The Political Thread

[Modern Panther]

As a counterpoint I'd like to encourage everyone to get involved in how the country is run and what laws are in place by actually voting.  Not voting changes nothing and never has.

Choice is lovely, but I for one would also quite like an actual welfare system in place so that fewer kids go to bed hungry, and fewer families have to rely on charity to survive.  Y'know, silly things like a properly funded health service and real schools paid for by actual taxation.

I will not be taking questions.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

As we previously discussed with murder and theft, the perception of choice is altered by changing its name to "vote." Choices are infinite, votes are restricted. Choices are rights, votes are privileges. Choices work in all situations, votes have limited scope.

But hey, if you don't believe me you can always vote with your feet...

Voting is not tantamount to choosing murder or theft, you fucking melter.

The Catholic Church in Ireland are trying to shift the blame for hundreds of dead babies buried in a septic tank onto the civilians who didn't stand up to stop them.

Just letting it happen, and claiming you're not an enabler is not a morally superior position.

[The Legendary Shark]

Eh?

As we previously discussed with murder and theft, the perception of choice is altered by changing its name to "vote." Choices are infinite, votes are restricted. Choices are rights, votes are privileges. Choices work in all situations, votes have limited scope.

But hey, if you don't believe me you can always vote with your feet...

Voting is not tantamount to choosing murder or theft, you fucking melter.

The Catholic Church in Ireland are trying to shift the blame for hundreds of dead babies buried in a septic tank onto the civilians who didn't stand up to stop them.

Just letting it happen, and claiming you're not an enabler is not a morally superior position.

It's an example of how things get re-labelled behind a distorting lens of legislative language; thus murder becomes execution, theft becomes taxation, and choice becomes vote. Each label changes the perception of the act.

Any dead babies suggested by this observation are clearly made of straw and feasting on red herrings.

[Funt Solo]

Shark - do you see no problem at all with the method of communication you use? For literally years you've expressed here your reasons for not voting. You've explained your position on that countless times. Then I say you don't like to vote and immediately you say that you love voting. And you twist it around so that not voting IS voting, somehow.

Can you not see how that comes across as just a giant troll-move?

It feels like it doesn't really matter what I say to you - literally, that I could say anything at all (even something you had just said you believed or thought or witnessed) - and you would immediately counter that I'm wrong about it, by using some metaphorical device.

You seem very convincing when you express your innocence but I can't help but come to the conclusion that you're a wind up merchant that enjoys seeing other people struggle.

[The Legendary Shark]

No, I don't see that at all. I was pretty sure I'd defended that ostensibly inconsistent statement in the remainder of the post, however...

If a vote is an expression of an individual's will, and votes are taken seriously, then the will behind the expression must also be taken seriously. This is the aspect of voting I believe in.

However, a political or legislative vote is more about transferring will. One expression of will every four to five years essentially negates large areas of individual will for the intervening time. This is the aspect of voting I deplore.

I do not see that as inconsistent - poorly explained, perhaps, but not inconsistent. Or trollish.

Also, I seem to remember that we have agreed on at least one or two occasions, so I don't see myself as simply contrarian for the sake of it. The problem may be that, as we are coming at things from different perspectives we will often interpret the terrain in different ways, as it were. What one of us sees as an inviting pool on the beach the other may see as quicksand.

I do not enjoy seeing people struggle.

[Rara Avis]

No, I don't see that at all. I was pretty sure I'd defended that ostensibly inconsistent statement in the remainder of the post, however...

If a vote is an expression of an individual's will, and votes are taken seriously, then the will behind the expression must also be taken seriously. This is the aspect of voting I believe in.

However, a political or legislative vote is more about transferring will. One expression of will every four to five years essentially negates large areas of individual will for the intervening time. This is the aspect of voting I deplore.

I do not see that as inconsistent - poorly explained, perhaps, but not inconsistent. Or trollish.

Also, I seem to remember that we have agreed on at least one or two occasions, so I don't see myself as simply contrarian for the sake of it. The problem may be that, as we are coming at things from different perspectives we will often interpret the terrain in different ways, as it were. What one of us sees as an inviting pool on the beach the other may see as quicksand.

I do not enjoy seeing people struggle.

A vote isn't an expression of will, it's a statement about what kind of society you want to live in. No politican or political group is ever going to be 100% aligned with your vision of the kind of society you want to live in.   And while you may not want to impose your will on others - some will have no problem imposing theirs on you.  So if you feel strongly about that you should vote for the party or individual most aligned with your viewpoint, you can't simply wait for Utopia to manifest itself.

[The Legendary Shark]

1) A vote isn't an expression of will, it's a statement about what kind of society you want to live in.

2) No politican or political group is ever going to be 100% aligned with your vision of the kind of society you want to live in.   

3) And while you may not want to impose your will on others - some will have no problem imposing theirs on you. 

4) So if you feel strongly about that you should vote for the party or individual most aligned with your viewpoint,

5) you can't simply wait for Utopia to manifest itself.

1) What's the difference between an expression of will and a statement expressing a choice? They are both indications of preference.

2) 100% agree.

3) That's no reason to capitulate. It's like saying, "That bully's going to take your dinner money - you'd best just let him." Sod that.

4) There aren't any. Seriously, how many politicians are willing to stand up for ideas like government having far less power and being stripped of its "right" to initiate violence against its own or other people? Of being barred from dealing with the debt-based money system and moving over to a more Austrian School economic system? PM me his/her email because I'd love to chat.

5) I don't know how many times I have to say that there's no such thing as Utopia and yet still this tired old appeal to perfection keeps on turning up. Just because proposed possible solutions (which we haven't even begun discussing yet, by the way) aren't perfect they must be invalid. Which doesn't follow. I do not use the argument that other people vote in order that somebody else can build their Utopia for them because it's a fallacy.

At least we agree on #2!

[Leigh S]

In what way have you stopped the bully taking your dinner money by not voting? Surely you have merely just refused to engage with the bully by setting up a direct debit

[Leigh S]

I would argue that a better analogy would be, you are in a prison cell with 10ft thick concrete walls and a spoon.  You can scrape at those walls, knowing that you might not get through before you die, indeed knowing you probably wont.  Or you can do fuck all about the walls, because they are 10 ft thick and just fantasis about what life on the outsidee could be like if it wasnt for those walls

[The Legendary Shark]

That simile (or metaphor? I can never remember which is which) addresses the specific point made - which was, "...you may not want to impose your will on others - some will have no problem imposing theirs on you," (my emphasis), which I interpreted as a description of "might is right" - that having the will of another imposed upon one is quite alright and to be tolerated. It's not really about dinner money.

Also, I don't have a bank account.

[The Legendary Shark]

I would argue that a better analogy would be, you are in a prison cell with 10ft thick concrete walls and a spoon.  You can scrape at those walls, knowing that you might not get through before you die, indeed knowing you probably wont.  Or you can do fuck all about the walls, because they are 10 ft thick and just fantasis about what life on the outsidee could be like if it wasnt for those walls

True - but if the walls represent the current system, the outside represents some future preferred state, and the spoon represents a vote, then I can dig at those walls for as long as I like and as often as I like. The "voter" will give his spoon to somebody else every four years and hope they will do his digging for him while he sits on his arse in his cell, watching telly and doing as he's told by the person he gave his spoon to.

[Leigh S]

The more people who use their spoons to dig in the direction you want to go makes the guys using their spoons to cake on more concrete less likely to succeed

I would argue that a better analogy would be, you are in a prison cell with 10ft thick concrete walls and a spoon.  You can scrape at those walls, knowing that you might not get through before you die, indeed knowing you probably wont.  Or you can do fuck all about the walls, because they are 10 ft thick and just fantasis about what life on the outsidee could be like if it wasnt for those walls

True - but if the walls represent the current system, the outside represents some future preferred state, and the spoon represents a vote, then I can dig at those walls for as long as I like and as often as I like. The "voter" will give his spoon to somebody else every four years and hope they will do his digging for him while he sits on his arse in his cell, watching telly and doing as he's told by the person he gave his spoon to.

[The Legendary Shark]

This cell seems to be getting very crowded...

[Leigh S]

Let's assume 3 men - Man One digs with his spoon, while Man Two undoes all Ones handiwork.  The third would like to get out, but he can see that wall isn't getting any thinner....

This cell seems to be getting very crowded...

[IndigoPrime]

As for removing power from government and reworking the nature of money, that sounds a lot like current Green Party policy. They probably don't go far enough for Shark's liking in policy, of course.