Not who, but what

To preempt the usual assumption about the image above in conjunction with what day it is today: no, I did not vote for Obama. Or Romney. Or even Stein, Johnson, anybody. I’d rather that office, as well as others, not exist. No consent will be given.

However, there are things on the ballot other than choosing who gets to screw you for the interests of the ruling class and claim it’s for your own good. I’m talking, of course, of direct propositions, akin to the local one I previously discussed here. There’s three of them on the state ballot for Missouri, and here’s what they are and what I think of them:

  • Proposition A: basically this lets the city of St. Louis establish its own police force, among other things. I’m not a fan of police to put it lightly. However, the current situation is obviously not that they have no cops at all, but that they have no even slight measure of local control over them. Abuses have a longer route to exposure because of this. Note the following clause in the proposition though:

    The amendment further prohibits retaliation against any employee of such municipal police force who reports conduct believed to be illegal to a superior, government agency, or the press. (emphasis mine)

    In practice this isn’t likely to prevent retaliation, but to delay it. Still, it’s a start. Cops snitching on other cops puts the concept of snitching in a new light of sorts. I look at it as selling them the rope that’ll…you know the rest.

  • Proposition B: raises cigarette taxes (again), with the proceeds going to anti-smoking programs and school funding. Even though I don’t smoke (so I wouldn’t be paying it), I have an especially large beef with this type of taxation within the one for taxes in general. Punishing people for what they do with their bodies is bad enough, but this attaching of multiple issues — taxing Activity We Don’t Like X to fund Thing We Approve Of Y — gets on my nerves. If you want to raise money for schools, then raise money for schools, don’t pull this sideways garbage where the state government benefits from people while they’re trying to micromanage their behavior.
  • Proposition E…here, just read it:

    Shall Missouri Law be amended to prohibit the Governor or any state agency, from establishing or operating state-based health insurance exchanges unless authorized by a vote of the people or by the legislature?

    This is basically state level retaliation for the Turd Sandwich a.k.a. ObaromneyCare, intended to prevent part of the implementation. Two things stick out to me here: first, the language says vote of the people OR the legislature, meaning that it doesn’t really matter what the public thinks if the legislature decides they want it. Second, anyone that has been paying attention knows that if the states don’t run their exchanges the feds are just going to do it, meaning this stops absolutely f*ck all.

So there.


About b-psycho

Left-libertarian blogger & occasional musician.
This entry was posted in random shots. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Not who, but what

  1. Todd S. says:

    I went to the polls today myself. I didn’t vote for any person, except to fill in “nobody” any place there was a write-in candidate (a whopping 3 of them on the whole ballot). I did however vote against nearly all proposed amendments on the ballot. In FL, it seems damn near everything is a state constitutional amendment. I voted against the one that would allow the legislature to fund selected religious groups – meaning baptist churches and synagogues would get money while unitarian churches and mosques would not. I voted against FL’s version of the anti-obamacare rigmarole. Not because I like the idea of giving insurance companies captive markets, but because it contained other really bad aspects tacked on. The only thing I voted for was to allow seniors who’ve lived in their home for 25+ years some additional homestead exemption. I couldn’t really see how that’d hurt anything and they’re most likely the ones living on their SS checks anyway.

  2. B Psycho says:

    LOL…was the title of the tax money to religious groups thing actually “Religious Freedom“?

    So they want “freedom” to receive stolen money. No doubt to use it to indoctrinate people how freedom is terrible for other people to have…

  3. Todd S. says:

    Yes, that was it. How sad is it that we can’t get away from marketing speak even in naming of laws. There oughta be a law…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s