known or met! His accent, "tainted" with his French speaking is cute, and his eyes twinkle. When you look at him, you'd never even think that this is a man that fights for freedom, fights authority, detests authority, or has any kind of anger towards anything that would claim authority over him.

Soft spoken, but very precise in his meanings and words he uses. And an awesome thinker.

So, it was a bit of a surprise for me to visit his his site today, and see on the front page:

"June 5, 2007 – Is there one politician in the world for whom an individual concerned with our liberties (or what's left of them) would want to vote? Perhaps there is. If you live in the U.S., vote for Ron Paul in the upcoming presidential election. Check also this video."

Perhaps he just means if "you're inclined to vote, then here is a person to vote for." I don't know. I myself know that there have been times where I've had discussions with folks about voting, and I've said, "Ok, well, I won't be voting, but if you really want to think you have made a difference, somehow, and think of voting as a method of expressing your own individual thoughts, then.. well.. here's who I'd recommend - the person that seems to offer the least as far as control, and the most for your liberty."

But I'm with you on this. I won't vote, I refuse to participate in such a stupid excercise, that today, by it's very nature only goes to supporting majority mob rule over the minority and generally, has nothing to do with inherent rights.

On the other hand... knowing my own "progression," I would have liked to have voted for someone like Ron Paul in my own "riding," (as we call it here in Canada).

Some folk still find the "need" to vote. For whatever reason that is. I don't encourage it, but from my own experience, I recognize that at one point, I felt that same "need" as well.

For those who have said for years, that they will not participate in some silly "democratic" process, I agree - it's stupid and idiotic for them to suddenly do so.

On the other hand, if I'm talking with somone who, regardless of being able to grasp the silliness of it yet, and want my advice for something they are going to do anyway, I'll tell them that I won't do it - but if they think it will make a difference, to vote for the local candidate that is the most libertarian or "anti-establishment" (as opposed to claims of 'pro-freedom').

I guess, if I were an American, I'd be saying, "If you really must vote, then I'd prefer you vote for Ron Paul than a George Bush or an Al Gore or a Clinton. If you really must vote, and wonder what my thoughts are based on your feelings of need to vote."

I guess it's kind of like...

"If you really feel the need to do drugs, then I'd suggest you try to stick with pot.. or nicotine.. or naturally occuring yeast that makes wine and other wonderful liquids than go out and do acid."

False analogy, I know.

Pragmatically speaking, without having the ability to tell the future, I _think_ if it came down to it, I'd prefer a Ron Paul in the Whitehouse than a George Bush or a Clinton. That's not to say I'd APPROVE of a Ron Paul either, though.

It's also not to say that should that ever occur, that Ron Paul would have my personal rating or "choice" - but for folk who are interested in voting, and the person that might end up being there after a vote is one that will make my job easier as far as my freedom ventures go - I can't exactly say I'd oppose that absolutely. It would be like "a small baby step" for others on their way to realizing greater freedom and understanding of what freedom is.

It's not even like I would be wanting to put my own support behind someone. It's more like, if councilling someone, and saying, "Look, if you MUST do this... and that's your choice to do something or other, and you want my advice on this, then I'd suggest sipping 80 proof instead of 150 proof. I myself don't want 80 proof government and won't do anything at all to try to bring it about; I've gone beyond that now. But you.. if you are still addicted.. well.. here's an option for you."

But of course, at the same time, I'd still say: "Even 80 or 40 proof or 20 proof or 10 proof statism is not freedom."

And I'll tell them why I refuse to participate in silly so called "democractic" excercises.

Student Of All, Disciple Of None
http://ianism.com