Quote: Original post by phantom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
The thing is, you're not the first person to want to tear it all down and start over. It might be that you haven't "found" a party because you're not clear about your ideas and where they fit in history and in the current system.

Yeah, I'm not under any illusion that I'm the first to think this or realise there is a problem so you've pretty much nailed it there I feel.

I will give some serious thought to those books, if nothing else they might prove intresting to read...

I picked those books because they resonate with the problem of government that you set forward. In "The Republic", Socrates and friends discuss the pro's and con's of a variety of forms of republican government. It suffers a bit, imo, due to a reliance on an analogical conception of human nature (that is, not analogical as in the opposite of digital but analogical as in human nature is analogous to this or that multi-part common phenomena). Thucydides also confronts the same problem, but does so indirectly using a history that he constructs of a major Greek civil war to examine the behaviors of different forms of government. Burke and Paine look at the French Revolution from dramatically different points of view. Paine wrote "Rights of Man" as a rebuttal to Burke's criticism of the French Revolution. Condorcet sets forward a plan for human progress that basically outlines the range of all subsequent debate on the role of government. And by all I mean to this day.

Quote: Does that seem right to you? The same words, the same ideas, the same arguments, purely by virtue of being posted by somebody else, suddenly become worthy. It doesn't seem right to me.

It does seem correct to me. The views and opinions of someone who engages in the process are worth a hell of a lot more than somebody that abstains.

Quote: See, that's an argument against staying silent, which I agree is not helpful. It's not an argument against complaining, which is what Phantom is doing, and which I maintain is still helpful; though maybe not as helpful as doing something about it, it's better than staying silent.

I was not implying simply staying quiet as in not talking yet also not voting. You can complain on a forum for a year and a day, it will not change anything if you do not make your vote count.


The following two quotes interest me greatly.

Quote:
Voting for "The lesser of two or more evils" is still "Showing support for Evil". Why should I help Anyone I dislike get into office? "They're not as bad as the other guy!" doesn't cut it, they're still bad, they get NO vote from me on principle.

Quote:
Finally the 'less of two evils' might be ok for you, or indeed others, but I have my views on this and my principles; the way I see it when you vote for someone you are saying "yes, I agree with what you are saying and plan to do" and I can't give my support to something I don't believe in.

I wonder if this "I would never vote for the lesser of evils" or is this "I have principles and I am pig headed and maybe vote for the lesser"?
Take for example the real possibility in some regions of a far right party such as the BNP gaining seats in a local government or the House of Commons. Surely your principles mean nothing then and you would vote for the lesser of evils? Or maybe you would be happy with them representing you.

Quote: Original post by CmpDev

Quote: Does that seem right to you? The same words, the same ideas, the same arguments, purely by virtue of being posted by somebody else, suddenly become worthy. It doesn't seem right to me.

It does seem correct to me. The views and opinions of someone who engages in the process are worth a hell of a lot more than somebody that abstains.

No, now you're being circular. "The same words, the same ideas, the same arguments, purely by virtue of being posted by somebody [who has voted], suddenly become worthy" because "the views and opinions of someone who engages in the process are worth a hell of a lot more." Do you see? You've not explained why engaging in the process makes your opinion worth more.

Why would marking an X on a bit of paper and putting it in a box suddenly make what you say any more or less true?

It feels like you're mistaking correlation for causation. There's a strong correlation between voting and making informed political statements, that's certainly true. But people don't make informed political statements because they've voted.

I'd point out that there's also a strong correlation between voting and being a frothing-at-the-mouth Sun-minded knuckledragger, or voting for any party other than the Tories because "It's Thatcher all over again, I tell you! Stealing milk from babies and letting the rich feast on the corpses of the poor!" Voting doesn't make a poor analysis any less poor, so why should it make a good analysis any less good?

Quote: You can complain on a forum for a year and a day, it will not change anything if you do not make your vote count.

Of course it will change things - if they're good complaints. The reason that most forum complaints don't do anything is because they're bad, incoherent, vapid, useless whining.

You seem to be reading and considering what I'm writing in this thread. Why are you doing that when you don't know whether I voted?

Quote:
Take for example the real possibility in some regions of a far right party such as the BNP gaining seats in a local government or the House of Commons. Surely your principles mean nothing then and you would vote for the lesser of evils? Or maybe you would be happy with them representing you.

To be honest, if I lived in a place that stood a serious chance of electing a BNP candidate to the House of Commons, such a place would have to be predominantly occupied by people that I hated. So, unless I was willing to spend a lot of my free time trying to persuade people why the BNP's a bad idea, I'd move. At that point, they could elect whoever they like and it wouldn't represent me.

Quote: Original post by CmpDev

Quote: Does that seem right to you? The same words, the same ideas, the same arguments, purely by virtue of being posted by somebody else, suddenly become worthy. It doesn't seem right to me.

It does seem correct to me. The views and opinions of someone who engages in the process are worth a hell of a lot more than somebody that abstains.

So if a mathematician that has done significant research and contributed in an administration role to some mathematical organization (say CURM for example) says "2+2 = 85." Should we believe them over a 2nd grader that says, "2+2=4"?

Words carry a truthfulness inside themselves that is dependent on the words not on the person that says them.

Quote: Original post by CmpDev

Quote: See, that's an argument against staying silent, which I agree is not helpful. It's not an argument against complaining, which is what Phantom is doing, and which I maintain is still helpful; though maybe not as helpful as doing something about it, it's better than staying silent.

I was not implying simply staying quiet as in not talking yet also not voting. You can complain on a forum for a year and a day, it will not change anything if you do not make your vote count.

So, if everyone stays silent about something, never talks about a problem, but they still vote anyway,... things are magically good and there are no problems?

Just because you haven't voted for your representative doesn't mean they don't represent you, and it doesn't mean they can ignore your voice when you speak up.

The truth is, an MP or MLA has no idea if you DID vote for them or not, or even if you voted for anyone, but when you show up at their office door with a group of protesters, they're going to sit up and listen either way.

Quote:
The following two quotes interest me greatly.

Quote:
Voting for "The lesser of two or more evils" is still "Showing support for Evil". Why should I help Anyone I dislike get into office? "They're not as bad as the other guy!" doesn't cut it, they're still bad, they get NO vote from me on principle.

Quote:
Finally the 'less of two evils' might be ok for you, or indeed others, but I have my views on this and my principles; the way I see it when you vote for someone you are saying "yes, I agree with what you are saying and plan to do" and I can't give my support to something I don't believe in.

I wonder if this "I would never vote for the lesser of evils" or is this "I have principles and I am pig headed and maybe vote for the lesser"?
Take for example the real possibility in some regions of a far right party such as the BNP gaining seats in a local government or the House of Commons. Surely your principles mean nothing then and you would vote for the lesser of evils? Or maybe you would be happy with them representing you.

Frankly, the day a party like the BNP or some other group based in racism actually begins to gain any amount of power or leverage in Canada is the day I start looking up the numbers for different immigration offices. Why? Because that means idiots are actually willing to vote for such crap, and this country is no longer worth living in.

Superpig we are not going to agree and that is fine. As to the question of why I am talking to you without knowing if you have voted, we are just talking about our stances on the merits of voting and the opinons of people who do or do not part take.

Talroth I do find it interesting that you will not vote yet will seek the assistance of a representive who is voted in. I do not know if superpig votes, yet I assume so by his comments, on the other hand Talroth as stated will not vote. If a far right party gains popularality in vote which you did not part take then in my eyes you partly to blaim for their election. One reason these parties gain seats is because people like you do not turn out to vote, it may not be a correct representation of the people in the region. Again it interests me that an election in which you did not part take, in which you are partly responsible for the result would cause you move.

Quote: Original post by CmpDev
Talroth I do find it interesting that you will not vote yet will seek the assistance of a representive who is voted in. I do not know if superpig votes, yet I assume so by his comments, on the other hand Talroth as stated will not vote. If a far right party gains popularality in vote which you did not part take then in my eyes you partly to blaim for their election. One reason these parties gain seats is because people like you do not turn out to vote, it may not be a correct representation of the people in the region. Again it interests me that an election in which you did not part take, in which you are partly responsible for the result would cause you move.

No, you don't understand my point at all. It isn't that I Don't vote. It is I do not vote for people who I Do Not Support. I DO 'vote', I just have not voted FOR anyone running in an election.


There is a very big difference between not caring, and not caring for those who are running for office.


And why would you find it interesting that someone would go to their representative? That is what they are there for! They are your voice in government even if you voted against them.

I don't know how representatives operate in other countries, but over here, with depressed budgets and the like compelling them towards greater efficiency, staffers working for representatives will check if someone asking for their help is a voter or not and if not they aren't considered a high priority (all things being equal between them and a voter).

For those of you who haven't been keeping up to date, Gordon Brown has resigned as PM with immediate effect and has visited the Queen. He said himself he thinks Cameron should take over, and a Lib-Con coalition deal has been finalised but not made public as of yet.

Click here to keep fully updated.

I believe David Cameron is visiting the Queen later on to get permission to form his new (unrevealed) Government. More details of the coalition deal are expected to be released tonight.

EDIT: Gordon Brown is apparently going to stand down as an MP and quit politics altogether, forcing a by-election in his Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath seat which he held with a comfortable majority last Thursday night.

Quote: Original post by CmpDev
Superpig we are not going to agree and that is fine.

To me, it's very disappointing. I want to understand your position, but it sounds like many I've heard before and they've all turned out to be inconsistent. I was hoping you might be bringing something new to the table but now it sounds like I'll never know [sad]

I think our disagreement stems from different interpretations of what 'worth' means when it comes to political opinions. I'm simply talking about whether the arguments in the opinion are true; it seems like maybe you're talking about whether the opinion will bring about any changes in its favour, or something along those lines. Is that what our problem is?

If I'm right about your use of the word 'worth,' then I can see that it's harder to explain how an opinion that isn't enacted in a vote will change anything compared to an opinion that is enacted in a vote.

Quote: As to the question of why I am talking to you without knowing if you have voted, we are just talking about our stances on the merits of voting and the opinons of people who do or do not part take.

Indeed we are. Does this mean that, if you've not voted, political metadiscussion can have worth, but political discussion can't?