Sometimes, a post will come from a post which was developed from another post which, in turn, was developed from another post. For example, I wrote about Kolkata and various topics about it. However, there were some things were somewhat mundane, so I developed posts of Kolkata Daily Life. In them, I soon began to include news articles that I read in the daily newspapers. After awhile, though, these news items became too numerous so I compiled monthly News Other posts. (Due to my increased--and paid--obligations through Freelancer.com, these posts are on hiatus.) Occasionally, a news article will be significant and I will devote a whole post to that one topic.
This is such a topic.
During March and April, I saw several of the following "public interest" articles in the Times of India. I think that there were many more, but I did not pay much attention to them until toward the end, and there were the only ones that I could find and link. Regardless, the pictures attempt to state that non-voters do not have rights and choices (or that their rights and choices are more limited). In reality, the opposite (that non-voters are the only true believers of rights, choices and responsibilities) is true and in reality, the opposite (that voters minimize or even abrogate rights and choices--if voting changed anything they'd make it illegal).
The translation of the Hindi words are (according to Caroline): Load-shedding Party; Rubbish/garbage League; Empty Bucket/promises(?) Party; and Blowing of Smoke Party
The translation of the Hindi words below are: Unsafe Woman's Party; Day-After-Day/delaying Party; and Money is the Main Force Party.
Especially offensive is the "People's Pothole Party", which can only come from the illogical and inherently contradictory mind of a statist. What can this possibly mean? People do vote, so there can be no such thing as bad infrastructure according to the "logical" conclusion of this statist. If there is poor infrastructure then it was created by the very people he is in favour of. Why is he confessing to self-contradiction? He is not aiding in his cause.
Or, does he mean that voters will purposely create bad infrastructure and then force non-voters to use it? It is well known by thinking people that statism is an inherently harmful form of society, but it is unusual for statists, themselves, to confess this. Why is he doing that? Why is he confessing that he wants to see people harmed? He is not helping his cause.
However, more than voters or non-voters, it is taxpayers who pay for and support infrastructure. Does this statist have no concern for those who sweat and toil to earn enough money for not only their families but also society? Again, it is well known that statists have no concern for human beings and throw their allegiance at political rulers who are "leaders" only at the point of a gun, but it is unusual for a statist to confess this. If taxpayers are paying for good infrastructure but are receiving poor infrastructure then perhaps too much much was diverted to politicians, the individuals he adores but who are also the cause of the problem. Why is this statist contradicting himself? He is not aiding himself in his cause.
Moreover, if this statist wants people to vote then why does he not want people to vote? Indian citizens living abroad cannot vote because it is inconvenient to the government to allow them to vote. Some criminals cannot vote, but other criminals (see below) can vote. People under 18 cannot vote, nor can people born in India if they are not "Indians". Kalki Koechlin was born in Puducherry (shown in Life of Pi) but only recently became a citizen. Before that, she could not not vote, and had to deal with people whose mothers had killed themselves because they were ashamed that their sons became FRRO employees. There could be good reasons for these people not being allowed to vote, but if the statist is advocating people voting then he ought to give logically consistent reasons why these people should not vote.
However, the shit has now hit the fan, which even the delusional statist (yes, a redundancy, but I am writing it for emphasis) cannot ignore nor negate. People have voted, and they have voted for the very things that the statist railed against for non-voters; people have voted for murderous, thieving, rapingthugs (and here and here).
Do not allow any of this to happen in the future and certainly do not support this happening in the future. Support true rights and choices; become a non-voter.
