Good morning Bill! Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...
> It is plain and simple, you had your say and lost. That does not change > the fact that those elected are in fact your representatives whether you > agree with them or approve of them, or not. > It's in the dictionary. It's in the constitution. It's a fact of life. Let's say for the sake of argument here, that you are charged with a serious crime. Your first step would likely be to decide rather quickly to seek representation in the case, or in some cases, decide to represent yourself. You would therefore make a deicision, and a binding voluntary contract for a representative to represent your interests in the case, or to represent yourself. In either case, the choice would be yours. It would not be a coerced choice, but one freely and voluntarily entered into of your own free volition. You suddenly lose such voluntarism when you suggest, as you seem to, that there is somehow a binding contract between me and the winner of a political race in which the winner is one in which I voted against, at least in the above case. This only makes sense if you believe that government has a right to utilize force for force you into an involuntary contract, such as your argument that I might have some contractual relation, forced upon me by the State as 'my representative', in which I never voluntarily agreed to, but in fact, voted against. In the case of national Congressional races, I might go so far as to concede that a particular State has representation in the national Congress no matter who wins the election. I do not believe however, that can legitimately be expanded to such a degree that would suggest that individuals have representation based upon a bad result in the case of what an individual is willing to voluntarily accept from such an outcome, certainly not of his/her own choosing. In an extreme case, hypothetical no less, if in Idaho's 2004 election, two Communists were elected as a Representatives to Congress, I would again concede that Idaho would be represented in the national Congress by a Communist delegation. It would be a huge stretch to suggest that individuals in Idaho, who strongly oppose Communism, would accept that such representatives really are 'their' representatives. Also in such extreme cases, as sometimes occur, revolutions usually become the vehicle of final choice for overthrowing such a condition, which is why revolutions occur from time to time in the first place, that is, individuals refuse to accept representation by an existing government in place, and band together and seek to overthrow it. The American revolution itself is a case in point. I believe here that the basis of your argument is your inability to distinguish between unique individuals, and that of 'the State'. True, many individuals can acquesse and accept 'Representation' for themselves even had they voted for the other guy, but that too is a tacit choice that each individual must choose to make for themselves. Other individuals can make the reverse choice, and not accept such Representation, and even remind the winning party that they did not vote for them, and that their actions and conduct in the function of their office does not represent them. This is why, for me at least, elections become a weighty matter, since I view what takes place with individuals in the voting booth to be a contractural matter. When you vote for a winning candidate, then for better or worse, the performance of that candidate is a result of you, and the majority of others, who brought them into power. You have therefore signed onto a contract for this individual to Represent you. Again, I consider it a far stretch to assume that individuals who strongly oppose a winning Candidate, have some tacit obligation to accept such an individual as their Representative. Kindest regards, Frank _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
