It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


3, 2, 1 and the POTUS is ...

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 11:44 PM
Dependent on which candidate is named there will be those who celebrate and those who’ll shake their heads, kick the floor and think, “Aw, we didn’t win. Boo hoo.”

Okay, I doubt that I’ll come across those exact words after the election, but I anticipate there will be high-pitched responses from those on the side of the losing candidate. As for the winning candidate’s crowd I anticipate there will be a showing of big L’s across the foreheads of the winners to remind the losers, “the will of the people has spoken—our people, and you lose.”

It’s interesting how an election cycle not only produces a winning & losing candidate, but also a winning & losing segment of society. “Candidate X was defeated” is roughly as far as the narrative goes (i.e. "This political segment of the electorate lost" is not a main talking point in political outcomes). Following this win-loss outcome the entire political process seemingly becomes reinvigorated by a transfusion of new blood (maybe Superman’s blood?) into the Executive system. Wait, watch, and see: it’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s the MSM & paid-for intelligentsia offering the secular equivalent of, “Your sins have been forgiven, my son. Now go forth, be fruitful and multiply.” And everyone ought to feel good too because our democratic process worked: it produced winners and it produced losers, literally.

There are of course less desirable structures than that which a democracy provides. I’m thinking about those who are nomenklatura (, specifically. It is this pernicious crowd that worries me most, if only because their likeness can assume more forms than the villainous Mystique. But notwithstanding the ad hoc revisionism which accompanies that crowd’s basis for societal structure I’m actually beginning to feel a bit more optimistic that the future may not be intersecting to one central authority. Moreover, I think President Obama’s recent “noise” trope as applied to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s red line is an appropriate metaphor to describe the “noise” occurring around the world. See to get an idea about the noise going around—a noise that might just evolve into a thundering clap.

In a roundabout way I’m getting to the form of extremism that I endorse. Here, check this out—it’s the craziest thing you’ve ever heard about. It’s so extreme that a new word is needed to emphasize the insane degree of extremism that my extremism endorses: the principle of nonaggression (includes critical reviews as well:

Whoa! Is that extreme or what!? That’s just crazy talk!! How in the heck will a democracy work if everyone adheres to the principle of nonaggression!? How in the heck will I defend myself if I sideline pre-emptive aggression!? How in the heck will I get paid if I don’t expropriate from others & secure legislation to advance my special interests!? How in the heck will I make a better world if I don't employ force to make the world a better place!? Sheer madness!

Ah, finally, the the snarky rant comes out! But on a more light note I want to suggest that there are means (call it norms) by which a people may adhere to the principle of nonaggression and thrive. Furthermore, means and thrive largely become individual responsibilities for a society that embraces NAP as their premier principle. (Side note: see for an abundance of material that made the case for NAP long before my arrival.) Unfortunately for some, however, the tradeoff to the decentralization of authority is an umbilical cord that the some oppose ... for any number of reasons. In any case I’m not suggesting that a utopian NAP society would magically rid the outcome of winners and losers, producing only winners. If you’re of a more secular slant then you probably recognize that there are winners and losers in nature; if you’re of a more spiritual slant then perhaps you metaphysically interpret winners from losers. However one chooses to interpret winning and losing it ought to be recognized that such interpretation in the areas of human action reduces to individual preferences. But to illustrate natural commonness as distinguished from preference I will claim that it is collectively reasonable to say “murder is wrong,” but that to collectively say “a tariff is good” is a murky claim. Why is murder wrong? I know of no one who will claim to benefit as the recipient of murder, to include those whose well-being may be dependent upon the victim of murder—with very few and unusual exceptions. If nothing else, who will argue against not being murdered but in instances of prolonged suffering or bizarre circumstances? And what about a tariff—what institutional structure enforces such a mandate? Why does the institutional structure enforce such a mandate? And how does such an institutional structure enforce such a mandate? Here is the summarized version: who, why, and how? Embedded within the answers to the murky claim that "a tarriff is good" are winners and losers, along with coercion that, taken to the fundamental extreme, could result in an institution's violent action despite that a loser had not acted out with aggression, yet failed to adhere to an institutional preference. But what about the claim that "murder is wrong?" Do we need a statistical study to demonstrate, by and large, that people abhor murder? Is it not pretty clear that the preference to be murdered does not rank high on individual preference orders, so much so that we intuitively recognize virtually everyone has zero preference to be murdered?

Commonness and preference often strike out at me as lines that are unnaturally made to join in politics. Anyway ...

Armchair reasoning’s effective range is probably dependent on the observer’s willingness to ask questions that work backwards from a particular question to its fundamental origin rather than make a discrete jump from such question to its presumed origin. (I have a natural philosopher in mind who said something very similar to this. I can't recall his name, but want to note that I did not independently arrive at this idea of regressing from the question rather making foundational presumptions and moving forward to the question.) That I make discrete jumps while reasoning from time to time is, by my own reckoning, axiomatic—I do. But I’m reading, watching, & listening to so much of what is going on and being said in the 2012 POTUS election cycle and thinking one thing: there will be individual winners and there will be individual losers, but the institution always wins.

It seems so much like a weekend at Vegas to me..

new topics

log in