Jeff Neal for C.U.R.E. - Certain Unalienable Rights Endowment

Election Review ’13

In Opinion on November 7, 2013 at 2:17 pm

McAuliffe beats Cuccinelli by a mere 55,200 votes (2.5% – 48% to 45.5%) and we are meant to conclude that Cuccinelli’s policies are horribly unpopular, and the GOP must reject everything he stands for if they wish to win another election.  Let’s ponder a couple questions that brings to mind.

1. What does that tell us about the policies of McAuliffe?  His policy objectives are supported by a only a slightly larger number of voters.  They are comprised of less than half of all voters and an even smaller portion of the population, all of whom will have to abide by the laws based upon those policy preferences.  Is that reasonable, in light of #2 below:

2. Are the people who voted for Cuccinelli obliged to take their candidate’s defeat as their cue to slither away in shame, maybe forfeit their right to vote or express their now ‘defeated’ opinion ever again, renounce their values and salute their new master?

The consequences of losing an election or of voting for the loser are not meant to be the same as being vanquished in a war, notwithstanding the triumphant victory speeches of Chris Christie and Terry McAuliffe. The law isn’t meant to dictate our lives or our values. Elections, politics, having so much importance in our day-to-day lives is the curse our time, a symptom of the evil inherent in any society where some men exert power over any individual.  It is not moral or just to coerce a man to act against his will or self interests, as determined in his sole and absolute discretion, so long as he does not infringe or deny the same rights of any other man.

There is a distinction between ruling and governing. Pursuant to the US Constitution and, more importantly, the laws of nature on which it is based, men are, as a matter of inalienable right, free and self-governed, ruled not by other men but by laws administered by a state apparatus whose sole legitimate purpose is to preserve our right to our life, liberty and property. Instead we live as mere subjects of a state with an incomprehensible code of conduct that enervates the spirit and stymies initiative under the guise and pretense of making life fair or leveling the playing field.

But only if you comply. If the life of a vanquished, dispensable serf does not appeal to you, then join me and say ENOUGH. Will you own your life or not?

  1. Ken Cuccinelli only lost by a few percentage points, but to a terrible Democratic opponent. He should not have lost, which is the point. He lost because his ideas were so repellant that people voted for a terrible Democratic candidate instead.

    It seems like you have all the freedoms you could ask for, you have been allowed to succeed and fail, what is it you think you have lost?

    • How long shall I make the list? Let’s start with a list of one.

      I can’t visit a doctor and be certain that I haven’t broken a law unless I read and comprehend 2000+ pages of legislation and 30,000+ pages of regulations (or pay someone else to read/comprehend them).

      Now, why does the list need to be any longer than one? How long is your list of things you want, that you own, that you’re happy to have taken from you against your will? And, even if your list is very, very long, first, if it’s a long list, it doesn’t really include anything that’s been done AGAINST your will, and second, why does that mean mine has to be equally long?

  2. I think they probably do. Is it possible, however, that your prejudices are overcoming your judgment?

    • I made a comment about having to do something or pay someone else to do something. You said you didn’t have to and now you say they do know all that stuff . . . you don’t think you paid them to know it?

      The post is not about my bias and your observation that I may have one is not germane or interesting. How about talking about something besides me?

      • None of that happened???

        This started by your analysis of the VA Governor’s election, where a terrible Democrat lost to an even more terrible Republican, and what you drew from this was that the Republicans should actual go more Tea Party, which is clearly what cost them an election they did not need to lose. This was very bad analysis, it was like nothing was learned from the Mitt Romney loss (another election Republicans had no business losing). You also rant about freedoms you have lost.

        When asked, you produced a very odd claim about your trip to the doctor. You specifically said…”I can’t visit a doctor and be certain that I haven’t broken a law…”

        Can you produce a dozen people who are now in jail because of a trip to the doctor because of these mysterious laws?

        The problem with your arguments (not you, which is a problem you seem to have) is that you are so over the top with them. You scream, and you get angry, but in the end, it’s all smoke and mirrors. Reading over your blog I cannot be sure that you are not a 13 year old trapped in a middle aged man’s body.

      • The argument I make in that blog post is that the government controls too much of our lives. Even if you disagree, why do you think it’s just to force me to agree with you and forfeit more of my life to the state? Why do you get to decide how much freedom is enough for me?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: