Vote Libertarian This Election (Unedited)

By Mark Poyar

(This is the version that I originally wrote to be published in the Observer. Considering the fact that the most remotely controversial thing the Observer ever publishes is the word "vagina" and even that is only when it is followed by the word "monologue," I knew there would be no way they would ever put it into print. Therefore, I rewrote it. The rewritten version is the next post.)

“The American political system is like a gigantic Mexican Christmas fiesta. Each political party is a huge piñata – a paper donkey, for example. The donkey is filled with full employment, low interest rates, affordable housing, comprehensive medical benefits, a balanced budget and other goodies. The American voter is blindfolded and given a stick. The voter then swings the stick wildly in every direction, trying to hit a political candidate on the head and knock some sense into the silly bastard.” These lines ring as true today as they did fifteen years ago when PJ O’Rourke published his classic, Parliament of Whores.

I personally think that the election process is more like a frat party at a state school. Two young men, Ed Elephant and Danny Donkey, go to a party in search of the pleasure that only a woman can provide. Since there is a poor girl to guy ratio, the two young men are forced to compete for the same sorority girl all night. As the night progresses and each frat boy gets drunker, each becomes gradually more repulsive – uglier, hornier, more disheveled, and stupider. Their boasting and actions get correspondingly more ridiculous as each tries to outdo the other in a pathetic attempt to prove that he is a more suitable companion. The night winds down and each asks the young lady to retire to his respective quarters. Since she has taken a vow to uphold the fine reputation of her sorority among the minds of college men everywhere (whorish and fun), she is forced to choose one to hook up with. As she walks back to the winner’s dorm room, she can’t quite get rid of the nagging feeling that neither is worthy to have her.

Like the frat boys, both parties get increasingly repulsive as the election approaches. In an effort win the approval of their constituents, the politicians imply that if they or their party wins the election, the impossible will become possible – the blind will see, the President might actually say something intelligent, John Kerry might actually become principled. While he depicts himself as the savior of mankind, he employs character assassination techniques to slander his opponent. After watching a few Chris Chocola commercials, I am forced to conclude that not only does Joe Donnelly cheat on his taxes by withholding his employees’ taxes and hate Hoosier families, he probably also eats babies and kills puppies for a living. The first thing that I learned in philosophy was that ad hominem attacks are invalid, but the first thing I learned in the political world was that they were the only type of attack used.

Like the frat boys, the two major parties have been in bed with so many unsavory characters that they are in dire need of a STD check. One party is in bed with the with the religious socialists, who seem to have forgotten that Jesus didn’t die so that we could have universal health care, a not so subtle socialist scheme combining the efficiency of the DMV with the compassion of the IRS. They also seem to have forgotten that Jesus, the fulfillment of the Ten Commandments, wouldn’t condone stealing from one group of people through taxes and giving the stolen wealth to those who do not own it. The other party is in bed with the born-again religious, occasionally smaller children (in the case of Mark Foley), or 50 year old gay male prostitutes (in the case of evangelist Ted Haggard). This group seems to have forgotten that Jesus didn’t die so that we could have federally funded religious charities and initiatives to promote marriage. Both of their attempts to distort religion for reasons of power is pathetic and dirty, just like the frat boys.

While each party would have you believe that their party represents a clear alternative to the other, the difference is largely one of rhetoric, not of principle. Neither has a problem with taking your money and giving it to someone else to whom it does not belong; the only debate is over who should be the recipient of this confiscated wealth. Whether your wealth goes to pay people not to work through welfare, to pay old people because they are old through Social Security or Medicare, or to pay corporations because they are well connected through no-bid contracts, really doesn’t make too much of a difference; both parties either view the citizen as a sheep to be fleeced or a constituent to lavish the money of others upon. Each views the citizen as something to be controlled, both economically and socially.

If you actually believe that the Republicans represent an alternative to the tax and spend Democrats, consider the fact that between the years 2001 and 2006, federal spending has increased from $1.657 trillion to $2.488 trillion, all years of Republican control of both the House of Representatives and the Presidency. The Republicans have been in full control of both the Executive and Legislative branches since 2002, yet the self-proclaimed “party of small government” has been responsible for this unprecedented increase in federal government spending, unrivaled in the last 50 years except for the “great spender” LBJ.

This election, vote for the party of peace, freedom, and free markets. Vote for the only party that wants you to keep what you earn. Vote for the only party that believes that what you do in your personal life is none of the government’s business unless you hurt someone else. Vote for the party that believes the Constitution means what it says. This November, do as PJ O’Rourke would have us do and “knock some sense into the silly bastards.” Give the nice guy standing in the corner a shot. I guarantee he isn’t as pathetic as Ed or Danny. Vote Libertarian.

Vote Libertarian This Election (PG Version)

By Mark Poyar

(This is the article that was published in the Observer)

“The American political system is like a gigantic Mexican Christmas fiesta. Each political party is a huge piñata – a paper donkey, for example. The donkey is filled with full employment, low interest rates, affordable housing, comprehensive medical benefits, a balanced budget and other goodies. The American voter is blindfolded and given a stick. The voter then swings the stick wildly in every direction, trying to hit a political candidate on the head and knock some sense into the silly fool.” These lines ring as true today as they did fifteen years ago when PJ O’Rourke published his classic, Parliament of Whores.

Election time always brings out the worst in the candidates. While there isn’t necessarily anything wrong with negative ads that attack the opposition candidate’s voting record or policies, this is seldom the type of ad used. After taking a few actions of the opposition candidate out of context, the commercial not-so-subtly implies that not only does the other guy cheat on his payroll taxes and hate his constituents, he probably also eats babies and kills puppies for a living. These types of ad hominem attacks are cheap attempts to distract from the real issues in an election, yet character assassination is usually the only strategy used. In the minds of the two major parties, there is no right or wrong, there is only power.

While each party would have you believe that their party represents a clear alternative to the other fiscally, the difference is largely one of rhetoric, not of principle. Neither has a problem with taking your money and giving it to someone else to whom it does not belong; the only debate is over who should be the recipient of this confiscated wealth. Whether your wealth goes to pay people not to work through welfare, to pay old people because they are old through Social Security or Medicare, or to pay corporations because they are well connected through no-bid contracts, really doesn’t make too much of a difference; both parties either view the citizen as a sheep to be fleeced or a constituent to lavish the money of others upon. Each views the citizen as a thing to be regulated and controlled.

If you actually believe that the Republicans represent an alternative to the tax and spend Democrats, consider the fact that between the years 2001 and 2006, federal spending has increased from $1.657 trillion to $2.488 trillion, all years of Republican control of both the House of Representatives and the Presidency. The Republicans have been in full control of both the Executive and Legislative branches since 2002, yet the self-proclaimed “party of small government” has been responsible for this unprecedented increase in federal government spending, unrivaled in the last 50 years except for the “great spender” LBJ. Clearly, the Republicans are no alternative.

Similarly, while each party would have you believe that their party represents a clear alternative to the other on social issues, the difference is again largely one of rhetoric, not of principle. Neither actually believes that a person owns himself - since he owns himself, he has the right to do what he pleases with his own body and property, as long as he doesn’t infringe on the right of others to do the same. No one’s rights have been violated when a person decides he wants to play poker with his own money online – it is his property and he has the right to use it as he pleases. No one’s rights have been violated when a person decides that he wants to use drugs in his own home – he owns himself and therefore has the right to put whatever he wants in his own body, even if it hurts him. No one’s rights have been violated when a person decides he doesn’t want to live any more – since he owns himself, he has the right to die if he wants. No one’s rights have been violated when a person says something offensive on a college campus. Victimless crimes are not crimes, yet internet gambling is illegal (except for a few exceptions), the Drug War persists, euthanasia is illegal in most states, and speech codes are prevalent. Again, the citizen is viewed as a thing to be regulated and controlled.

This election, vote for the only party that wants you to keep what you earn. Vote for the only party that believes that it is none of the government’s business what you do as long as you don’t hurt others. Vote for the party that believes the Constitution means what it says. Vote for one of the only parties that has consistently stood against the war. Do as PJ O’Rourke would: knock some sense into the silly fools. This election, vote for the party of peace, freedom, and free markets: vote Libertarian.

The US Government v. the Dorm Drunk: Which Is Better?

An Objective Analysis

By Mark Poyar

Each week, my view towards the government more closely resembles my opinion towards Fisher Hall’s dorm drunk – when he throws up on the side of the building on Monday night, it is hardly an unexpected event, yet still quite pathetic. Similarly, as the government continues to spew bad laws and make poor decisions on a daily basis, it is still disgusting, but it happens so frequently nowadays that I’m never surprised. However, there are a number of reasons why the dorm drunk is preferable to the United States government.

Firstly, the “legislation” emanating from the dorm drunk rarely impacts me, despite the fact that I live in Fisher Hall as well. Sure, I might catch an occasional whiff of upchucked Blazing Sea Nuggets (rightfully so). I might have to side-step them on the second floor stairwell on the way to lunch on Tuesday afternoon. I might even have to help the dorm drunk stumble into his loft and turn him on his side so he can pass out. But the dorm drunk’s actions rarely have a lasting impact on me; they are fleeting college experiences that I will one day look back on and laugh about. I’m never worried that the dorm drunk is going to install surveillance cameras in my room or steal my money and call it the income tax. The dorm drunk will never ban drinking or gambling and tell me it is for my own good. If he attempted to do any of these things, he would be ResLifed. The government, on the other hand, does all these things with impunity.

Secondly, dorm drunk doesn’t even attempt to rationalize his actions. He knows his actions are corrupt and doesn’t make vague references to incoherent concepts in an Orwellian fashion. He doesn’t claim he did the technicolor yawn all over the 3B bathroom last night for the common good, moral values, national security, spreading democracy, the poor, or the children. He isn’t foolish enough to tell me that banning online gambling protects “American values” (apparently freedom of choice, personal responsibility, and the right of contract aren’t “American values”). He won’t attempt to persuade me that I have a “right” to universal health care (apparently, the “right” to steal other people’s money through the tax code and use it for your own purposes was what John Locke was talking about when he talked about “rights”). He doesn’t start wars and then pretend the purpose was to spread “democracy” or “freedom.” He doesn’t pretend that his actions are anything other than what they are – he engages in no double-speak. The US government and its politicians, on the other hand, do all these things.

Thirdly, the dorm drunk usually limits his partying to the area directly around the dorm. He is seen as a good-natured fellow (albeit a drunk one) by the rest of Notre Dame community who rarely does them wrong. Yes, he might occasionally wander in a drunken haze all over campus and pee on the side of another dorm, but he parties almost exclusively in Fisher Hall. Unless one of the other dorms hurt his person or steal his booze, he has no motivation to venture outside the walls of Fisher. His actions are confined to his home. He exists peacefully alongside everyone else. The dorm drunk wouldn’t go braying into battle like a learning-disabled jackass against another dorm that did him little or no wrong. The dorm drunk isn’t foolish enough to give those who already don’t like his partying ways another excuse to hate him. He does not warmonger. The US government, on the other hand, does all of these things.

Finally, the dorm drunk isn’t too much of a burden on society. Yes, perhaps he will mistake a fellow Fisherman’s laptop for a urinal in the wee hours or the morning or pass out naked in Ellie’s bed (our rector’s dog) in the middle of the first floor entrance way, but at least his shenanigans provide much needed college stories to a college that is relatively tame compared to other schools. Although it is true that he wreaks havoc on other people’s belongings, he is still personally fiscally responsible for whatever damage he causes. He cannot legally take 39% of my earnings without repercussion. He is not endowed with the power to take half of the belongings of my dead relative without suffering the consequences of doing so. He can’t institute programs to punish the productive for being successful. The US government, on the other hand, does all of these things.

While there is certainly a resemblance between the US government and our dorm drunk, the dorm drunk is obviously preferable to the US government. Let’s replace our representatives with dorm drunks this election. It can’t get any worse.