As I write this, the headline at Drudge Report is about another “voterless victory” for Ted Cruz in the 2016 Republican Primary against Donald Trump. This comes on the heels of him winning the state of Colorado in a similar fashion. On the other side of the spectrum, Hillary Clinton leads Bernie Sanders in delegates to the Democratic convention, in no small part thanks to “Super Delegates” from states where Senator Sanders actually won.

There are mixed opinions about these matters in the public. Some say “those are the rules” and others say it is a perversion of the Democratic process. I say to hell with them both.

The nomination process is rigged, and to the same extent one can say a nominating process should exist, one can also say it should be rigged. The public is unfit to choose rulers for one another. Most Americans have little to no savings, they are heavily in debt, and a growing number of them are increasingly dependent upon the State for their very sustenance. It should come as no surprise then, that a democratically elected government finds itself in an almost identical predicament.

In fact, the government, unhinged from the economic barriers we mere mortals face, is in a far worse position. One which threatens the safety and well being of even its responsible subjects. When those irresponsible voters run up debts in their own lives, their creditors cut them off. When they provoke violent conflicts in their own neighborhood, they wind up dead or in prison. When they do this in the polling place, the fit and capable pick up the tab instead. The honorable fight the battles of the belligerent. The successful pay the debts of the irresponsible. That is a pattern which cannot continue, yet nearly all voters insist that it can and should, in one manner or another.

So yes. The democratic process is rigged, as it should be. The problem, as it were, is those doing the rigging. The Republican and Democratic parties enjoy occupancy in a very unique grey area between public and private institutions. With the benefits of both and the obligations of neither. They occupy power in the exclusively public domain, and when an exclusively private institution is better suited to the task at hand they simply create one on paper, or pay an existing private institution for whatever favor needs doing, often at public expense. When the public is fooled by their lies, they are quite democratic, and when the public gets wise to their tricks, we’re suddenly living in a nation of “laws” once more. Quite convenient, isn’t it? Long live the republic.

As this existential threat becomes more obvious and imminent, various “solutions” abound.

I sympathize strongly with those who say it should all be scrapped and replaced with nothing. The fact of the matter is, we don’t “need” this at all in any real sense. Absent the “services” of the omnipotent State, market forces would surely fill the worthwhile gaps and do away with the bloat.

Sadly, few are familiar with the works of Rothbard and Hoppe. Even those who purport to be libertarians are rarely more than left liberal communist degenerates who fantasize about responsibility free living in some Utopian conflict free paradise. The moment private entities tell them to take their pot smoke and tranny sex shows to their own property (of which there is none) they will be right back to demanding their votes be counted.

That is to say nothing of the teaming masses of enthusiastic voters and taxpayers who expect nothing other than wide open public spaces, government roads, and public security and defense. Let’s not even waste our time talking about the parasitic lower classes who consider the leech lifestyle their birthright as Americans.