November 7th

[Howie]

Who is going to go out and have their say this upcoming election term? Do you feel it is a very important role in our society and matter very much or do you think it is meaningless. It doesn't matter that much?

[The Blue Meanie]

Don't vote! It only encourages the bastards!

[Howie]

Don't vote! It only encourages the bastards! [/b] Do we agree on anything?

[The Blue Meanie]

Do we agree on anything? [/b] Howie, it's a joke.

[Howie]

Howie, it's a joke. [/b] What?¿ ~ Has this Extended discussion Forum has put me on the defensive.

[justme]

I’m not old enough to vote… and my mom, dad, and sibling aren’t even registered. I think I’ll vote when I get older. I’ll get a sticker , oh and I guess I would be a part of an important process of picking our nations leaders. Anyway speaking of voting I’m not too sure but there’s been some thoughts about making voting kind of a lottery to try and get more people to vote. Like a random voter would get a lot of money. I think that’s a stupid idea. I wouldn’t want the president to be elected by people who are only voting to try and win money. It would kind of be like school elections for class president. At one school you had to go and vote for who you want doing lunch, at the other school they made it easy and just handed out papers to vote on to all the classes. If voting is just handed to people (or it be like a lottery) then yes people are more likely to vote, but not really care who or what they are voting for.

[Seeker]

I voted. Once more, was voting AGAINST people instead of for them. There were just too many I didn't want to see get into office.

[TygrHawk]

I voted. I always vote in general elections -- not always in the others. Anyway speaking of voting I’m not too sure but there’s been some thoughts about making voting kind of a lottery to try and get more people to vote. Like a random voter would get a lot of money. I think that’s a stupid idea. I wouldn’t want the president to be elected by people who are only voting to try and win money. [/b] That was a proposition on the ballot here in Arizona. I agree, dumb idea. I don't want every moron voting -- just people who really care and are informed.

[Burns]

[Alex D]

Oh dear god you get stickers... We just get a disturbing old man. Anyway, not that I could have voted, but I'm pleased with the results. America's international esteem seems to have just gone up a few notches.

[Howie]

Oh dear god you get stickers... We just get a disturbing old man. Anyway, not that I could have voted, but I'm pleased with the results. America's international esteem seems to have just gone up a few notches.[/b] aaahhh. I voted by absentee ballot this year so I did not receive a sticker. I had been collecting them over the years on my gun safe. (spare he red neck jokes) The Democrats took The House and the Senate. I voted. I always vote in general elections -- not always in the others. That was a proposition on the ballot here in Arizona. I agree, dumb idea. I don't want every moron voting -- just people who really care and are informed. [/b] If people do not want to vote then why would you even want their vote? That is stupid. It would be hard to consider then very valid votes.

[Universal Mind]

If people do not want to vote then why would you even want their vote? That is stupid. It would be hard to consider then very valid votes. [/b] It is always the Democrats that get all Hell bent on convincing as many people as possible to vote. That is because the uninformed people are usually going to vote for Democrats. On the surface, the ideas of the Democrats seem to make sense. It takes analysis to see through the surface illusions, and the uninformed are not going to do that. They will just say, "Hey, the Democrats are against poverty. They pass laws against racism too. And they think guns are bad. Hmmmm.... Democrats will raise taxes and pay to fix everything. Gosh, that's a real good idear. They know how to get the government to solve every problem. I'll vote for them." It takes extra thought to understand the importance of low taxes in a capitalist system, how welfare gone mad encourages poverty, the futility of programs that ignore the necessity of competition, the disproportionate effect of gun bans on criminals and non-criminals, and the other counterproductive attributes of big government.

[The Blue Meanie]

Uhhhh... I can't quite place it, but Burns, you look a little eerie in that photo. Anyway, I said this before but it got deleted cos of our silly hosts: I don't vote, out of prinicple.

[Burns]

Uhhhh... I can't quite place it, but Burns, you look a little eerie in that photo.[/b] It was a rainy, nasty day so my hair looks retarded.

[The Blue Meanie]

It was a rainy, nasty day so my hair looks retarded. [/b] No, it's not that. It's the way you've got this absurdly large smile, but... I dunno. There's like... a little hint of menace in the eyes... like "If you don't vote, I'LL HUNT YOU DOWN AND KILL YOU so let's go vote and have chocolate." kinda thing....

[Burns]

"If you don't vote, I'LL HUNT YOU DOWN AND KILL YOU so let's go vote and have chocolate." [/b] You should trademark that slogan!

[The Blue Meanie]

Hell no! I'm against voting. ... Killing people too, I suppose.

[Universal Mind]

Hell no! I'm against voting. [/b] Then how are the people supposed to run things? Do you support some type of totalitarianism? What kind of government do you believe in?

[Howie]

ahhhhhh! I just realized that the POLL is back! I can't get rid of it. Why not vote? Because then you can just pitch a bitch and blame it on others. Then say there is nothing I can do anyway.

[The Blue Meanie]

Then how are the people supposed to run things? Do you support some type of totalitarianism? What kind of government do you believe in? [/b] I don't "believe" in any form of government in the objective sense. The same as I don't believe in objective morality. I think the current trend in modern political thought to regard democracy as an objectively superior form of government, and desirable, is nonsensical if one does not accept objectivity in an ideological or moral sense. I don't "believe" in democracy. I support what works. With our current level of technology, democracy doesn't exist, let alone work. Direct democracy, that is. Representative democracy isn't democracy, in my opinion. Democracy doesn't work very well at all. So what form of government DO I support? Ehhh, tricky question. Depends on what works. And what works differs from country to country, and culture to culture.

[Universal Mind]

I don't "believe" in any form of government in the objective sense. The same as I don't believe in objective morality. I think the current trend in modern political thought to regard democracy as an objectively superior form of government, and desirable, is nonsensical if one does not accept objectivity in an ideological or moral sense. I don't "believe" in democracy. I support what works. With our current level of technology, democracy doesn't exist, let alone work. Direct democracy, that is. Representative democracy isn't democracy, in my opinion. Democracy doesn't work very well at all. So what form of government DO I support? Ehhh, tricky question. Depends on what works. And what works differs from country to country, and culture to culture. [/b] But you are against voting. So what are you not against? If you don't want the people to have votes, then you support totalitarian government, it seems. Are you okay with totalitarian governments in some places? Which places? In places where you don't think totalitarianism works, what does, without voting? It seems that for a government to not be totalitarian, the people have to have the ultimate authority. How can they have that without votes?

[Howie]

The Blue Meanie, Since this seems to come up in a lot of the discussion, I think I need something clarified, if you will. Objective reasoning. I can't seem to get my head around the true nature of this. Maybe if need be we can even split this great POLL and discuss it in greater detail By Objectivism, do you mean a type of metaphysics? " philosophical stance that holds that reality is not mind dependent." I guess what I am asking is, where does the underlying basis for an Objective stance rooted? As Objective in itself, meaning what I believe to be to have a goal, no? Or a agenda and purpose. Without this, does this mean that life will unfold as it will.... regardless of decision? Maybe I am way off. But I think this may give better understanding to some of the debates such as morals and such.

[The Blue Meanie]

But you are against voting.[/b] I'm not "against" insofar as it's part of a system of government which I do not support because it doesn't work: elected representative government. If you don't want the people to have votes, then you support totalitarian government, it seems.[/b] The view that anything not deomcratic must therefopre be totalitarian is a much misguided preconception. Quite prevalent in western society, as shown by your post. Try not to presuppose my views. Are you okay with totalitarian governments in some places?[/b] This is something that I've tried to express time and time again. Whether I am "okay" with a type of government in a different culture is irrelevant. What matters is whether it works. And, before you ask me to define "works" - yes, that is a tricky question which is again dependant on cultural and other factors. But the guts of what you're asking is where do I think totalitarian governments might "work". I would tend to say smaller political societies, with less people and a need for a single governing person - purely for the sake of efficiency. For larger societies, totalitarian government and absolute power vested in a single figure head MAY not be a suitable system of government. And in any case, the larger the country, the more impossible totalitarianism becomes. The larger the country, the more work there is. Take Nazi Germany for example - you should look up the "Weak Dictator" thesis with regards to Hitler. Wikipedia it, it SHOULD be on there - that should give a basic overview. It seems that for a government to not be totalitarian, the people have to have the ultimate authority.[/b] Not true. Like I said above, this is not a simple dichotomy. We have two extremes: Totalitarianism (total power vested in the government) vs Total power vested in the people. There are MANY shades of grey and variations in between the two extremes. Surely you can see this? In any case, the only way for the people to have absolute authority would be some sort of collective telepathic issue-by-issue decision making, as in the Peter F. Hamilton "Night's Dawn" Trilogy of books. Very good, I think you'd like it. Some good political theory in there, even if it IS sci-fii. (MODS!!!! CAN WE PLEASE unban 's c i f i'?! It's REALLY annoying&#33 Representative, "democratically" elected government is not total power vested in the people. In fact, it could be argues that this form of government is actually closer to totalitarianism than it is to having total power vested in the people. This is a debate for another time though, methinks. The Blue Meanie, Since this seems to come up in a lot of the discussion, I think I need something clarified, if you will. Objective reasoning. I can't seem to get my head around the true nature of this. Maybe if need be we can even split this great POLL and discuss it in greater detail By Objectivism, do you mean a type of metaphysics? " philosophical stance that holds that reality is not mind dependent." I guess what I am asking is, where does the underlying basis for an Objective stance rooted? As Objective in itself, meaning what I believe to be to have a goal, no? Or a agenda and purpose. Without this, does this mean that life will unfold as it will.... regardless of decision? Maybe I am way off. But I think this may give better understanding to some of the debates such as morals and such. [/b] When I speak of "objectivism", in application to "objective morality" or an "objectively superior" idea or political theory, I am expressing the idea (and usually objecting against it) that certain principles of morality or political theory are "objectively" better. I.e, the idea that they're better or right, just because they ARE. Taking the example of democracy as an objective principle: there is a tendency in western political thought to see representative 'democracy' as somehow "inherantly" superior. Does that make it more clear what I mean when I use the word "objective"?

[Howie]

QUOTE(Howetzer @ Nov 12 2006, 01:56 AM) * Since this seems to come up in a lot of the discussion, I think I need something clarified, if you will. Objective reasoning. I can't seem to get my head around the true nature of this. Maybe if need be we can even split this great POLL and discuss it in greater detail By Objectivism, do you mean a type of metaphysics? " philosophical stance that holds that reality is not mind dependent." I guess what I am asking is, where does the underlying basis for an Objective stance rooted? As Objective in itself, meaning what I believe to be to have a goal, no? Or a agenda and purpose. Without this, does this mean that life will unfold as it will.... regardless of decision? Maybe I am way off. But I think this may give better understanding to some of the debates such as morals and such.[/quote] When I speak of "objectivism", in application to "objective morality" or an "objectively superior" idea or political theory, I am expressing the idea (and usually objecting against it) that certain principles of morality or political theory are "objectively" better. I.e, the idea that they're better or right, just because they ARE. Taking the example of democracy as an objective principle: there is a tendency in western political thought to see representative 'democracy' as somehow "inherantly" superior. Does that make it more clear what I mean when I use the word "objective"? [/b] Well I guess there is the obvious difference between objective views and objective goals. I guess I don't see how it is a belief. Corrosion of conformity. Is it just bucking a popular system?

[Universal Mind]

Blue Meanie, you danced all around my major question, but never quite hit it. I thought my post very clearly indicated what I am trying to understand. I will ask it in one sentence this time instead of several... How can the people have voices without votes? I don't see how that is possible, so it seems that any kind of government where people don't would be totalitarianism. If you disagree, please explain how it is possible to have a government that is not completely totalitarian where the people don't vote. Of course there can be votes and totalitarianism, as in the case of the Hussein regime, where Hussein got 100% of the votes (Hmmmmm...), but you can't have an absence of totalitarianism without votes. How can the people have voices without votes? I know you recanted on your point that you don't believe in voting, so if you do believe in voting in non-demoratic systems, then tell me. My question in the above paragraph is there in case you think it is possible to have non-voting without totalitiarianism. I don't see how it is possible. Do you? And my subordinate question: What kind of government(s) do you believe in? If your philosphy on that is too culture specific, then pick an area and answer it in regard to that area, or culture or country or whatever. I am trying to get at least some spec of an incling about what kind of government or governments you think have any kind of legitimacy, but you have dodged the very simple question the past six times I have asked it. Please don't give me this "irrelevant" stuff. I am just asking you for your answer, not cross-examining you in a murder trial or suggesting that your answer has some major significance or that the rest of the world wants to know what you think. You are not on trial or on a witness stand. You are just being asked a question on a discussion board by somebody you have told repeatedly that democracy "doesn't work". What kind of government(s) do you not blanketly say don't work? While we're at it, what kind of government do you most want Iraq to end up having? I don't care how relevant or irrelevant the question is. I am curious. What kind of government do you most favor for the future of Iraq?