Author
|
Topic: Why Compulsory Voting is Wrong
|
theatlanticaparty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12807
|
posted 04 November 2008 02:09 PM
Currently Nova Scotia has a Select Committee on Participation in the Democratic Process looking into declining voter turnout. The hearings finished last night at Province House. No doubt one topic that will be discussed is compulsory voting. Australia uses it and has very high turnouts, so why not try it here? We often hear that voting is a ‘civic duty’, but it is more accurate to say that voting is a ‘civic right’ and no free and independent people such as Atlantic Canadians should ever allow a government to force them to exercise their rights no matter how wonderful the goal. Put simply, it is no ones business but the individual whether they vote or not. People should be free not to participate if they believe not voting is important. Jehovah Witnesses, for instance, believe that any form of political involvement is wrong so they typically do not vote. Not voting is also a valid method of dissent against governance and is why totalitarian states that maintain a veneer of democracy are always careful to manufacture near 100% turnouts. Any government that interferes in that freedom is acting the tyrant. Coercing citizens to vote only masks the real problem. Our declining voter turnout indicates growing dissent with a political system that needs reforms; separation of powers with an independent and effective Legislature, fair elections, direct election of our leaders, recall, Citizen’s Initiative. Introducing compulsory voting will only paper over the defects and delay needed reforms.
From: . | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126
|
posted 04 November 2008 02:24 PM
quote: I think a law requiring people to vote is a good idea. I would rather have those people go into a polling booth and deliberately spoil their ballots because they like none of the above than stay at home and let political talking heads pontificate on why the turnout is so low. It would be no worse than telling citizens that they have to file tax returns or register their children when born.At least with forced voting the scrutineers and Elections Canada people on election night would be assured of some very humorous things written on the ballots.
Kropotkin is turning in his grave!
Unfortunately federal ballots all black save for where you put your "x" so no humour for the EC staffers and scrutineers.
From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parkdale High Park
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11667
|
posted 05 November 2008 01:57 AM
Once again, you are all wrong. I would suspect that 90% or more of the folks on this forum DON'T matter in politics precisely because they always vote, and they always vote for the same party. Parties target those voters they can win over with the least cost (in terms of lost support from compromise on some issues). Traditional non-voters can do just as well as traditional voters, if not better, in getting their agenda focused on BY NOT VOTING, so long as politicians believe said people might potentially vote in some cases. Spoiled ballots are no different in this regard from non-voting. Moreover, spoiled ballots lose their meaning WHEN YOU FORCE PEOPLE TO VOTE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Why? Well a spoiled ballot is a powerful message now because they are rare and require effort by the voter. If voting was mandatory it would reflect the message that a lot of the people you are forcing to vote aren't that keen on the candidates - something you would know anyway from their non-voting. Thirdly I am going to make a pitch for some sort of just society. Democracy gives everybody one vote, but the difficulty of voting (it isn't that hard but it requires some investment of time, at the very least) creates obstacles. Relatively non-discriminatory obstacles to voting are a great thing. Why? People have different utility functions - it makes more sense from a utility-maxiization point of view that those with strong preferences vote more frequently than those who could care less. Oh and the real argument that will surely convince you all... Mandatory voting in Australia did not make it a more progressive country, actually it may well have had the opposite effect. eg. In the first election since the policy was enacted, the National party swept into power.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Young
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14805
|
posted 05 November 2008 04:06 AM
I would be a supporter of manditory voting only if every ballot had a 'NONE OF THE ABOVE' on it!How would I try to increase voter turnout? Give everyone who votes a tax credit to be used at Income Tax time to reduce their taxable income!
From: Liverpool, N.S. | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
genstrike
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15179
|
posted 05 November 2008 08:10 AM
quote: Originally posted by Agent 204: That's actually a good idea. A similar suggestion was advocated by an acquaintance of mine, who suggested bringing in a guaranteed annual income... provided that you vote. Either would have less effect on people's perception of freedom than actually making voting compulsory.
Oh yes, let's not make voting compulsory, but lets punish people who don't vote by denying them access to social programs. And using a guaranteed annual income as the punishment. So lets punish only poor people. And what about the people who are turned away, who generally just "happen to be" the most vulnerable in society? Admittedly that is more of a problem in the US, but it is a problem here, especially for students. Seriously, penalties for not voting are just about as ridiculous as penalties for not voting Conservative. Not voting is a choice and a valid one.
From: winnipeg | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 05 November 2008 08:20 AM
In Australia if you don't vote you get a fine that is equivalent to a parking ticket - but its enough to get 95% turnouts in every election and by all accounts it helps the Labor Party there because the people who vote as a result of it being compulsory tend to be lower income, lower education people who vote Labor. Everytime someone in Australia floats the idea of scrapping compulsory voting - its always some rightwing hack that wants to get rid of it because it will help the right wing win elections. quote: And what is the difference between spoiling my ballot and not voting, anyways?
Quite a lot actually. If you spoil your ballot it is a sign of protest and dissent at the whole political system. if you just don't show up - it can easily be interpreted as meaning that you are so content with the status quo that you are indifferent as to who wins.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
genstrike
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15179
|
posted 05 November 2008 02:29 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: Quite a lot actually. If you spoil your ballot it is a sign of protest and dissent at the whole political system. if you just don't show up - it can easily be interpreted as meaning that you are so content with the status quo that you are indifferent as to who wins.
Maybe, but that sign of protest and dissent never registers, and could be interpreted as someone not knowing how to vote or screwing up somehow. When was the last time you heard talking heads complain about spoiled ballots and come to the conclusion that a lot of people are pissed off at the system? I strongly believe that we should have the freedom to not participate in the process if we do not believe in it, and that includes not being forced by penalty of fines or denial of social programs to head over to the polling place just to spoil our ballot. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: genstrike ]
From: winnipeg | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 05 November 2008 02:39 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: In Australia if you don't vote you get a fine that is equivalent to a parking ticket - but its enough to get 95% turnouts in every election and by all accounts it helps the Labor Party there because the people who vote as a result of it being compulsory tend to be lower income, lower education people who vote Labor. Everytime someone in Australia floats the idea of scrapping compulsory voting - its always some rightwing hack that wants to get rid of it because it will help the right wing win elections.Quite a lot actually. If you spoil your ballot it is a sign of protest and dissent at the whole political system. if you just don't show up - it can easily be interpreted as meaning that you are so content with the status quo that you are indifferent as to who wins.
Fuck that shit. Oh yeah, its also illegal to spoil your ballot in Australia. If I don't want to get up in the morning to vote your dumb-assed election. That is my right. What is this, "We"?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195
|
posted 05 November 2008 03:06 PM
quote: Originally posted by David Young: I would be a supporter of manditory voting only if every ballot had a 'NONE OF THE ABOVE' on it!
I think this actually makes some sense. Although what is to be done if 'NONE OF THE ABOVE' wins? Notably in the U.S., where I am now, voter participation has been on a significant upswing over the past 3 election cycles. We don't have mandatory voting here, its just that people have felt they had something important to vote about.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668
|
posted 05 November 2008 03:29 PM
It means I have to wonder if your information is correct. If there's a secret ballot, there's no way it could be enforced, so including that in the legislation would be nonsensical.A citation from the relevant legislation would clarify this. Now if the law indeed says it's illegal to spoil your ballot, then I'd agree that the law is wrong (as well as stupid and unenforceable) but I'm skeptical as to whether that claim is accurate. quote: Originally posted by genstrike:
Oh yes, let's not make voting compulsory, but lets punish people who don't vote by denying them access to social programs. And using a guaranteed annual income as the punishment. So lets punish only poor people. And what about the people who are turned away, who generally just "happen to be" the most vulnerable in society? Admittedly that is more of a problem in the US, but it is a problem here, especially for students. Seriously, penalties for not voting are just about as ridiculous as penalties for not voting Conservative. Not voting is a choice and a valid one.
I'd agree that the GAI incentive would probably be too extreme (partly because it seems wrong that a GAI should only apply to citizens) but a tax credit wouldn't be too extreme, I don't think. The analogy between penalties for not voting and penalties for not voting Conservative, though, is a faulty one -- one of these is enforceable, the other is not (thanks again to the secret ballot). quote: Originally posted by robbie_dee:
I think this actually makes some sense. Although what is to be done if 'NONE OF THE ABOVE' wins?
One proposal (championed by Jello Biafra, among others) is that if 'NONE OF THE ABOVE' wins, there would have to be a byelection, with all new candidates. In practice, though, this is unlikely to arise.[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732
|
posted 05 November 2008 04:34 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: Forget it.The whole idea that forcing people to vote is some kind of democratic act is non-sensical. Its blatantly fascist. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Yes we should just forget when you come on here and make groundless claims to support your arguments. Your debating technique is a wonder to behold I can't understand why people get frustrated and sometimes angry with you. That was sarcastic in case you didn't get it.australia has one of the highest levels of spoiled or informal ballots among established democracies. quote: Australia ‘has one of the highest levels of spoiled or informal ballots among established democracies’. Levels of informal voting at the last two elections are consistent with informality levels in the 1984 and 1987 elections.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 05:55 PM
quote: Originally posted by theatlanticaparty: Currently Nova Scotia has a Select Committee on Participation in the Democratic Process looking into declining voter turnout. The hearings finished last night at Province House. No doubt one topic that will be discussed is compulsory voting. Australia uses it and has very high turnouts, so why not try it here? We often hear that voting is a ‘civic duty’, but it is more accurate to say that voting is a ‘civic right’ and no free and independent people such as Atlantic Canadians should ever allow a government to force them to exercise their rights no matter how wonderful the goal. Put simply, it is no ones business but the individual whether they vote or not. People should be free not to participate if they believe not voting is important. Jehovah Witnesses, for instance, believe that any form of political involvement is wrong so they typically do not vote. Not voting is also a valid method of dissent against governance and is why totalitarian states that maintain a veneer of democracy are always careful to manufacture near 100% turnouts. Any government that interferes in that freedom is acting the tyrant. Coercing citizens to vote only masks the real problem. Our declining voter turnout indicates growing dissent with a political system that needs reforms; separation of powers with an independent and effective Legislature, fair elections, direct election of our leaders, recall, Citizen’s Initiative. Introducing compulsory voting will only paper over the defects and delay needed reforms.
Compulsory voting is fundamentally right. Compulsory voting would be wrong if the concept of natural right would mean something. But no right is natural; all rights are instituted by a collective will. Forcing people to vote is simply forcing people to acknowledge that no institution is without a cost. Jehovah Witnesses have no good reason not to vote: God doesn’t speak to them in a more direct fashion that He is speaking to us. Not voting is not a method of dissent at all unless it is done publicly and done in a political system where not voting is illegal. Not voting is simply passivity and passivity is hardly a method for achieving anything except if one is able persuasively to argue that his action of voting would involve a pollution that should be avoided.
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 05 November 2008 06:09 PM
quote: Originally posted by kropotkin1951: Yes we should just forget when you come on here and make groundless claims to support your arguments. Your debating technique is a wonder to behold I can't understand why people get frustrated and sometimes angry with you. That was sarcastic in case you didn't get it.
Damn straight! I was so wrong. It not illegal to vote "informally" in Australia. Its just illegal for me to advocate for voting informally. quote: On election day concern was raised about unauthorisedmaterial being distributed outside a polling place in theBurwood District. Election material was being distributedby a group called 'Vote Informal Today, DemocracyTomorrow'. The material was advocating an informal vote. Victoria police were asked to intervene and collected this material from outside the Elgar Park polling place.
Victoria Election Commission quote: Albert Langer (also known as Arthur Dent[1]) is an Australian political activist, best known for his 1996 conviction and gaoling on contempt charges after breaching an injunction forbidding his advocacy of marking electoral ballot papers in a way discouraged by the Australian Electoral Commission. As a result of his imprisonment Amnesty International declared him the first Australian prisoner of conscience for over 20 years.[2]
Albert Langer The only groundless claim being forwarded here is the idea that you are an Anarchist. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117
|
posted 05 November 2008 06:18 PM
Why is voting wrong?[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ] [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 06:25 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball:
It not illegal to vote "informally" in Australia.
To me spoiling a ballot and not going to the poll are two very different things. The first should not be made illegal but the second should be illegal.
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 05 November 2008 06:28 PM
You are going to have the police ticketing homeless people for not voting, and harrassing hermits in their caves. Are you people for fucking real?You are all just a bunch of snotty busy-bodies. You should get out of everyones life and keep your lousy elections to yourself. You are just completely obsessed with the idea that you have the right to determine what is right for eveyone else, and stick you business whereever you like. People have a right to reject the system. People have a right to have a moral conscience and act on it. If you want people to vote for your godamned NDP halfwit party, convince them to do it. Don't force the to the altar of your misconception. All you are admitting really is that you are not convincing. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 06:44 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: Try not to be insufferable.By the way, I have been "homeless". Have you, ever? [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
What really matters is that you maybe always tasteless but you will never be stateless. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 06:51 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: my friend
My friend, John McCain was very afraid of ACORN. http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=2755
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 05 November 2008 06:53 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel:
That's pretty big of someone who isn't very. Good for you, lad. I'll bet you even pay him the time of day when you can afford it.
Fuck you. Actually the guy works for me on and off, and recently his crazy room mate came after him with a butcher knife and he's out of his place. So yeah, I pay him more than what the NDP thinks is a good minimum wage when I can. He asked to stay in my back yard while he is looking for a place. Speaking of which, aside from "Liberal/Dippers, same old slippers", do you have a couch he could stay on because I am full up? PM me you address and I will send him right over. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 07:10 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: Oh you mean like muscle for the borgiose. Rich social democrats do the poor "favours", and the poor in turn reward them with political power, thourgh a forced vote and then they are so grateful they act as muscle for your regieme.Nice scam. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
To monitor if votes are bought, one needs to bring a cam in and out the polling booth.
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 05 November 2008 07:12 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball:
Fuck you.
Do you eat with that mouth? quote: So yeah, I pay him more than what the NDP thinks is a good minimum wage when I can.
You were one of those who abstained from voting in the last election just after our 22 percent tin pot in Toronto raised his phony majority government's pay by 25%. So what are you talking about?
quote: Speaking of which, aside from "Liberal/Dippers, same old slippers", do you have a couch he could stay on because I am full up? PM me you address and I will send him right over.[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
I thought you were paying him a living wage? Let me guess, you gave him a lick and a promise for $10.25/hr de-indexed for inflation three years from now? You cheap basted [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 05 November 2008 07:14 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel:
I thought you were paying him a living wage? Let me guess, you gave him a lick and a promise for $10.25/hr de-indexed for inflation three years from now? You cheap basted [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
You started in with the insults Fidel. Actually this guy gets $12 under the table. What does that work out to over $15? The $10 the "liberals/dippers, same old slippers" are offering, is what... 2/3rds of what I am paying out? Why should I vote for a $10 minimum wage when I pay more? What good does that do me or anyone I know? [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 05 November 2008 07:21 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel: Twelve bucks an hour? So now you admit the Liberals lick and a promise for $10.25/hr several years from now is entirely inadequate. I'll bet you're really glad now that the Liberals slithered into Queen's Perk and not the NDP. Do you see now what abstaining from votes does for ya?
I know that you talk, I pay. I pay more because I know that $10 you were talking about was a joke. $12 after taxes. Not your measely $10 before taxes. Why should I vote for that shit?
It would be immoral for me to support a measure, which simply doesn't measure up and then pretend I am doing somebody somewhere some good. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 07:29 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball:
Send it to me and I will stop posting for whole hour, how is that?
I will always have more to say about voting.
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 05 November 2008 07:31 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball:
I know that you talk, I pay. I pay more because I know that $10 you were talking about was a joke. $12 after taxes. Not your measely $10 before taxes. Why should I vote for that shit?
Well now NDP'ers everywhere are holding non-voting high rollers like you accountable for every adult worker in Ontario should earn at least the NDP's proposed $10 bucks an hour promised immediately as of last year. And it looks like you'll need to hire a few more guys to enforce even that minimum, so you'd better get busy. Time's a waistin'
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 05 November 2008 07:35 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel:
Well now NDP'ers everywhere are holding non-voting high rollers like you accountable for every adult worker in Ontario should earn at least the NDP's proposed $10 bucks an hour promised immediately as of last year. And it looks like you'll need to hire a few more guys to enforce even that minimum, so you'd better get busy. Time's a waistin'
Far from it. I was paying $10, after taxes an hour to start 5 years ago. Skilled labour get more. You guys are a joke, from where I am standing. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092
|
posted 05 November 2008 07:40 PM
Jesus, Cueball. You never annoy me so much as when you're totally right, and then set about alienating everyone from your position with your combative attitude. But hey, that's your right. Just sayin'.The concept of forcing people to vote is undeniably fascist. There are some forms of political coercion that we can't avoid. For instance, if this was a sane society, we would be coercing responsible environmental stewardship because the alternative is plummeting into ecological destruction. Low voter turnouts, on the other hand, while regrettable, have never harmed anyone, nor are they responsible for any ills of society. Your fanciful notions that compulsory voting would help your political goals are based on no evidence or logic whatsoever, and would be a downright scary justification for such heavy-handed tactics if they were. Can't you see that you play right into the alarmist right-wing notion of the left as Stalinesque would-be dictators with this craziness? Voting is about democracy. Democracy is about liberty. Who could tell me that I'd better exercise my liberty or pay the consequences and not explode from the hypocrisy? Get in the booth and be free or you'll wish you did. Don't argue, just do as you're told! I don't want any part of your so-called freedom when I'm marched into it at the point of a gun. Isn't this the same argument we've all been making about Iraq for five years? You can't coerce people into being democratic? Contradiction in terms? Any of this ring a bell? I hate it when people don't vote. It grates on my nerves. It's such a small gesture and requires so little of you. Why throw away the slim vestige of democracy that our system affords? (don't answer that, Cueball) Despite this, I would never, ever, under any circumstances, not in a million years be so arrogant as to tell someone they had no right to refuse it. This is their democratic franchise, the expression of their freedom. They can put it on a pedestal or shit all over it just as their heart desires because it belongs to them and no one else. You don't have the right to tell them what to do with it. Thank god.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 07:41 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: Exactly. Enforced voting is violence.[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
It is perceived as violence only for the immoral.
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 05 November 2008 07:42 PM
quote: Originally posted by Benoit:
In politics you have only two choices: violence or morality.
There is always more choices.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 05 November 2008 07:43 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball:
Far from it. I was paying $10, after taxes an hour to start 5 years ago. Skilled labour get more. You guys are a joke, from where I am standing. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
The O'Liberals are the running joke with 10% of the province living anywhere below obscure poverty lines and hemorrhaging more jobs every day and over 1.2 million adults still not earning $10 bits an hour. But Cueball Inc. will be there to pick up the slack, we can be sure. All those who didn't vote must have been a-okay with their pathetic record for self-induced powerlessness at Queen's Perk.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 07:51 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball:
Bullshit how do you propose to make it mandatory?
I'm a deliberative democrat which means I proceed through collective deliberations.
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 08:04 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: Shooting, then?
Shooting them is the fascist way to do thing. Learn something about fascism. Fascism is about personally cult. It is about totally identifying yourself with the leader. For a fascist there cannot be more than one candidate to vote for. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kloch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3765
|
posted 05 November 2008 08:16 PM
quote: Originally posted by Benoit:
It is a good question to be asked in a deliberative assembly. But in such an assembly, I bet you will develop a motivation to answer it.
So, if you were in this "deliberative assembly", what would you suggest? Imprisonment, a fine? Could a person be excused if they were alive but incapacitated? What if I got into a car accident on the way to the polling station and was hospitalized? Would I be excused from paying the fine provided a brought a doctor's certificate to a justice of the peace? Do you see the kind of bureaucratic machine that would be required to meaningfully support this enterprise?
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 08:22 PM
quote: Originally posted by Kloch:
So, if you were in this "deliberative assembly", what would you suggest? Imprisonment, a fine? Could a person be excused if they were alive but incapacitated? What if I got into a car accident on the way to the polling station and was hospitalized? Would I be excused from paying the fine provided a brought a doctor's certificate to a justice of the peace? Do you see the kind of bureaucratic machine that would be required to meaningfully support this enterprise?
Deliberative assemblies have always determined what is economical and what is not. Humanity is now in a position to make this fundamental process more explicit and systematic.
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 05 November 2008 08:30 PM
In anycase, what it amounts too is that at some point were someone to refuse to comply with the will of the deliberative assembly, even if it were a ticket, and in this country, and in most, if you refuse pay a fine on a ticket you are liable for jail time, if the court so wishes it, and so, you are talking about violently enforcing the will of the "deliberative assembly", and if your position really is that there are only two choice, "morality or violence" then you have opted for the latter and not the former.[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108
|
posted 05 November 2008 08:38 PM
quote: Originally posted by Webgear: I now this is not really part of the thread topic however 85% of soldiers in Kandahar voted in the last election.[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Webgear ]
It could be the captive audience effect, or just simply a slow day behind the wire scratching their nuts, so why not go and vote.
From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 05 November 2008 08:39 PM
quote: Originally posted by Slumberjack:
"Systematic" solutions has an errie ring to it. And what the hell is a "deliberative assembly" anyway? Is that like a Gauleiter and a bunch of neighborhood snoops comparing notes down at the local beerhall?
Well this is what is interesting about Benoit has brought forward as description of Fascim: quote: Originally posted by Benoit:
Shooting them is the fascist way to do thing. Learn something about fascism. Fascism is about personally cult. It is about totally identifying yourself with the leader. For a fascist there cannot be more than one candidate to vote for. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]
I submit that Fascism does not require subserviance and identificaiton with "the leader" but in fact can be constituted as "identification" with a state, or even a process. Even if the process is one where one nominally has the ability to select a leader between two or even more, options. As long there is little discernable political differences between those offered choices, and they all act in the name of the process or state, and hold that as the central theme of their beliefs, it could easily be considered a fascist process. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 05 November 2008 08:41 PM
quote: Originally posted by Benoit: No human being can become an autonomous individual all by himself. In our society, it is mostly nuclear families that are dealing with children’s refusal to comply with the adult rules. You will never find one sane individual that has grown up in a family that has never become a deliberative assembly to deal with some relational issues it had to face.[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]
Of course they can. I have met numerous people who do exactly this. Just because most human interaction takes place in the context of human social organization, it is not necessarily the case that one needs to extend restrictive measures on every single aspect of everyones daily life. For example, voting. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 08:46 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball:
I submit that Fascism does not require subserviance and identificaiton with "the leader" but in fact can be constituted as "identification" with a state, or even a process. Even if the process is one where one nominally has the ability to select a leader between two or even more, options. As long there is little discernable political differences between those offered choices, and they all act in the name of the process or state, and hold that as the central theme of their beliefs, it could easily be considered a fascist process. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Fascism is a particular form of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism means a process that is closing alternatives to individuals. Voting is essentially doing the opposite: it is opening opportunities. If you don’t like any candidate, you have to present yourself as one more. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 08:52 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: Totalitarianism is the totalization of the state ideology in every aspect of daily life. Enforcing democracy by enforced voting is to make democracy totalitarian.
The will of the people is impossible to circumscribe in its entirety. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 09:03 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: So what? All you are doing is talking about extending the totalitarian measures for the enforcement of "democratic" ideology. Just because there is no totally "totalitarian" society, does not mean that your idea is not a totalitarian measure.[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Extending the totalitarian measures is an oxymoron.
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 05 November 2008 09:07 PM
quote: Originally posted by Benoit:
Extending the totalitarian measures is an oxymoron.
Then there has never been a totalitarian state, because no state exerts total control. As you rightly pointed out "the will of the people can not be circumscribed entirely". You were the one to introduce totalitarianism into this conversation, not I. The oxymoron is of your own making. I posed the issue of being one of imposing a "totalitarian" process. A state, a government, a family, are all social processes. Nothing is absolute. What ever made you think it was. Even if you did manage to institute your totalitarian scheme it would never succeed because the "will of he people can never be circumscribed, entirely" and someone somewhere would manage to subvert your fascist plan by not voting. 5% of all Australians "not vote" against fascism every election. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 09:12 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball:
Then there has never been a totalitarian state, because no state exerts total control. As you rightly pointed out "the will of the people can not be circumscribed entirely". You were the one to introduce totalitarianism into this conversation, not I. The oxymoron is of your own making. I posed the issue of being one of imposing a "totalitarian" process. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Imposing voting is analog to forcing a treatment upon a paranoiac. Totalitarianism and paranoia grow together.
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 05 November 2008 09:20 PM
From whose perspective? Aboriginal Australians, might think otherwise. quote: Originally posted by Benoit:
Go see by yourself in the nearest psychiatric hospital.
By violence or the threat of the imposition of violence. Often done at psychiatric hospitals. But then this violence, how does it square with: quote: Originally posted by Benoit:
In politics you have only two choices: violence or morality.
[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 05 November 2008 09:28 PM
But we've had Canadian apartheid under successive Liberal and Tory federal governments. Is Canada fascist then? The Afghan, El Salvador, and Iraq Elections Compulsory voting is not truly fascist unless there is a real threat of violence or even death as was the case in so many U.S. managed elections around the world where they've propped up brutal and corrupt regimes
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 05 November 2008 09:29 PM
quote: Originally posted by Benoit:
Imposing voting is analog to forcing a treatment upon a paranoiac. Totalitarianism and paranoia grow together.
quote: Originally posted by Benoit:
In politics you have only two choices: violence or morality.
You are the one who is imposing the a-moral totalitarian measure. You want to grow totalitarianism. Therefore... [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 05 November 2008 09:32 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel: But we've had Canadian apartheid under successive Liberal and Tory federal governments. Is Canada fascist then? The Afghan, El Salvador, and Iraq Elections Compulsory voting is not truly fascist unless there is a real threat of violence or even death as was the case in so many U.S. managed elections around the world where they've propped up brutal and corrupt regimes
Yes, from the perspective of many FN Canadians, I am sure Canada has looked, and possibly still does look pretty fascist. Ultimately, even the enforcement of things such as tickets are backed up with the threat of violence. If you don't pay your tickets you can go to jail. Imprisonment is violence. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 09:40 PM
quote: Originally posted by Papal Bull: I think we should have a blank ballot with the options of "yes" or "no".Democracy is black and white. A yes or no question. Let's get down to the fundamentals and break some pottery!
On a blank ballot people would write their own name as the best MP or the name of their best friend...
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 05 November 2008 09:43 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball:
Ultimately, even the enforcement of things such as tickets are backed up with the threat of violence. If you don't pay your tickets you can go to jail. Imprisonment is violence.
I knew a guy from Toronto who went to live in Quebec to avoid paying thousands of dollars in parking tickets. QPP picked four of us up in his car somewhere between Matagami and Noranda, open wine bottles and beer everywhere. He was slapped with an affordable fine back then in the 90's. We went on our way to peelers in Noranda about 15 minutes behind schedule. But that's not like being menaced by Hitler's guardsmen standing over us at the ballot box, or the transparent ballot boxes in 1980's El Salvador with Duarte's thugs standing within eye shot. Our federal Liberals and Tories were real asshole-deluxes in the good old days. But aside from a few indigenous Canadians arrested by RCMP and dumped outside city limits to suffer severe frostbite and even freeze to death, Canada has no real desaparecidos.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 09:45 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: You are the one who wants to violently impose the will of the "deliberative assembly", in order to make everyone recognize it by putting an X in some box. You stated there were too choices, morality or violence. You have chosen violence.
Choosing deliberation is obviously choosing morality.
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 09:52 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball:
Choosing is one thing. Forcing people to choose, is something entirely different. Hitler ran a number of referendums where people were forced to choose.
In a deliberation everything is "on the table": the use of force, the number of choices, everything...
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 09:58 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: Fine.
Next time you better think twice before pointing your finger at moralists. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 05 November 2008 10:00 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball:
Choosing is one thing. Forcing people to choose, is something entirely different. Hitler ran a number of referendums where people were forced to choose.
I think you may be on to something. Canada may not be a brutal U.S.-backed rightwing dictatorship or even bear semblance to a corporate-sponsored European fascist state of the 1930s and 40s, but perhaps there is something in between? Liberal fascism? Jack Lint: "This is information retrieval not information dispersal." In the words of Monthy Python: "NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry... are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again."
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 05 November 2008 10:01 PM
quote: Originally posted by Benoit:
Next time you better think twice before pointing your finger at moralists. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]
What are you talking about? You specifically stated that you could either be moral or violent. The fact is that ultimately violence is at the heart of any law when it is enforced. If you pose the idea the violence and morality are juxtaposed, and then say you want to force people to vote, you are backing that up with violence, and saying therefore that your position is amoral. Utterly illogical tautology. Of course you did not mean that. You meant that violence is justifiable in the name of the "will of the people". What you are is some kind of Corporatist Totalitarian. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 10:04 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel:
Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency....
Surprise without fear cannot be a weapon since it is what makes life exciting.
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 10:14 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball:
What are you talking about? You specifically stated that you could either be moral or violent. The fact is that ultimately violence is at the heart of any law when it is enforced. If you pose the idea the violence and morality are juxtaposed, and then say you want to force people to vote, you are backing that up with violence, and saying therefore that your position is amoral. Utterly illogical tautology. Of course you did not mean that. You meant that violence is justifiable in the name of the "will of the people". What you are is some kind of Corporatist Totalitarian. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
The people's will forever will evolve and escape any totalitarian attempt but the individual wills cannot be kept isolated from some collective will. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 05 November 2008 10:16 PM
quote: Originally posted by Benoit:
Surprise without fear cannot be a weapon since it is what makes life exciting.
What about ruthless efficiency? I once neglected to declare a few dollars of income(less than $5 bucks) on an application for UI(before it became the very Orwellian "Employment Insurance"). The feds knew about it and scolded me for it , went so far as to hold up my claim because of it. Meanwhile multinational corporations have deferred and unpaid corporate income taxes to the tune of billions and billions of dollars. You and I would probably go to jail for non-payment of income taxes. And their friends in industry can dump toxic waste into the environment and maybe pay a slap on the wrist in affordable fines. You and I would be fined what we would consider serious dough for dumping a bag of trash where we're not supposed to. The people will police themselves in a liberal-fascist setup, but corporations often get away with murder.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 05 November 2008 10:28 PM
quote: Originally posted by Benoit:
Ruthless efficiency is yet another oxymoron since a slave will never be more productive than a self-motivated person.
That's true. Slave labourers in Nazi occupied Europe weren't so productive as they were worked to death. Slave labour in the complete absence of human rights has always been a wet dream for capitalists. Stalin used forced labour as he realized a massive military buildup was taking place in Germany in violation of the Versaille Treaty, but many of those labourers paid even a meagre wage in Russia during the war years knew what the consequences were for losing.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 10:29 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: Oh but we will enslave people to democracy. It's not enought for people to be self-motivated to vote. Now that is rich. You talk about oxymorons?You don't even have a consistent thesis. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Democracy is like friendship. If friends choose to chain themselves together is will be the most original form of chain.
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
brookmere
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9693
|
posted 05 November 2008 10:36 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: Who cares if it can be enforced or not? What does that have to do with the principles of human rights?
If it is legally required to vote, and it is illegal to spoil your ballot, that means that the state requires each citizen to support a recognized political party.Isn't that a pretty obvious violation of human rights? Democracy includes the right not to support any candidate or party, which is why I'm strongly opposed to mandatory voting. quote: I think the point of compulsory voting is to create legitimacy for whomever has or takes power.
Which is why historically it has been required almost exclusively by dictatorships.[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: brookmere ]
From: BC (sort of) | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 05 November 2008 10:59 PM
Irrelevant, since these are also functions of degree. This is the difference between the absoltue definition of totalitarianism, and the definition of totalitarianism as a process. You intend to assert a totalitarian process: Totalized enforcement of the democratic ideology. The intent of the objective is not at all impacted by how it manifests itself in the discourse.Hitler was a totalitarian fascist, this fact is not all changed by the fact that he failed in his intentions. The fact that there might be give and take in the degress of force, choice and coersion in any given human social construct, in no way justifies the attempt to absolutely impose choice by coersion. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 11:10 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: Irrelevant, since these are also functions of degree. This is the difference between the absoltue definition of totalitarianism, and the definition of totalitarianism as a process. You intend to assert a totalitarian process: Totalized enforcement of the democratic ideology. The intent of the objective is not at all impacted by how it manifests itself in the discourse.Hitler was a totalitarian fascist, this fact is not all changed by the fact that he failed in his intentions. The fact that there might be give and take in the degress of force, choice and coersion in any given human social construct, in no way justifies the attempt to absolutely impose choice by coersion. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Dialogue is the ideal way to integrate those possessed by psychotic phantasms.
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 11:18 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: Off topic and irrelevant. You are talking about enforced voting, not "dialoguing" with wayward non-voters, unless by dialogue you mean the one that happens between the captain of the firing squad and the condemned.[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
The electoral process is a perfectible form of communication. Those who reject it are in the process of becoming prisoners of some psychotic phantasms.
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 05 November 2008 11:27 PM
quote: Originally posted by Benoit:
The electoral process is a perfectible form of communication. Those who reject it are in the process of becoming prisoners of some psychotic phantasms.
But how else could we give our implicit support for the crumbling economy and amazing child poverty in, say, Ontario if not by telling everyone that we abstained from voting in the same spirit of the phony federal oppo party?
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 11:34 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: I'd say that the electoral process is evidence of the existance of a considerable lack of democracy. Jingles said here once, "elections, like standing armies, are antithetical to democracy." Your intention of enforcing ratification of the process only shifts if from the category of a sad reminder of the lack of democracy in people lives, to the totalization of the tyrrany even in the act of being asked to choose the blind fold... or not.[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Whatever the quality of our democracy, all propositions to do something about it bring hope. Even proposing to kill everyone not participating in an election remains only a suggestion open to a constructive debate.
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 05 November 2008 11:37 PM
Well that is the difference between you and me. I don't think suggesting killing anyone who does not put a check mark on a piece of paper, within a specific time frame and at a specific place is even worthy of the term constructive debate. I think it is clearly insane. It is real Wansee Conference stuff. Now there is a deliberative assembly for you. They had a solution! A very efficient one too! [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 11:44 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: Well that is the difference between you and me. I don't think suggesting killing anyone who does not put a check mark on a piece of paper, within a specific time frame and at a specific place is even worthy of the term constructive debate. I think it is clearly insane. It is real Wansee Conference stuff. Now there is a deliberative assembly for you. They had a solution! A very efficient one too! [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Most leaders face situations where they have to risk the lives of some persons to avoid risking those of some others.
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 11:53 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: You weren't talking about "risking". You were saying that discussion about setting forth a deliberate policy of executing people who do not vote could be construed as "constructive debate."I say that statement is insane. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Any deliberation is constructive because while it is going on killing is kept on hold.
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Benoit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15667
|
posted 05 November 2008 11:55 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: You weren't talking about "risking". You were saying that discussion about setting forth a deliberate policy of executing people who do not vote could be construed as "constructive debate."I say that statement is insane, prima facie. [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Setting forth a deliberate policy of executing people is called planning not deliberating.
From: Montreal | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 06 November 2008 12:02 AM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball:
That's an arguement for making everyone ratify the process through which "liberal-capitalism" gets it mandate? [ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]
I'm not arguing for compulsory voting. I'm arguing against obsolete electoral systems in the last three or four English-speaking countries mostly responsible for the neoliberal capitalist setup which maketh desolate.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 06 November 2008 12:11 AM
quote: Originally posted by Benoit:
Monstrous also is the sex drive of a lot of men.
... in countries without social security for seniors. In some Asian countries, the idea is to have as many children as possible in order that they survive incredible odds against living past the age of five. Children are their social security in old age. And the country with the most successful socialist program in their history, U.S. social security, refuses to export that same gold standard to desperately poor thirdworld capitalist nations through IMF and WTO diktats. eta: Sex is like birds and bees. It is the spark of life since the dawn of the cradle of civilization in Africa. We can't dictate away the human need for pleasure and to proliferate. Health care, education and food on the table: those three things represented left-wing terrorism to very many hawks during the cold war. ~"It's more difficult to govern over a confident, well educated and healthy population." Sir Tony Benn [ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 06 November 2008 12:28 AM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball:
This is a thread about compulsory voting.
Well in that case you've ventured into the rhubarb at least a half a dozen times. Try and stay on the road if you can manage it. [ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|