Why I Will Not Vote; Liquor Ban and No Stock Market Commentary

I will not participate or risk my life and limb or spend scarce time, effort, and resources in the selection process of so-called political leaders, undergirded by a political system that legitimizes the systematic picking of people’s pockets and the progressive curtailment of liberty through organized institutional violence under the guise of the ‘social justice’ sham

I will also not partake on the delusion where individuals have been programmed to believe that they are primarily members of the collective, which the individual is subordinate to, and that people have control over such leaders. In reality, such elections serve no more than a spectator sport or the race to bottom to manipulate the electorate with freedom constricting, “free lunches” tomfoolery themes in order to justify their assumption to office. This quasi mob rule (either by majority or plurality) selection process, of course, serves as the foundation to the system’s legitimacy.

Such pretentious virtues can already be seen via the election liquor ban regulation. The edict logically implies that election violence is a direct result of alcoholic intoxication rather than of mainly impassioned electoral competition (among the other many but trivial or coincidental factors). The ban essentially lumps two different variables into one, which is a logical absurdity. Electoral violence will happen with or without alcohol.

The Supreme Court struck down the administration’s extension of such ban. Yet such arbitrary regulations reveals of the priorities of those in power that gives preference to the political—the coercive picking of the pocket of Juan to give or transfer some of Juan’s money to Pedro, as the chosen political leaders keep the rest of the booty for themselves—rather than to the socio-economic system. More signs why today’s economic boom has been a paper tiger.

Of course, every arbitrary rule has beneficiaries. Aside from politicians, the tourism industry is exempted from such prohibition, thus the ban signifies an implicit subsidy to the latter. So there will be a boom in tourism and tourism related establishments at the expense of the sari-sari stores, carinderias, bars, and etc.., where the latter group will theoretically bear the brunt in terms of lost incomes. See how arbitrary rules promote inequality? Under the whims of political agents, those politically blessed get the benefits while the rest are left stuck in a rut. That’s “social justice” for you.

On the other hand, affected consumers, like me, will be displeased as prohibition takes away our satisfactions, and most importantly, limits our freedom of choice.

Also the people who will patronize prohibition exempted tourist and tourist related establishments are most likely the well off. So the “haves” can publicly swill on alcohol while the “non-haves” cannot. Thus prohibition statutes essentially discriminate against the lower segments of the society, which ironically and duplicitously, such supposed “virtuous” institutions proclaim to protect.

Worst, repressive prohibition fiats are imposed on us by people who pretend to know what is best for us. In reality, political paternalism represents a charade which has been used as an excuse to pick on our pockets and expand political control over our actions. As an old saw goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

But the good thing is that because the domestic posse (dictionary.com: a body or force armed with legal authority) will be concentrating much of their efforts in the monitoring of electoral grounds or voting precincts, this means the prohibition will likely be infringed upon or would generally be toothless, but with exceptions. 

As an aside, this doesn’t mean that banned establishments will be serving alcohol but rather transactions will be done underground.

The exclusion is that the liquor ban policies can be or will be used selectively as strong-arm or harassment tactic against political foes.

This can also be used by authorities as pretext to mulct on the hapless consumer which is a source of corruption

In other words, such skewed, unfair and immoral legal restrictions, aside from heated political competition, incentivize electoral violence regardless of the presence of alcohol.

All these reveals how arbitrary statutes debauch on society’s moral fiber. These are things the public does not see and which the political class and media will not tell you. Economics function as a fundamental pillar of ethics.

In view of the senselessness of “feel good” politics, I will take this opportunity to spend precious moments with my family this extended weekend. Thus I will not be publishing my weekly stock market commentary and may limit my blogging activities

And if you want to know more on why I wouldn’t vote, my favorite iconoclast comedian the late George Carlin explains two reasons which I share…

Thank you for your patronage.

Have a great and safe weekend

Yours in truth and in liberty

Benson

The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.  

-- H. L. Mencken

(1880-1956) American Journalist, Editor, Essayist, Linguist, Lexicographer, and Critic

Maguindanao Election Massacre: A Quarrel Over Economic Bones

It's sad and sickening to learn how political violence has resurfaced, where 52 people have been reportedly massacred in Southern Philippines.

This from the New York Times,

``The death toll in Monday’s election violence rose to 52 on Wednesday, the Philippine authorities said, as six more bodies were recovered.

``The regional police commander in Maguindanao Province, Josefino Cataluna, said the bodies were dug out from a shallow pit near a grassy hilltop where police and troops earlier found 46 other corpses after Monday’s attack, The Associated Press reported. He said the 52 victims included the family of a gubernatorial candidate and 18 Filipino journalists who accompanied his relatives in filing his election papers.

So what provoked the aggression?

Again from NYT's Carlos Conde (bold highlights mine), ``it was rooted in rivalries among local clans that the government had empowered as a way of combating the insurgents. One clan, the Ampatuans, is considered the closest political ally of Mrs. Arroyo in that part of the southern Philippines."

``There are at least 250 political dynasties scattered throughout the Philippines, according to the Center for People Empowerment in Governance, a nonprofit group. For many of them and particularly those in the south, politics is literally a blood sport, with the clans’ power and income riding on the outcome of elections. As a consequence, violence has become a fixture of elections here; at least 126 died in the 2007 elections and 189 in 2004."

In other words, Philippine politics is, in essence, a contest to secure economic rent from the state.

And the 250 political dynasties, which has thrived all these years, is manifestation or a symptom of such political blight brought about by statism or the welfare state.

This is also basically a form of protectionism which fuels political competition or feuds that results to dastardly violent acts as the above. And it's a classic case where politics have substituted for trade.

Professor Murray Rothbard in Man, Economy and State accurately explains the phenomenon, (bold highlights mine)

``Individuals recognize, through the use of rea­son, the advantages of exchange resulting from the higher pro­ductivity of the division of labor, and they proceed to follow this advantageous course. In fact, it is far more likely that feelings of friendship and communion are the effects of a regime of (con­tractual) social co-operation rather than the cause. Suppose, for example, that the division of labor were not productive, or that men had failed to recognize its productivity. In that case, there would be little or no opportunity for exchange, and each man would try to obtain his goods in autistic independence. The re­sult would undoubtedly be a fierce struggle to gain possession of the scarce goods, since, in such a world, each man's gain of useful goods would be some other man's loss. It would be almost inevi­table for such an autistic world to be strongly marked by violence and perpetual war. Since each man could gain from his fellows only at their expense, violence would be prevalent, and it seems highly likely that feelings of mutual hostility would be dominant. As in the case of animals quarreling over bones, such a warring world could cause only hatred and hostility between man and man. Life would be a bitter "struggle for survival."

In short, in the absence of free trade, some politicians resort to a fatalistic quarrel over economic bones.