Parliament of Pimps

I salute thee, indiana jim!

Dear vidyohs,

I'm not into cigar tricks, nor am I a Donkeycrat; so again: I deny it.

LOL

indiana jim,

we have the blue dress. LOL

Dear vidyohs,

I deny it.

Stormy Dragon,

Right on observation, it only follows doesn't it.

Government of the people, by the people, and for the people makes us all neck deep in the whoring and completely unable to deny it.

The whores referred to in the title of Parliament of Whores aren't the politicians; they're the voters:

Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us.

Golly vidyohs! That could describe self-styled Communists who'd deny the existence of private ownership.

What is difficult to understand about the concept of not dealing with a pimp, and not using a whore? And, no taking the problem in hand is not an option.

A whore, and thus a pimp, only get your money if you cooperate with them.

If you don't give it to them, they can't squander it. (I'm now talking about government.)

Until you understand that, and act on it, all you're going to do is continue to bitch at various levels and achieve nothing.

If you refuse to consider guns for your revolution then your only other option is the non-violent non-cooperative withdrawal from their system. Don't do business with them, don't give them any money, resist all their efforts to bring you to heel. Make them use naked force and then still resist. Don't stop until they are gone, defeated, and humiliated.

When the money flow stops, when the jails are stuffed to overflowing, and when the hatred and contempt scalds them everytime they go out into public, they will listen to real change, till then the bitching is useless....worse than useless it is counter productive.

And, yes I have just as much to lose as you do; but, I am walking the walk because I love freedom.

Cheers, that TV show would quickly turn from game show to soap opera.

Cheers,

Yes, it would be deadlock - at least in comparison to what we're used to. I don't see that as a bad thing, though I can see how a Progressive would.

The cost of the extra salaries would be nothing in comparison to the amount saved on spending, as each vote on an appropriation would be subject to the veto power of the most libertarian office holder.

Lots of additional parallels [from Wikipedia]:

"Typically, a pimp will not force prostitutes to stay with him"

You are free to leave the country, but where you gonna go? Every corner has a pimp.

"A pimp may also offer to protect his prostitutes from rival pimps and prostitutes, or from abusive clients."

Or from terrorists or melting icecaps.

"They can also enable a prostitute to work in a particular area under his control."

That's just the way it is. Pay to play, baby.

"Pimping is illegal in many countries."

Or written into the Constitution. Whatever.

"Most people who work managing prostitutes are men, but some women work in this capacity as well"

74 out of 435 = 17%

17 out of 100 = 17%

"Women are rarely called pimps, as the word implies male dominance - a woman who manages prostitutes is generally called a mamasan or a madam."

e.g. "Madam Speaker"

"Often low level pimps will initially present themselves as lovers or father-figures..."

Yes, our humble public servants only want to help. They feel our pain. They'll bring change.

"...before introducing them to prostitution and perhaps drug addiction."

Or raising taxes and expanding welfare.

Randy,

I disagree... That would put government at a deadlock at 4 times the cost.

Why not have each state elect a representative to try to sabotage the efforts of other states. It would be like a contest between those trying to get stuff from the gov't, and those trying to prevent it. Then find a way of paying them to minimize the collusion.

You get less pork, a deadlock, and something to watch on TV.

I should have more fully edited that comment.

Can we not more fully implicate that 50.00001% of citizens more fully in taking from the unwilling 49.99999%? Or at least a system which allows for this legal plunder to occur?

I am glad to see Superheater's comment re the prostitutes' assumed innocence. Those who believe prostitution should be legalized--as I do--often go too far in suggesting that the profession is somehow not ignoble!

Thanks for the article, Don.

Inconsequential error, but these things bother me.

If 50.00001 percent of the population votes for one side, then 49.99999 vote for the other side, not 49.00009.

Don, great article.

Unfortunately, I'm beginning to think that politicians have all learned the language of

the pied piper of Hamlin.

As for prostitutes, its not exactly true

that they agresss against no other party. If they service a married individual they violate the rights of conjugal exclusivity that are generally a part of most marriage vows.

And yes, I'm aware that the math is a bit shaky :) Should have said at least 25%

"But if even just 50.00001 percent of voters cast their ballots for the candidate proposing higher taxes..."

Propose that anyone who receives more than 25% of the vote should take office. That is, as many as four people would share a single vote, and that vote would only count if they all sign it. The result, laws that nearly everyone agrees with.