For decades, my position has been to stay out of politics and public functions, and instead to manage optimal sexual opportunities for myself. When the circumstances were not conducive at one location, I just went somewhere else where they were (some countries in Southeast Asia).
Yes, I had a spill of political activism as a teenager, in the late 60's, when political activism was fashionable in Germany. Now I'm in my 50s, and I'm back with political activism, and this time not because it's fashionable. I am back with activism because I recognize the necessity to defend my personal freedom to live a life as I want to live it (and after that, to have a gentle death).
The most leverage will be obtained if activist efforts are concentrated on the United States of America. The US at the beginning of the 21st century clearly is the world's lead culture, and social ideas implemented there will quickly spread to other parts of the world.
Any advancement that can be achieved in the US over not too long a time affects most other countries of the world, as has been shown time and again over the past 100 years.
When the US decided that homosexuality is OK, every country that did not follow their opinion appeared as a violator of human rights. And as long as the US Supreme Court upholds that abortions in principle are constitutional in the US, even a religious zealot in the White House cannot institute economic sanctions against countries that have an even more progressive approach on that issue.
There is no substitute for political activism, or even just political lobbying, in the US. And there are direct and indirect options to for such activism or lobbying.
One approach could be to increase the participation of the lower strata of US society in elections.
Currently, the right to vote is only exercised by less than half of the US population. This tilts results heavily in favor of comparatively wealthy, white, Christian, conservative (and Republican) quarters. If fringe groups, and inner-city populations could be mobilized, or if voting would be made obligatory, the political landscape in the US could look very different in a very short time.
If the lower strata of society were to participate to a larger extend in US elections, candidates would likely be elected who:
* support more freedom of drug use (presumably, the lower strata of US society are more interested in drug use without being threatened by lengthy prison terms than the upper strata)
* support the abolishment of capital punishment, as it hits the poor much harder than the rich who can afford expensive lawyers who at least can put up enough of a defense to avoid a death verdict
* support fewer legal restrictions on sexual conduct as sexual morals are not as strict in the lower strata of US society
Increasing the participation of inner city populations and the lower strata of US society in US elections can be a step on the road to a society of more personal freedom.
One way to reach the potentially most radical supporters of social change is through popular music.
The message such popular music should carry initially is very simple. Call on the rebellious youth, on the inner city population, and on the lower strata of US society to exercise their right, and to participate in every US election that comes up. This message is non-suspicious, and it can cause a decisive shift of US politics towards a society that grants a higher degree of personal freedom.
Obviously, it would be nice if popular musicians and their lyricists were to take up the topic because they recognize its importance. But funding from any source that provides financial assistance to popular musicians and lyricists, and even radio stations and concert impresarios could help to spread the message that inner city populations and the lower strata of US society can make a real difference in US politics.
Even immensely rich drug lords could put some of the money they have amassed to support a drive to get a larger part of inner city populations and the lower strata of US society to the poll booths. Anyway, to use funds in that manner would have an immediate positive effect for the drug lords, too, as the subsequent constellation of the US Congress could result in eased drug laws.
Not that eased drug laws would be good for their business. They make more money if drugs are illegal, as this keeps conventional trading companies out of the market.
But an easing of US drug laws could make a big difference to the drug lords' personal safety. Anyway, they all are in danger of being kidnapped Noriega style.
I myself am not currently into drugs. As long as I can manage a sufficiently high frequency of exciting love affairs, I do not need drugs.
But towards the end of one's life, or when there is no infrastructure for sexual excitement, drugs can provide deep pleasure that would otherwise not be available. Drugs can also have an important function in allowing a person a gentle death.
The liberalization of drug use in the US can be an important step towards a society which allows more sexual freedom. Drugs undermine religious beliefs as they implement a little bit of paradise in the real world, and therefore make people less susceptible to nonsensical religious teachings.
There even is an established political party, the Libertarian Party, which advocates the abolishing of practically all current drug laws. Their website is:
www.lp.org
Those who have funds to invest in US domestic politics and would like a shift to more personal freedom should consider the Libertarian Party for support.
In a society that allows a higher degree of personal freedom, crime will be defined differently. By definition, anything a person does to his own body cannot be a crime. Anything a person does that doesn't produce a victim, too, can per se not be a crime.
Furthermore, anything that happens between two consenting people with sufficient power of reasoning cannot be declared a crime. A person who just feels disturbed (because he doesn't condone it culturally) by what other people are doing cannot claim to be a victim.
To claim to be a victim of consensual interaction among other people, a third person's claim has to be substantial, and the right of his which he claims is being, or has been, violated has to be stronger than the basic right for consensual full and free sexual expression of those he claims are violating his rights.
There no longer shall be a legal basis to persecute as a crime the consensual sexual interaction of people, just because it isn't in accordance with the prescriptions of a religion. Again, the Libertarian Party largely agrees to these ideas, which even more makes them worthy of support
They have participated in most major elections over the past three decades, and I assume that many of those who currently do not normally vote in US elections (because they think that politicians anyway are all the same) could be convinced that the Libertarian Party stands for their interests… if they can get their message through.
To check the platform of the Libertarian Party, please check the following site:
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml
US politics and elections are, of course, decided to a high degree by money. Parties that have it can run TV ads, and TV ads translate pretty straight into votes (which is why Ross Perot who spent an estimated $65.4 million of his own money on his 1992 campaign got 19% percent in the vote, and which also is why Michael Bloomberg who spent $73 million of his money became mayor of New York in 2001).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg
