Thursday, February 25, 2010

The Good Doctor: My present inclination is to vote for the Conservative Party

Dr Sean Gabb puts forward this ...ahem... challenging viewpoint, in his latest think piece:

=> The 2010 General Election: Advice on How to Vote, By Sean Gabb

Personally, I think it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever, whether we vote in any state election, except that if you do vote for one particular Mafia leader over another, to chair the London Crime Commission for a while, then you legitimise the authority of said Crime Commission to rule over your life and to extract protection payments from you to fund this 'benevolent' rule.

If Dr Gabb thinks that the only benefit of voting Conservative is that they will allow us to vote again in the future (i.e. you legitimise them so they can continue giving you something you don't want, which is worthless), then I would rather vote Labour.

Because if he is right (and I suspect that he is), and the leftists in this country gerrymander a situation where it is impossible to get rid of them, even in the terms of democracy, then the ruins of democracy will crashing come down even sooner, as people realise the sham and stupidity of democracy.

Did the people of the Soviet Union and Iraq, in their 100% turnout elections, with only one candidate, actually think they were participating in something that had any genuine merit?

I wouldn't have thought so. And as the Soviet Union eventually collapsed when this sham could no longer motivate anyone to support this monstrosity, especially when the Soviet Union lost the nerve to shoot people for daring to dissent their system, then roll on the collapse of democracy in England, when nobody bothers voting (unless directed to the polling booth by an armed policeman) because there's absolutely no point.

So here I have to disagree with the Good Doctor, which hurts a little, as Professor Hoppe has instructed me, to my face, that I must help the Good Doctor whenever I am able.

Unfortunately, on this occasion, I am unable to support him. As Her Blessedness almost said once, 'You vote if you want to, this anarcho-capitalist is not for turning'.

I wonder what Professor Hoppe thinks?

10 comments:

Gekko said...

I'm sure Professor Hoppe thinks you are the most incorrigible name dropper ;) Marvellous stuff as always

Archie Dean said...

"If Dr Gabb thinks that the only benefit of voting Conservative is that they will allow us to vote again in the future (i.e. you legitimise them so they can continue giving you something you don't want, which is worthless), then I would rather vote Labour".

A very piquant observation if I may say so, and one that the 'Good Doctor' surely deserves to made aware of!!

The difference of opinion though as with the article itself, is no real surprise. I have the impression that Dr Gabb still believes in the efficacy of the current political system - it's just that it's been hijacked by some bad guys. All we have to do is somehow 'take it back', but limit the damage in the meantime.

I, on the other hand (and you?) are anti-politics, full stop. In brief, 'Democracy' doesn't work and the time has come to look for possible alternatives.

I was rather of the view that the venerable Professor Hoppe takes the latter of the above stated views - I gather you've met him - so perhaps you could confirm this :-) - and would almost certainly prefer to have a rusty nails hammered through each of his testicles rather than endorse the 'Democratic' political method and vote for a Cameron or any other politician for that matter.

Perhaps HHH got confused on that balmy night on the Adriatic, because from where I sit, he should have been telling Dr Gabb to lend his assistance 'to that newby fellow - ah yes, Herr Maturin'

AD

Jack Maturin said...

I'm sure Professor Hoppe thinks you are the most incorrigible name dropper

Yes, Boris Johnson said this once to me too, when we had breakfast together at 5am in the pub in Ewelme, after his first election victory as MP for Henley. The eggs were marvellous, by the way, as was the beer.

Perhaps HHH got confused on that balmy night on the Adriatic, because from where I sit, he should have been telling Dr Gabb to lend his assistance 'to that newby fellow - ah yes, Herr Maturin'

Ah, you see, but here's the difference between me and Doctor Gabb. You could give him a sentence on any subject under the sun, let's say "Explain the Breakdown of the Holy Roman Empire", or "Tell us why drink driving laws are a statist outrage", and he would be able to deliver you a coherent 1 hour lecture, within about 15 seconds, from scratch, and with extensively researched footnotes, whereas I would say:

"Fuck the bastards. Let's man the barricades. And to hell with the consequences. Twats."

Now you may think this the more 'romantic' position, but we are going to win this thing, eventually, through educated ideas, not directly through incoherent action. And Doctor Gabb is able to deeply process such ideas coherently (which is why Professor Hoppe likes him so much, probably), whereas I am merely more of an aspiring magpie, with the surface processing ability of an indecently educated amoeba. You've got to remember that I spent my formative years within a comprehensive, as a socialist, so my thinking is still extremely confused, and lacks coherence and individualist strength, and I still am a 'follower' rather than a 'leader', whereas Sean is a 'leader', able to back his own opinions with his own thoughts and ideas. Yes, he's wrong about voting. But at least he came up with this opinion by himself. Whereas I would read what Professor Hoppe thought, and then adopt this position myself. Which is pathetic, really, but no less true for all that.

Unfortunately, I think the idea of 'England' still has a certain pull to the Good Doctor, and history, and Shakespeare, and Dr Johnson, and the Glorious bloodless revolution of 1688, which no longer pulls me. (If anything, I think I'm really an American (circa 1773), under the skin, and I'd be happy to live in an independent Texas.) But I think he'll come round in the end to the fully principled position of anarcho-capitalism, which is tolerant of short-term pain to overcome long-term problems.

Especially if, as is likely, the Tories get in again and are such a dreadful shower that he finally manages to break his umbilical link to them.

But does England matter, anyway? The future will come from a seceding American state, or Estonia, or Singapore, or Hong Kong, or some other unpredictable small entity. It's highly unlikely to spring from the moribund debt-ridden socialist mound of England, a land filled with 59 million people who want to live off the backs of other people and the other million who would like to leave but who are stuck, for one reason or another.

No, I think we can forgive Sean the odd aberration while he finally comes round to becoming a full-blooded Hoppeian.

But come on Sean, voting Tory? You really do have to be joking.

Anonymous said...

Another four years of Brown, another four years of Cameron? Does it really matter?

This country has been well and truly trashed and will not come out of this mess by simply doing the same thing again.

Oil revenues falling, gas revenues falling, manufacturing falling, financial services in a mess. What's left?

Will more of Brown deliver us? Will Cameron deliver us? And to what will they deliver us?

Vote Conservative and you signify agreement with their "policies^. No matter that you might not, the voting slip permits only a cross in the box, so you vote yes or no.

Stay at home and you get included in the statistics which will include the loafers in society who just can't be bothered, and the politicians will represent you as exactly that.

No matter that you have higher ideals, nobody will notice let alone care and you will do nothing, yes nothing, to further your cause and this rotten system will continue to roll forward, gathering momentum as it goes.

Gabb, in spite of his eloquence is not always right and this is a particular instance. He may vote Conservative if he likes and get lost in the supposed "yes" votes for Cameron, I for one will not follow.

On the other hand the mobilisation of the "stop at home" vote in voting for either BNP or UKIP, depending on their particular preference, will make a difference.

A vote for the BNP will shock particularly the left, into a change of direction and a vote for UKIP will stop this deadly drift to the left currently seen in the Conservatives.

You may not change the system, and I suggest you will not do that anyway, but you will make a good number of people sit up and take notice.

And if the "stay at home" vote is not ready to come out in force this time then we will wait for the next time round because it will happen, if not sooner then later.

In the meantime we are well and truly buggered and we may just as well resign ourselves to that fact.

Sean Gabb said...

Of course, if you believe the system has reached the point where internal improvement is a dream, there is no point whatever in voting. This may be the case. However, I do suspect that some kind of recovery is possible so long as the election after next is not entirely stitched up.

I only said I was proposing to vote Conservative. I am still considering the matter.

Sean Gabb said...

Yes, England DOES matte1r

Jack Maturin said...

Stay at home and you get included in the statistics which will include the loafers in society who just can't be bothered, and the politicians will represent you as exactly that.

They will try to represent people as whatever they want, but they'll get more and more nervous the more people don't vote for them. Politicians need voters. If they don't get any, they expire.

Can you imagine a situation in which absolutely nobody but the client state votes? Long before then they will introduce compulsory voting, just like the Soviets did, to let themselves pretend that we still care about them, but when they do this, we will know that we are on the road to victory against them. Yes, it will be a long road, but did anyone in the 1970s think the Soviet Union was 20 years away from a total collapse? It could come quicker than we think.

continues...

Jack Maturin said...

No matter that you have higher ideals, nobody will notice let alone care and you will do nothing, yes nothing, to further your cause and this rotten system will continue to roll forward, gathering momentum as it goes.

Oh dear, they've really got you sucked into the system, haven't they, Anonymous? Vote for the lizard or the lizard gets in. This system isn't gathering momentum. This system is collapsing, and long may it collapse until we are free of it. And ultimate freedom will not come until we shake off their lies that voting is anything other than a beauty contest of which particular Mafia Boss we want to sit at the head of the Crime Commission's table.

A vote for the BNP will shock particularly the left, into a change of direction and a vote for UKIP will stop this deadly drift to the left currently seen in the Conservatives.

No it won't. The closer any party comes towards power the more corrupt and centrist it becomes, to acquire more power and pelf. If, for instance, UKIP was in a position to enter into a coalition with the Tories, to form a government, do you still think that this would make any difference to anything? All that would happen is that UKIP's higher officers would fall into the soft leather luxury of the government limousines and just become indistinguishable Animal Farm porcine troughers, just like the rest of them. If the BNP becomes a larger party, and even perhaps holds a pivotal point in a hung Parliament, with a crucial number of MPs, do you think the major parties would not stoop into entering into an agreement with them, including (and especially) the Labour Party? Do you really think the BNP would not also compromise its positions in order to get the limousine drivers turning up at their doors too? You may think I live in a fantasy land, Anonymous, but I really do think it's far less fantastical than yours.

Just look at the IRA, for instance. Years of tiny minority revolutionary spirit, and then as soon as the limousines were offered, they collapsed into them as grateful troughers, just like the rest.

continues...

Jack Maturin said...

You may not change the system, and I suggest you will not do that anyway, but you will make a good number of people sit up and take notice.

I don't want to change the system, Anonymous. I just don't want the system. The more I can leave the system, the better. If you seek to try to change the system all you will do is perpetuate it in a different form. This was the mistake of the Parliamentarians with Charles I. They created a revolution only to create a worse outcome than the original problem. And then it revolved again back to Charles II when everyone realised how bad a republic was. Revolutions of the system only mean that it spins around and around, never really changing underneath. We do not need a government. We do not need politicians. We should simply exclude them and try to secede from them and ignore them, and stop funding them and their grandiose plans, as safely and as non-violently as we can possibly manage.

The one thing we must never do is engage with them. Because to engage with them, is to join the same rotten game that they are involved in.

This battle will be won with ideology, and the spread of Truth and ideas. This does not have to be via the political system, because the closer any of us come to the political, the closer we come towards the temptations of corruption. And believe me, as someone who has been made serious offers of becoming both a Labour Party and Tory Party candidate for election as an MP, I have stepped as close to the brink as one needs to, to smell the rotten stench of corruption emanating from the political pig-pen of Westminster.

No, Anonymous, you carry on with the delusion that UKIP can actually achieve something, working within the 'system'.

Personally, I follow the Peter Schiff line, here, if I was still to hold any hope whatsoever for the political system. And that would be to get involved inside the Tory Party, and engineer a revolution from within it, with Hannan and Johnson as the leaders of this revolution. If I was political, that is what I would be doing. That route offers the most hope. The UKIP route is a blind that is successfully wasting the energy of everyone involved with it.

But what, really, is the point? There are simply too many in England who have swallowed the great lie that we can all live off the backs of everyone else, including those members of UKIP who have been milking their EU expenses, just like all the other parasites.

You vote for UKIP, then, Anonymous. Let's see if it makes the blindest bit of difference.

Jack Maturin said...

Of course, if you believe the system has reached the point where internal improvement is a dream, there is no point whatever in voting. This may be the case. However, I do suspect that some kind of recovery is possible so long as the election after next is not entirely stitched up.

It's already been stitched up. The British government is going to win.

I only said I was proposing to vote Conservative. I am still considering the matter.

:-)

Yes, England DOES matte1r

Of course England matters, but not in the sense that this is where the world recovery of freedom is going to spring from.

In its current condition it's hardly going to be the focal point of the change in the world that we desire, is it? Or at least it's not likely too.

I hope I'm wrong. In fact, I try to do whatever I can with the limited amount of ability and energy that I have available, to help with this process of steering us towards a point where we do become relevant again.

That includes the breakup of the UK, with Scotland, Wales, and Ireland becoming free from British involvement. It also involves expelling the US military from the UK, and removing ourselves from the EU.

But the socialist mindset in the UK is fairly thorough, far more so than many other parts of the world.

The liberty revolution will spring from where the ideas of freedom are greatest, or where secession has successfully taken place in a recent past, from an oppressive enemy. This may be England too in the future, if we can throw of the EU and US yoke, and split up the United Kingdom into its separate elements. Or if Hannan and Johnson can form a coalition to reform the Tory Party into a more freedom-based entity, fed by the spirit of Margaret Thatcher rather than the spirit of Tony Blair.

But for the moment? We're a sideshow.