- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 39,962
"We have no representation!"
"We" never did. "We" never will.
I don't know what "representation" is really even supposed to be or mean (especially in a continent-spanning nation of a third of a billion people). If it means something like "someone else (i.e., a 'representative') in a position of power believing or acting on the basis of things I like or agree with", and if others who believe things I dislike or disagree with are also entitled to such "representation", then "representation" is in effect just a manifestation of the conflict between the fans of this, that, or the other sportsball team. A (potentially deadly) game with serious and significant consequences, to be sure - but still just a game (complete with trick plays, cheating, etc.).
The mechanisms of governance should never be geared to "representing" people. They should be geared to leaving them alone (and punishing those who don't). Liberty is impossible so long as it is expected to be implemented via any kind of "representation". Liberty and "representation" are in inverse relation to one another - the more one is "represented", the less agency one possesses [1]. (Add competing and mutually incompatible & irreconcilable "representatives" to the mix - et voilà, "muh democracy"!)
IOW: People need to stop pining for more or better "representation" (whether by Trump, or RFK Jr., or whomever) [2], and start asserting their own agency (by noncompliance, passive & active resistance, etc.).
[1] And the larger the population, the more dilute the "representation" (to whatever extent it really even existed in the first place).
[2] I must confess I am occasionally guilty of this myself (so I understand the impulse):
But in my defense, I offer the following exhibits:Good for Massie! He's (once again) demonstrating why he's the best Congressman we have (House or Senate).
(I don't even live in Kentucky - but as far as I'm concerned, he's my House Rep.)
Let's see Trump, RFK Jr., et al. (whether Republican, Democrat, or Independent - or even Libertarian, given recent history) openly and explicitly endorse that (and actually mean it, without further qualification). Then and only then will advocates of liberty have found someone truly worthy of being supported. Anything else is just so much "rah! rah!" sportsball cheerleading for "our" team (or for some other team to knock our rivals out of contention).
Last edited: