Nothing about my decision has been easy. I have received some fairly harsh criticism from family. Not that criticism is something that really bothers me, but I am unable to discuss this with anyone I know in a manner that I would consider to be easy.

I see the “easy way out” completely opposite. It would be much easier for me to bite my tongue, swallow my pride, and participate. Going along with the tide, and accepting the conventional wisdom, would be the path of least resistance. I think a review of the above comments, as well as the hundreds of conversations I have had within my sphere of influence (which I won’t bore you with), satisfies my belief that standing on principle is not easy, no matter the result.

When it comes to getting more involved, I am actually working on that. The experience of writing this post, and the wonderful conversation it has sparked, has convinced me that I need to further pursue my interest in writing via some sort of political and philosophical commentary. The details haven’t worked themselves out yet, but I promise you that I will soon have a vehicle for making some sort of difference. However, I do not see myself making any sort of impact by participating in the further corruption of the American form of government, as it once was anyway.

As I stated before, I do cast my vote on bond issues, tax measures, and any change to the Oregon Constitution. However, I cannot commit my freedom to vote to anyone who displays blatant disregard for the natural rights out of which that freedom arises.

Thank you again for your comment, I look forward to more discussion. Perhaps over bourbon?

Cory – the Constitution provides more recognition of individual sovereignty than the mere right to vote. It provides a list of prohibited Federal transgressions upon your personal sovereignty, which is a basic condition of the notion of being “born free”. These are not liberties granted to us by the government, or even the Constitution itself. The Constitution is merely a statement of natural rights, as they exist when you are born, whether there is government or not.

Also, I would like to clarify something. I would stress to you that the act, or lack thereof, of not voting isn’t “doing nothing”. I obviously wrote this post, with the full intent of launching the fantastic discussion we are having. This is a discussion I have with family & friends. I spread ideas that way, because the ideas I want to spread are nowhere to be found in anyone running for office. There is no “third party” for me. Every party I have researched, which is every party on the ballot, and many that are not, has systemic philosophical flaws that strike at the very core of your natural rights. I played along for years. I held my nose, and voted for the lesser of two, three, four evils. I did so believing that changing one or two things at a time would be enough to counterbalance the rest of the foolishness that passes for governance. This decision did not come overnight.

We have had 3rd parties in the past. The American people have chosen a 2 party system. I respect that decision, as I am first and foremost a believer in the notion of a marketplace, especially when it comes to ideas. And that brings me to my final point. If it sounds as if I blame politicians for what is going on, I don’t. Politicians have to get elected. Then they must get re-elected. That is what they feel is in their best interests. Ultimately, it is the people that have decided the route we are on. Again, my philosophy is not popular among the marketplace of ideas. That is fine. I have accepted that. That doesn’t mean I have to participate in something I consider immoral.

I want you to know that I truly am grateful for our conversation here. That was the point of the post.

I have the greatest respect for you sharing your stance, but I hate to see people around me give up when there is and always will be hope and more importantly, when there are genuine opportunities for you to make a difference.

You talk about the abdication of personal responsibility and sovereignty, but the only personal sovereignty that the Constitution allows for on a national level is the ability to vote for your representative. We may not be a Democracy, but we ARE a democratic republic.

On a state level, your personal sovereignty is given over to your state constitution.

These two levels of governance, state and federal, are the basic foundation upon which our society is built. If we don’t operate within that framework, then what can we do?

I just can’t get past the idea of doing nothing as a legitimate form of participation/protest.

Oh, and I’d love to meet you some time. I think we could have some fabulous discussions.

I too, desire gridlock. I heard an economist say this once, and it has become my driving motto:

“The Constitution should have stopped at ‘Congress shall make no law’”

I totally support your willingness to get more involved with issues you are passionate about. Perhaps being vague about my personal thoughts is clouding the larger point. However, I am not going to hop on a soapbox here on Portland Family. I don’t think that’s what this forum is about, nor do I think anyone cares to hear me wax on and on about what is right and wrong when it comes to a self-governing society.

I am familiar with Tammany. I think that Tammany stood out because it was unique. I think what goes on now is so widespread that we accept it, or turn a blind eye to it. As far as broken promises, I will let a little more of my philosophy slip out: I hate that elections have become nothing more that two people arguing over how much better they will do “taking care of me” or “looking out for my interests”. To elect someone on that basis is to hand over responsibility, which is the same as handing them power. When you hand that power over to someone who wants it, as they all do, that is when their corruption has real consequences for you. If they did not have power, their corruption would have very little influence on your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

This abdication of power on the part of the electorate has consequences for campaign finance law as well. If Congress did not overstep its Constitutional bounds, no one would need to lobby Congress. Oh, but then that would be a problem for Congress, wouldn’t it?

In the end, we as a society have completely given up our sovereignty over ourselves as individuals. Everybody complains about politicians, the acts of malice that pass for “legislation”, the political process, “negative” campaigning, etc. yet who do they vote for? The very people they complain about. The very people that define the process. The very people that promised to “fix” the ills of society the last time around. And the time before that, and on and on.

I appreciate your thoughts, and the fact that you took the time to read and comment. I have a feeling you and I would get along famously. Thanks Cory!

I do believe that it’s highly unlikely for a group like Tammany Hall to emerge again (not impossible, just unlikely).

Sure, there’s corruption. Sure, there are broken promises, but the more we get involved, the better it gets. Those who are involved in politics set the agenda and make things happen.

For example, my heart is set on overturning the recent Supreme Court’s decision to strike down 50 years of campaign finance law. Congress needs to pass an amendment or better worded laws to limit corporate power vs. individual power. Corporations will continue to be involved in politics, because it’s in their interest to do so, and the more individual citizens sit out, the more power we abdicate to those who work against our interests.