To vote or not to vote, that is the question

I was brought up to belive that voting wasn't a right but a duty. A duty to make sure that the worst person for your seat never got in. Its unfortunate that it isnt that the best person DOESNT get in but either way its a duty to stand up and be counted

I cant understand why people would be proud that they dont vote. Its sad that people know something is wrong but wont do anything about it. They complaine about the state of there country but dont take the half hr of there time to go down and do something about it

In Australia it is against the law NOT to vote. This is so that those people on the border who would find an exscuse not to go but are actually informed and know who they want WILL vote. I guess they feel these people out wiegh those who would vote 1,2,3,4,5

so will you vote this year? (this thread isnt country specific)

If I lived in the states I would vote. I would vote R. Nader.
But on the overall, I don't vote.

why?

I believe that democracy is pointless, the way it works in most of the world is meaningless bullshit that merely lets the public vote in one bunch of losers over another. Giving them a majority over everyone else in parliament makes it a dictatorship effectively. I did vote in the EU elections but it doesn't make a stuff of a difference to the bigger picture.

What would you have then? What other government would prove more effective? Democracy is far from perfect, but it may be the best we've got. The problem that America is running into though, is that the person with the most money has the edge, which is a really bas thing. I hope buying elections isn't the way of the future.

maybe that would be solved if the electrol commision payed for there campains like it does here

What would you have then? What other government would prove more effective?

A benevolent oligarchy along the lines of Platonism, imo. Democracy is one of the least effective forms of government, because in its innate nature it’s unstable. Really if we want to use the term effective in its truest form Stalinism comes to mind. Democracies strength can only be its weakness, i.e. the Nazi’s in Germany. The mob is a scary thing, and when events become radical, so do Democracies, the bastions of…?

why?

I would vote for Nader because he is, I think, exceptional and because he is promising to rock the status-quo.

As for democracy an sich I am against it for the following reasons.

It is a false promise. The promise is that the people rule for the benefit of the people as equals. The people are not equal, they do not rule but are "represented" and the rich and benefits are the ones that profit most.

The people are not equals, they have the same worth but they are not equal. They are not as intelligent or aknowledgable. In fact many don't care about a thing as long as they can subsist.

That is where representatives come in play. They promise and don't deliver. They are chosen by careless voters. The same ones that couldn't rule by themselves. They are voted in and are free to represent as they want for a certain amount of time, a time in which the voters have nothing to say. These representatives have a loyalty to themselves first, their party, their sponsors (if any), lobbies and many others while they might not have any to the voters.

Then you have the rich and powerful and the economy, in our times these are those that are really represented. Of course the first, i.e. the rich and powerful are not as powerfull in every country, but they are powerful. The representatives care for the economy of course. But they also entertain special relations with the rich and powerful.

This is why it is not feasible in large communities. It is a wonderfull system on a community scale where there is another way of social intercourse and relations. These small communities have a greater transparancy.

It is an injust idea. As I said before it is unjust because the opinions of different persons are not equal. I find it unsound that a professor in economy should have the same say that a mineworker has.

My alternative would be to make smaller communities that run democratically. These communities would not be temporal but technocratic. One would have the doctors, the reasearchers, the laborers... etc. This would serve to goals, a higher social cohesion on all level. A more systematic and mature way of decision making. The smaller bodies should then intercourse with one another on a second phase. I had worked out this system, but I must have stached it somewhere...

Anyways, and in the end, every ssytem would work I guess. What matters most, more than the system itself is the quality of the civilians. Alas I think that that quality has been squandered.

:m:

A couple points.

The media's role should be institutionalized.
The big business should be framented as much as possible.
Special interests and lobbying should go public.
The army should have no liason with politics.
Direct accountability of representatives.
NO BIG parties, (If parties are to be allowed at all, I need to think about this)

There must be more to say. But I 'll hear what you guys think.

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another—their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another—their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

Strangely, money became popular/widespread only 200-300 years ago. Before that, owning "money" was a luxury most of the humans could not enjoy.

Why would you view that as a good thing? What society 300 years ago would you rather live in than (as a common man, since that's your point) the western world of today?

Today's common man has running water, electricity, guaranteed education, emergency healthcare even if they can't afford it, preventive healthcare if they can (and 75% or so can), access to cheap transportation, the freedom to start his or *her* own business, and a whole host of other rights unheard-of in the 18th century.

Pretty hard to see any *advantages* in being unable to own money.

But dragging this thread (kicking and screaming) back to Bruce Wayne's point, I don't think he was saying that freedom is a bad thing, exactly. It looked more like a plea for elite-rule fascism to me.

My alternative would be to make smaller communities that run democratically. These communities would not be temporal but technocratic. One would have the doctors, the reasearchers, the laborers... etc. This would serve to goals, a higher social cohesion on all level. A more systematic and mature way of decision making.

Not that I'm assaulting his opinion or anything, just making an observation.

I have not expressed my judgment. I just said that mass owning of money is a relatively modern phenomenon. It has good and bad sides. Regarding good sides of everything: many people assume Life to be "linear" (i.e. if 100 units of something is good then 100,000 units of something is 1000 times better). Unfortunately, nature (including human one) does not operated in such a straightforward fashion. There is maximum/maxima on every curve. Dollarization of everything and everybody has its maxima too.

Why would you view that as a good thing? What society 300 years ago would you rather live in than (as a common man, since that's your point) the western world of today?

You know one could attribute that development to the industrial revolution and other technological leaps. ;)



But dragging this thread (kicking and screaming) back to Bruce Wayne's point, I don't think he was saying that freedom is a bad thing, exactly. It looked more like a plea for elite-rule fascism to me.


First of all, an elite-rule fascism has nothing to do with money. Funny thing that it is, to a certain extent, being practiced in the u.s.a. specially thanks to money. But money was not my point. Money is a good thing, business and entreprise a wouderfull and vital thing.

And although I don't think a elite-rule is necessarily bad, that is not what I meant. What I meant was the splitting of "democracy" in smaller communities. These communities would be based on roles in society. for instance doctors or laborers. This would then be managable.

And although I don't think a elite-rule is necessarily bad, that is not what I meant. What I meant was the splitting of "democracy" in smaller communities. These communities would be based on roles in society. for instance doctors or laborers. This would then be managable.

Smaller communities are much easier preys for strong/energetic/powerlusting bullies. To avoid direct confrontation is human. To hide and wait is human. Not to help, not to get involved when your wellbeing/life is at the stake is human too. That's why racketeering is so successful in small (usually ethnic) communities. Large scale "democracy" shields population from direct/immediate/up close and personal consequences of their decisions/non decisions. It panders to the human nature and fears.

The thing is, democracy already exists on that scale. There's plenty of opportunity for people to get involved in local government, at every level from school board to state congress, with a myriad of levels in-between. As I understand it, you don't even have to be a lawyer to become a judge (or at least certain kinds of judges).

And people do take advantage of it. A lot of seats go uncontested, but none ever really go "unfilled". The real problem is lack of participation from the community. In any election which is not either presidential or at least mid-term, the turnout rate is so low that you can count the number of voters in some precincts on one hand with enough digits left over to collect the chads.

I'm not really sure I understand your role-splitting suggestion. Maybe you could expand on it further.

First time I've ever heard Ayn Rand called a "corruption". (grin)

http://www.atlasshrugged.tv/speech.htm

Anne Rand may be heartless cold and impractical but she seems to be pretty straight forward. I like most of her theories but believe that she fails to take into account monopolies have to have some restraints built into the system to prevent abuse and the general rights of workers.

Yes I would agree that that's the shortcoming of objectivism in general. In the end it's just another form of extremism.

Exactly, good for you! This is why Bush will win by over 52% and Kerry will get less than 45%. GO RALPH!

Whatever. If you want to blame the less than 5% of the people for voting for the best candidate, go ahead. I say all the democrats wasted their vote on voting for the person "just because he's a democrat" or my favorite "because he LOOKS like a president (roflmao)". Kerry is all talk. Says this and that but uses no specifics.

Bush is horrid too. A corrupt group of people that he's with, and only gains most of the votes because of the same "because he's a republican" or because we're at war. Thankfully now that Iraq has been handed over to their new leaders, hopefully war won't be an excuse anymore for him to use to keep himself in power.

But the real issue that bugs me about those that say the democrats will lose this election and the last one due to Nader supporters is that they continue to try and paint the Independant and Green parties as the scapegoat. They try and make the good party look bad rather than telling it like it is and calling all the other people of the country idiots by not voting. They feel that the small 5% is easier to make look bad than the millions of people who did not vote. For those couple hundred votes lost in Florida, you blame it on the Independants or Greens when you people couldn't even persuade 500 or so non-voters to vote. The non-voters are the problem and you're the ones that suck for not being good enough to make those people want to vote for your silly candidate.

So if you democrats are upset that you're not getting a democrate back into office, get a better candidate or work harder at making other people want to vote. Many people don't vote because neither republican or democrat candidate is good and some vote for Nader for that same reason. You should just think of those that vote for Nader the same as someone who is not voting because no way in hell are those people or those that do not vote going to waste their vote getting one of the stupid republican or democratic candidates into office.

The next time you want those people to vote, or to use their vote, to vote for the lesser of two evils, I'll ask you why are you even voting for one of the two that are evil, why not vote for the better which is Nader? You're the ones who wasted your votes "all because they're a democrat or republican", not us. The lesser of two evils.. that's so laughable, they always forget there's more than just two candidates. If YOU democrats wouldn't have wasted your votes, Bush wouldn't be in office. ;)

- N

Smaller communities are much easier preys for strong/energetic/powerlusting bullies. To avoid direct confrontation is human. To hide and wait is human. Not to help, not to get involved when your wellbeing/life is at the stake is human too. That's why racketeering is so successful in small (usually ethnic) communities. Large scale "democracy" shields population from direct/immediate/up close and personal consequences of their decisions/non decisions. It panders to the human nature and fears.

I guess there might be a point in that, if we were to split up society. But that is not needed here. There will be police and an active society.. But that would bring us to another topic. Suffice to say that in a large scale democracy the individuals are not to be shielded from the concequences of their decisions and that they are in fact being reduced to numbers, to a mob. And a mob is very often not a good thing.

The thing is, democracy already exists on that scale. There's plenty of opportunity for people to get involved in local government, at every level from school board to state congress, with a myriad of levels in-between. As I understand it, you don't even have to be a lawyer to become a judge (or at least certain kinds of judges).

And people do take advantage of it. A lot of seats go uncontested, but none ever really go "unfilled". The real problem is lack of participation from the community. In any election which is not either presidential or at least mid-term, the turnout rate is so low that you can count the number of voters in some precincts on one hand with enough digits left over to collect the chads.

I agree. As I said before the quality of the citizens is vital to any social order.

I'm not really sure I understand your role-splitting suggestion. Maybe you could expand on it further.

I admit I hae been a little vague. But I came up with a theory quite a time ago and since then I didn't really need it. I hope I can post it soon.

Exactly, good for you! This is why Bush will win by over 52% and Kerry will get less than 45%. GO RALPH!

Are you implying that the "democrats" are better than the "republicans?

:m:

...and Neildo, I salute you. ;)

:m: