Skip to content

My Anti-Youth Letter to Young Filipino Voters

December 17, 2009

The following is the letter I sent to all the members of the Facebook Group “2010 National Election Watch Forum.”

Do not sanction a so-called youth group claiming to be the vanguard of the X generation...

Do not sanction a so-called youth group claiming to be the vanguard of the X generation...

NO, I won’t vote for the Kabataan Party. But this is not the reason why I’m sending you this message. I observed that most members of this group belong to Generation X. Yes, perhaps you might ask me or your friends if I or they am/are voting for a party that claims to be the vanguard of the youth. The answer should be NO.

Before we vote, we may ask ourselves, “Why should I vote?”- “who should I vote for?”- “for what?” To answer these questions I believe we should know that a science exists which we can use to integrate things and ideas. Philosophy. In the run-up to the 2010 elections, we continue to absorb mixed premises, undefined generalities, absurd contradictions, and compromising ideals and principles from candidates running for different public positions. How can we understand their mongrel political platforms? Is it possible for us to integrate them? How can we know that their political programs work for us and bring the country the desired social and economic development? Or is it possible for us to know? The answer should be YES. It’s possible- and REASON, which is the faculty that integrates and identifies the material provided by your senses, is the answer.
With this, let me share with you the best lecture on life and philosophy which is NEVER taught in schools and universities. If you have time, read it and try to understand its connection with the ongoing political campaign and the 2010 elections on May 10. Good day and good premises!


I asked them, in case they have time, to read the essay entitled “Philosophy: Who Needs It?”

You may find the reason why I won’t vote for the Kabataan Party. I think that they are mini-Marxists trying to take advantage of the Constitutional loophole/cop-out which is now bringing this nation to complete socialism/collectivism.

In my blog entitled “Legalized Political Balkanization: Why the Philippines is Doomed to Failure,” I stated the following:

“We are now witnessing some of the horrible effects of both the multi-party and party-list systems. The framers of the New Constitution did not intend to politically balkanize the nation, but their credulous judgment only confirms this old adage—“the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

“I do not believe that the youth must be represented in Congress. Likewise, I disagree that sectors like women’s group, peasants, laborers, overseas workers, and professionals need a seat in the Lower House to fight for the interests and welfare of their members. I believe that the proper function of the legislature is to promulgate and enact laws for the protection of individual rights, and I disagree with the contention that party-list representatives have the responsibility to look after the welfare and sponsor the interests of their sectoral members. What we have today in Congress is legalized political balkanization wherein the standard of value is bizarre collective welfare.”

15 Comments leave one →
  1. January 15, 2010 3:38

    Sometimes it’s really that simple, isn’t it? I feel a little stupid for not thinking of this myself/earlier, though.

  2. Andrew permalink
    April 9, 2010 3:38

    now, i’m not an atheist or a libertarian, i’m a Traditional Christian and a Catholic, but i must simply agree with this article.

    Political balkanization indeed. We should just abolish the party list system.

    • April 9, 2010 3:38

      @ Andrew. First, I’m not a Libertarian. In fact I am totally against Libertarianism, which perverts the true essence of liberty and individual rights. I call myself radical for capitalism, that is, I advocate for laissez faire capitalism in the Philippines. But yes, the party-list system must be abolished and it can only be done through constitutional amendment or revision.

      • May 5, 2010 3:38

        you might actually find this surprising but the US is more “socialist” in their policies and in their way of handling things. mas protective sila sa aspeto ng kanilang economy. yung propagator ng sinasabi mong laissez faire capitalism ay mismong mga bansa na nakikita ang detrimental effects nito and are therefore taking measures para protektahan ang bansa nila (esp. aspect sa economy). look at the philippines, sinusunod lahat ng advices at policy models ng IMF, WB kaya nine-neoliberalize karamihan ng policies kaya kung makikita mo ang graph ng GDP natin, napaka-unstable and one that is very far from progress or development.

        why would you abolish a system that actualizes the very essence of democracy? which is representation? kaya lang naman nababalahura ang partylist system dahil sa mga schemes ng mga elite politicians na sumali at magrepresent kunwari ng isang sektor. di mo naman kasi ma-ide-deny na there are various of interests sa isang bansa and ang isang paraan para malaman at matugunan yun is through the partylist system. example yung mga kongresista mo na maari ay galing sa middle o upper class, paano niya malalaman ang interes ng mga magsasaka o manggagawa na bumubuo ng mayoridad ng lipunan? it’s a good method of actualizing democracy, yun nga lang, as always, madami pa ring nagta-take advantage ng method na ito.

        fyi, the right philosophy is a social construct. anu ba yun in the first place? panu ba yun piliin? these are questions which i suggest you should start answering before you talk about embracing the right philosophy.

      • May 5, 2010 3:38

        @ G. You said: “you might actually find this surprising but the US is more “socialist” in their policies and in their way of handling things. mas protective sila sa aspeto ng kanilang economy.”

        — I’m not surprised at all and I’ve known this LONG BEFORE… Better check my entries here:

        ESPECIALLY THIS: United Socialist State of America: An Obituary.

        “fyi, the right philosophy is a social construct. anu ba yun in the first place?” YOU MUST BE KIDDING ME. Do you even know the concept of philosophy and your social construct, which has all the trappings of post-modernism, which is an ideological trash?

    • April 10, 2010 3:38

      But HOW can it happen when the socialists have the ear of Congress to the detriment of the capitalists that give the country progress?

      • April 10, 2010 3:38

        That’s why education and spreading the right, moral and proper information is important. The real problem, as I stated before, is education. We have leftist, relativist and anti-capitalist professors in our universities who spread anti-reason ideas. But “reason” is the most important thing of all. Once we know the real concept of reason, everything will follow. Reason is man’s tool of grasping reality and gaining knowledge by observing reality through the use of logic. And when you use logic you should not contradict your premises. When you say you want to live as a human being, you shouldn’t embrace altruism as you moral code, because altruism is about sacrificing your self to other or vice versa. When you say you want to live in a free society you shouldn’t promote the wrong idea, like socialism, fascism, communism, or any collectivist “isim.”

        That’s why I am out to expose the evil of the Filipino Free-farters because they’re a fraud. The Farters are never an advocate of reason, science and freedom. And that’s why I’ve been saying that embracing the right philosophy is important.

  3. May 5, 2010 3:38

    So what do you suggest? Maintain the status quo? Can you even take a look at how the state has systematically silenced dissidents?

    Besides, you haven’t been able to clearly point out what’s wrong with what you called as mini-Marxists. If your logic implies that being a Marxist is wrong, you might as well want to say that wearing panties are wrong because it causes itch on some women.

    I lament the fact that you’re trying to espouse that we should embrace philosophy, science and reason but actually lacks it.

    Besides again, what better alternative do you have in mind?

    I doubt if you will let my comment here to appear on your page because you the way I see it, you do not believe even in free exchange of ideas.

    I pity you. 🙂

    • May 5, 2010 3:38

      This is what I can only suggest…

      • May 5, 2010 3:38

        The way you defend Capitalism is just so dogmatic. Get real. Having a pure capitalist system won’t work. Even a pure communist state won’t work. It’s just a proper mix of system. Some of these model states that we can look up to are the Baltic States in Europe. They did not need to be too capitalist nor too socialist.

        And with your so-called concept of the recognition of individual rights, I believe that my individual rights would be better guarded in a socialist state rather than a pure capitalist state.

        Why? Because by your definition, you are implying that in a capitalist system, even the government would be full of individualistic, self-serving and selfish people that would care less about others? So who are the people who should be in the government if everyone else is individualistic? How can they protect individual rights if their concept is all about self-advancement? Where would we get this people whom I think should give up their individual rights so they could defend the individual rights of others? Because if we won’t have people like them, then the anarcho-capitalists must be right? 🙂

      • May 5, 2010 3:38

        I don’t wanna deal with someone who knows VERY LITTLE… and who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

        “And with your so-called concept of the recognition of individual rights, I believe that my individual rights would be better guarded in a socialist state rather than a pure capitalist state.”

        — Perhaps that’s true if you’re living in a world of illusion and fantasy. That kind of stupid mentality belongs to those who have forsaken reason and who just refused to think.

  4. May 5, 2010 3:38

    By the way, you claim that your group is non-partisan but you have attacked KABATAAN PARTYLIST on your group. Talk about contradictions. 🙂

    • May 5, 2010 3:38

      Where did I make such a claim? Group? But I’m not a group. I’m an individual blogger, capisce?

      • May 8, 2010 3:38

        I pity that you have not been able to respond well with my reply. Yes, I can say that I know little with what you’re talkng about but with the of response that you are giving to people who knows VERY LITTLE makes me wonder if you are some sort of a man preaching on a pedestal who claims to know everything yet does not want others to understand it too.

        And please just because someone does not agree with your ideas, you cannot simply call them stupid because in the end, everything else can only be proven with practice in the real world and not inside your comfort zone. 🙂

        RE: claim. I’m talking about that group you have on facebook – 2010 national election watch forum. You’re the owner of that group right? And you have stated clearly there that you are non-partisan right? Tsk. You should be consistent with what you say. Get real.


  1. Twitted by vincentonpost

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: