Question everything, even Q.
For the past decade and a half, just over half of voting age Americans have voted.
In the year 1996 only 49% of Americans VOTED, meaning the democratic majority was NOT VOTING FOR POLITICIANS.
Regardless, just because a majority of people think something, does not make it right, or good, or productive, or profitable or in any way desirable. A majority of people in the US at one time, supported slavery, and the Native American genocide.
How does the a general manager of a power plant, powering a million businesses and homes get to where he is? Is he elected by the average American, who knows very little about electrical engineering, or is he selected by a group of highly knowledgeable, experienced electrical engineers?
Does it not make sense that the most skilled knowledgeable and experienced and ethical people should make decisions based on who should be given the high responsibility of being in charge of a large important project?
Where is the politician needed? Is there some role that only a politician can fulfill, that a representative from the power company could not?
Is a politician needed to tell a LOCAL road construction company that it would be a good idea to talk to a LOCAL commercial center being built, that is connected to residential neighborhoods only through rough dirt roads? Vice versa? Do the commercial developers need a politician to negotiate a deal to build nice paved roads from where most of the people live, to the commercial center?
Is a politician needed for a proper General of the MILITIA to decide to scramble a couple fighter jets, when there are a pair of potentially hostile fighters approaching their airspace?
Is a politician needed to transfer fighters to a strategic airbase where there are none?
Is a politician even needed for a proper MILITIA corp of engineers to build an airbase in an important area, but with poor air coverage?
Is a politician needed for the MILITIA to contract with an large yet ethical (not currently existing) defense system contractor, to build a system that can shoot down any incoming nuclear missile?
Would we even have the problems we do with nuclear weapons if we'd never had politicians? Would scientists, left to their own devices, without the interference of politicians, have made nuclear weapons at all? (maybe just some tests, then realizing they're far too destructive to everything, in a huge area around them, and the radiation travels with the currents, air or water)
As it stands, the 2nd amendment is almost useless. I was intend for the protection of private property, yes, but MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, it was to defend against a tyrannical government.
The modern concept of Social Proof, is not just having suggestions made to those not in the norm, but is actually dictating thoughts and behaviors of people, like old social proofing, in the Renaissance, and much more intensely going back through middle and dark ages, and before.
Let me asks all the anons something, besides ‘crime’, and the govt deciding to forcibly take your gun, what else would you use your gun for in fighting tyranny on an individual basis of your rights, or the rights of your friends/family?
The answer is nothing, and not even because you don't want to fight. It's because unless a "character" with very high social proof, convinces enough other "characters" with very high social proof that they should all fight, ANY legitimate, justified, moral fights that you have on a local level will be seen as nothing more than brutish thuggery.
It is stunning that the Founders, who won the revolution with just 3% of the total colonists, because no more than that WOULD FIGHT, could not foresee a future in which the Tories, and their "sucking the teat of authority" ilk, would legally turn the defense of individual and community rights into anti-social behavior.
You only need to study your NATURAL RIGHTS to KNOW that you have them, and to KNOW you have the RIGHT TO FIGHT FOR THEM, and for ANYONE ELSE who’s RIGHTS are being ATTACKED.