There is nothing inherently wrong with even a majority of citizens not voting. A case could
be made that it shows a very healthy society, one where the differences amongst
potential politicians is so minor that these non-voters are willing to accept the outcome not
totally to their liking, but realize that the difference comes down to tomayto and tomahto.
People who argue that everyone should be politically engaged are professing Marxist
thought. For it is he that put forth he idea that everyone must be engaged in politics.
With the huge complexity of America it in fact becomes impossible for all people to
personally informed, engaged and ready to vote on every issue. What makes America
great is that no one has to be into anything, yet whatever you're into is fine. If you are a
politics maven, or even activist, go for it. If you are merely a sports fanatic then have at
that, knowing intuitively that it's a human right to be into what you're into and not
bothering anyone not into it.
Thus in America especially and to a lesser degree elsewhere in Western culture these two
people can meet at work or play interact peacefully and then go about their interests
elsewhere, unmolested by anyone.
In countries where domestic dissonance leads to violent insurrection or repression whether
random, atomized or coherently organized it is always where government and leaders
think everyone should be involved in the same thing, to recommend other pursuits for
other reasons is non-comformist, hence subversive and threatening to the Glory of God
and the State. These non-conformists either make a beeline for American or become
domestic dissidents.
In America domestic violent insurrectionists, and there aren't many, always have a leader
who thinks he knows what's best for everyone else. At least those that he favors, because
there is usually some groups of people whom he disfavors. He is no different in thought
than the despots who have siezed power in other lands. He just has no chance of success
here.
be made that it shows a very healthy society, one where the differences amongst
potential politicians is so minor that these non-voters are willing to accept the outcome not
totally to their liking, but realize that the difference comes down to tomayto and tomahto.
People who argue that everyone should be politically engaged are professing Marxist
thought. For it is he that put forth he idea that everyone must be engaged in politics.
With the huge complexity of America it in fact becomes impossible for all people to
personally informed, engaged and ready to vote on every issue. What makes America
great is that no one has to be into anything, yet whatever you're into is fine. If you are a
politics maven, or even activist, go for it. If you are merely a sports fanatic then have at
that, knowing intuitively that it's a human right to be into what you're into and not
bothering anyone not into it.
Thus in America especially and to a lesser degree elsewhere in Western culture these two
people can meet at work or play interact peacefully and then go about their interests
elsewhere, unmolested by anyone.
In countries where domestic dissonance leads to violent insurrection or repression whether
random, atomized or coherently organized it is always where government and leaders
think everyone should be involved in the same thing, to recommend other pursuits for
other reasons is non-comformist, hence subversive and threatening to the Glory of God
and the State. These non-conformists either make a beeline for American or become
domestic dissidents.
In America domestic violent insurrectionists, and there aren't many, always have a leader
who thinks he knows what's best for everyone else. At least those that he favors, because
there is usually some groups of people whom he disfavors. He is no different in thought
than the despots who have siezed power in other lands. He just has no chance of success
here.
| The Right to Not Vote |
| Jim Hlavac |
| Poltics Re-explained |
