Compulsory Voting (part 2)

114 posts / 0 new
Last post
Benoit
Compulsory Voting (part 2)

 

Benoit

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.

Brian White

Fair enough, I think.

quote:

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]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.[/b]

Cueball Cueball's picture

I am glad the case has been clearly established as one that proibits freedom conscience, the further imposition of adminstrative controls that limit personal freedom, and the encroachment of the state in the lives of all persons that affords one more opportunity to screen the entire population and to update everyones personal information. Very scary if you have a criminal record. What kind of proofs would be needed? Where you live, or where you work all this information would be screened by the state for the maintenance of this new tool of oppression.

Fair enough. But lets call it for what it is fascism, and remind ourselves that the author of the OP believes:

quote:

Originally posted by Benito:
Whatever the quality of our democracy, all propositions to do something about it bring hope. [b]Even proposing to [i]kill everyone[/i] not participating in an election remains only a suggestion open to a constructive debate. [/b]

From here: [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=008131]Why Compulsory Voting is Wrong [/url]

Personally, 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.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

What I don't understand, is how someone who has [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=008136#00... this:[/url]

quote:

To me, voting is the least important aspect of the electoral process; the most important is developing a will to discuss political matters.

could possibly believe that coercing people to vote will make a state more democratic.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Yes and tax rolls are fascist as well as public school enrollment of children.

[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

Cueball Cueball's picture

One is allowed to opt ones children out of public education system.

But what can be said about the views of a so called anarchist, who is not only a member of a political party, but also turns to the Australian model of voting enrollement as a model, a model that prohibits people from advocating the spoiling of ballots and puts them in jail for making such suggestions.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Gee Cueball I don't know why many people here think you are an arrogant asshole. I find you quite amusing. Someone who thinks that having homeless people living in their backyard to exploit their labour is progressive public policy. Do you feed them table scraps as well?

Without links I don't believe for a minute what you say on any subject because you are so very often just blowing smoke out your ass. You know like when you said it was illegal in Australia to spoil a ballot.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I linked the issue several times. You simply are to stupid to check, or to do your own research.

Ok, I'll get right on it. I'll fire the guy and call the cops on him. I'll send him right over to Jack and Olivia's place and you can send your donations there. They are offering $5 an hour less real wages though, so not sure its a step up.

By the way, I don't think its "progressive" I think its the best I can do.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I don't see a link in this thread and I don't read every thread that goes on all night. You brought this forward and so provide the link.

Your juvenile insult is about as progressive as your bragging about exploiting homeless people. Do you allow them the use of your toilet or do they have to hide behind a fence when they shit in your backyard.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Why should I link to it again, when I directly linked to it before in the last thread where you made your idiotic challenge. Why should I bother reiterating what I already did, when it is clear you really aren't interested in edifying yourself?

Pampered little brat. I guess voting absolves you of your responsibilities so that you can avoid taking any,

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

You've done it once again. You include a personal insult and then later remove it so you look so very innocent.

What don't you get about the wrongness of having your labourer live in a tent in your backyard. Pay him a living wage and maybe he won't have to put up with your self righteousness. Poor man having to listen to how right you are on everything. Must be almost as bad as the Sallyann

Cueball Cueball's picture

Which insult did I take out. I will gladly repeat it.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The people I employ don't live in my backyard and they make a living wage. But you see I live in the real world in Canada not a fantasy world where the revolution is going to happen tomorrow.

Cueball Cueball's picture

By the way dude. I offered to let him stay inside but he refused. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

But of course talking through your hat and smearing people go hand in hand. What more can one say about someone who professes to be an anarchist, and then wants to force people to vote in a system wheren advocating the spoiling of ballots gets you jail time.

And you don't live in an urban jungle where you trip over a homeless person every 10 feet. If I offered a place to all the homeless people I know I would be fined by the state more than likely for overcrowding my house. I do what I can. In fact I was almost fined 10,000 dollars by the state because I let some guy stay in my garage for 2 yeras rent free. The neighbors called the cops.

Again, should I call the cops on him after I fire him, so that I can be "progressive" like you?

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Fidel

More than 1.2 million adult workers in Ontario have a [b]right[/b] not to earn $10 bucks an hour. And they have a [i]right[/i] not to participate in the economy. And they have a [i]right[/i] to feel so disenfranchised from it all that they freely choose not to participate in the democratic process once every four years. But that's not our situation in Canada. Our 22 percenters in Ottawa and Toronto are not [i]that[/i] dictatorial. We've got to look at things from their perspective, Kropotkin.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quote:


This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2007)

That is what your source says.

But more to the point I never said we should adopt the Australian law on spoiled ballots I said that compulsory voting is a good idea. Strawmen are apparently the only ones you can win debates against. I have homeless people living in my neighbourhood as well so I don't get your point.

You are a self righteous arrogant person but then I have my character flaws as well.

I know that you think you are somehow more effective than Bill Siksay or Libby Davies at advocating for progressive issues but I disagree. so I work to help elect true progressives who are actually trying to make a difference in the system we have. Tilting at windmills is apparently what you consider to be political action. That appears to be our main difference. I will do what I can to get good voices elected you just vivify everyone who participates.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Ahh so now you want to argue the point.

But you are just making stuff up on the fly, again, and are having to excuse your previous "support" for the Australian system of force voting, when in fact, golly gee whiz it is clearly a fascist undertaking.

I also linked to a web page from the Victoria voting authority, that in its own report confirmed that it called the police on people distributing pamphlets advising people to spoil their ballots.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Fidel

Oh ya, and we shouldn't force social programs on innocent taxpaying bystanders either. That's another salient nonsensical point we could make.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I feel really stupid now since it is apparent you never have any problems on this board except with me. It must be me who is belligerent and abusive consistently because if you go back through threads it is not you but I who is in constant nasty flame wars with many posters no matter what the subject.

If this is what your advocacy is like in the real world you might want to think about its effectiveness.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]Oh ya, and we shouldn't force social programs on innocent taxpaying bystanders either. That's another salient nonsensical point we could make.[/b]

Oh so now you are for compulsory voting too. I don't think the NDP has a policy platform on this yet, perhaps should retract your stand until the Moustache authorizes your statements.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]I feel really stupid now since it is apparent you never have any problems on this board except with me. It must be me who is belligerent and abusive consistently because if you go back through threads it is not you but I who is in constant nasty flame wars with many posters no matter what the subject.

If this is what your advocacy is like in the real world you might want to think about its effectiveness.[/b]


Yes, in fact, I get along fine with numerous posters. But probably its just the impression you get because you always show up on threads with the rest of the OG, and pile on. Its easy to believe that you are with the consensus when you are in the middle of a crowd of stone throwers.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Oh so now you are for compulsory voting too. I don't think the NDP has a policy platform on this yet, perhaps should retract your stand until the Moustache authorizes your statements.[/b]

You sir just don't have any respect for anyone except yourself. I'm done I will now disengage and leave you to your fantasy world where only you are fighting the good fight and everyone else is controlled by fascists.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I was talking to Fidel.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]You sir just don't have any respect for anyone except yourself. I'm done I will now disengage and leave you to your fantasy world where only you are fighting the good fight and everyone else is controlled by fascists.[/b]

My entire experience of you and your clique has been fascist: the pile-ons, the abuse, the outright smears. Your insistance that I should be forced to get up and vote in your crummy election rather than sleep in, on pain of fine, and eventual imprisonment should I not pay that fine, is entirely in keeping with your psychophantic (sic) personality.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Oh so now you are for compulsory voting too. I don't think the NDP has a policy platform on this yet, perhaps should retract your stand until the Moustache authorizes your statements.[/b]

Oh so now you are for the NDPs $10 dollar an hour mandatory minimum wage and rolling back McGuilty's 25% pay hike for Liberals on permanent vacation in Toronto and sometimes Varadero? Why didn't you just say so? Because I would have nodded up and down in rapid agreement with you.

No I don't support mandatory voting. Is that a requirement of this or any other thread? We must explore new ideas for threads where non-NDPers can dominate the discussion without being reminded of the realities here at home in "Canadian politics"

Cueball Cueball's picture

I have never been against a $10 minimum wage. I stated numerous times that the $10 minimum wage offered by the NDP was a joke, because in fact, my experience is that in Toronto, most employers already pay $10 an hour. I pay 50% more than that in point of fact, because in Toronto $10 an hours is a joke.

So, yeah, I am against the NDP for seriously proposing the $10 mimimum wage as if it was something other than a joke.

In fact, I support on principle and [i]in action[/i] a minimum, $15 an hour wage. You chatter, I do. Do you see the difference?

Hey, but maybe you are right. I should go along with the party and tell eveyone they are getting a pay cut because the NDP says $10 an hour before taxes is fine. More for me! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Fidel

So what does your rabid anti-NDP rhetoric mean for the 1, 200, 000 adult workers already not earning $10/hr, and who were provided a gold-plated guarantee by our 22 percenters that they shall not earn $10 dollars per hour for several years into the future when inflation reduces that hollow Liberal promise to what it is, insipid drivel?

Cueball Cueball's picture

It is a leveraging point for re-iterating my point that a guaranteed annual income is a far superior mode of dealing with poverty than trying to trick middle class voters in Toronto into thinking that they can assuage their guilt by voting to increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour. Ten Dollars an hour, before taxes, here is nothing.

As Stephen Gordon quite sensibly put it: "Give the poor money."

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

Here is the math:

$10 roughly equals $8 after taxes. Given a 40 hour work week, over 4 weeks that works out to $1280 dollars a month. On average in Toronto a [i]single room[/i], in a not very comfortable rooming house is $600 a month. That leaves exactly $150 dollars a week for groceries, entertainment, etc. etc. Let me remind you that a decent night out in Toronto will set you back at least $50 dollars if not more, at $5 dollars a beer, with food and whatever else.

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

As Stephen Gordon quite sensibly put it: "Give the poor money."

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]


He also tried to defend the carbon tax, a policy which has nothing to do with Canada's energy situation versus Sweden - and a policy which was obviously drafted by the Liberal Party apparatus as an afterthought. Canada has more in common with oil and gas exporting Norway, that other Nordic country which also has a carbon tax but was nary mentioned by the not-so big anymore red machine during the election campaign.

It's all fun in theory, but GBI has no political momentum in Canada. There are easier and more politically viable ways of dealing with some of the worst child and adult poverty rates among richest countries right here in Canada. For one thing our two oldest political parties should stop talking about homeless strategies and start dealing with national housing strategy. Min wage indexed to inflation, child tax credits etc. Our two oldest political parties shouldn't need reminding of how our semi-capitalist system works, or does not work, under their helmsmanship, or rather a lack of it.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Whereas, you are trying to defend the $10 minimum wage as if it would be the most tremendous breakthrough in human rights since Spartacus liberated the slaves. Fundamentally backing a $10 minimum wage in Toronto, is saying that you support the starvation wages that employers for the most part already hand out. It is just saying the NDP affirms the status quo.

That's not a theory at all. That is just bullshit.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Slumberjack

quote:


Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]So what does your rabid anti-NDP rhetoric mean..[/b]

You know it very well might be. There's never a 'deliberative assembly' around when we need one, but why bother with them anyway, they'd just be stepping on your toes. I get a sense that he wants the NDP to be better than what it is. Don't we all?

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]I am glad the case has been clearly established as one that proibits freedom conscience, the further imposition of adminstrative controls that limit personal freedom, and the encroachment of the state in the lives of all persons that affords one more opportunity to screen the entire population and to update everyones personal information. Very scary if you have a criminal record. What kind of proofs would be needed? Where you live, or where you work all this information would be screened by the state for the maintenance of this new tool of oppression.

Fair enough. But lets call it for what it is fascism, and remind ourselves that the author of the OP believes:

From here: [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=008131]Why Compulsory Voting is Wrong [/url]

Personally, 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.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]


"Constructive debate" is simply a pleonasm. Insane people are not able to debate together. Insane people are living alone in prison inside their heads; it makes no sense to speak of a freedom of conscience for them. People cannot become mentally healthy without acquiring some communication skills. And freedom of speech includes the right to discuss capital punishment because human babies left outside a community are already dead.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I am a firm supporter of freedom of speech. I am glad you are as well.

As far as I am concerned you should be completely free to say that "constructive debate" includes discussion of a policy of killing people who refuse to put a check mark on a piece of paper, within a specific time frame and at a specific place.

I in turn I reserve the right to point out that "constructive debates" about such things are more in keeping with the tenor of meetings held by deliberative assemblies that established policies that resulted in the collectively pyschotic acts charachteristic of National Socialist Germany.

I also think that such concepts, including the concept that such discussions might be "constructive", should be marginalized with extreme prejudice.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]I am a firm supporter of freedom of speech. I am glad you are as well.

As far as I am concerned you should be completely free to say that "constructive debate" includes discussion of a policy of killing people who refuse to put a check mark on a piece of paper, within a specific time frame and at a specific place.

I in turn I reserve the right to point out that "constructive debates" about such things are more in keeping with the tenor of meetings held by deliberative assemblies that established policies that resulted in the collectively pyschotic acts charachteristic of National Socialist Germany.

I also think that such concepts, including the concept that such discussions might be "constructive", should be marginalized with extreme prejudice.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]


Because of the collective nature of every right, even negative ones, you cannot reserve a right only for yourself.

What is important here is that killings would never happen if deliberations would not be prematurely ended.

Cueball Cueball's picture

No. I explicitly maintained your right to promote the insane idea that killing people for not voting is a concept that lies in the realm of "constructive debate." I also pointed out that the idea should be marginalized collectively. I am doing so now.

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b] Fundamentally backing a $10 minimum wage in Toronto, is saying that you support the starvation wages that employers for the most part already hand out. It is just saying the NDP affirms the status quo.
[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]

And what a steaming pile of composted Liberal promises for poverty reduction and competitive have-not promises that smells like to the men and women of Toronto earning anywhere less than $10 bucks and hour. But Bates McGuilty has his 22 percent phony-baloney majority, and that's all that matters to the Bay Street stooges and low wage philanthropists in Liberal Ontario - Ontario, where good things grow including child poverty. SHAMEless bare-faced bastards!

Cueball Cueball's picture

You are the one who promoting a non-living minimum wage as "progressive" measure.

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]No. I explicitly maintained your right to promote the insane idea that killing people for not voting is a concept that lies in the realm of "constructive debate." I also pointed out that the idea should be marginalized collectively. I am doing so now.[/b]

An idea cannot be insane, only persons can be such. One notices an idea only when symbols are mastered. An insane person is precisely a person unable to master symbols.

Fidel

I'm beginning to think mandatory voting [i]should[/i] be made law in Ontario for the sake of democracy, if only for a while. After all that's gone awry in this Northern Puerto Rico since turn of the Neo Liberal decade, perhaps [i]that[/i] would be the last straw for the demoralized masses who gave up on first-past-the-ghost demockracy many years ago.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]

An idea cannot be insane, only persons can be such. One notices an idea only when symbols are mastered. An insane person is precisely a person unable to master symbols.[/b]


Sophistry and conjecture stated as facts.

I am not here to play semantic games. Obviously to say that an "idea is insane", one means that it belongs in the category of those ideas that insane people consider.

In short, I was being inaccurate in the delivery of my statement because I did not want to be directly rude.

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]You are the one who promoting a non-living minimum wage as "progressive" measure.[/b]

Like child tax credits, the min wage has to be updated for [i]inflation[/i] on a regular basis -an economic concept which our two autocratic old line parties pretend to misunderstand and fumble over accidentally on purpose. Accidental stupidity and an inability to understand mixed market capitalism are their most vaunted weapons in the war on social democracy and human beings in general.

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

Sophistry and conjecture stated as facts.

I am not here to play semantic games. Obviously to say that an "idea is insane", one means that it belongs in the category of those ideas that insane people consider.

In short, I was being inaccurate in the delivery of my statement because I did not want to be directly rude.[/b]


Insane people cannot consider ideas; it is precisely why they are acting out.

Slumberjack

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]No. I explicitly maintained your right to promote the insane idea that killing people for not voting is a concept that lies in the realm of "constructive debate." I also pointed out that the idea should be marginalized collectively. I am doing so now.[/b]

There's nothing constructive in it at all. Marginalizing is far too generous.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]

Insane people cannot consider ideas; it is precisely why they are acting out.[/b]


I think you may be having trouble mastering symbols. Of course one who was would not be really capable of judging wether or not they were having trouble mastering symbols. I can see this difficulty.

For example the statement that there are two choices in politics, "violence and morality" followed by the assertion that using the inherent violence in the system to affect a totalitarian formulation of democracy through forced voting is moral, is clearly at odds with itself.

Though, I guess if one were having trouble "mastering symbols" the two assertions might seem compatible, even though they are not.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Slumberjack:
[b]

There's nothing constructive in it at all. Marginalizing is far too generous.[/b]


Only if the vote was about conscription would it be ridiculous to threaten to kill non-voters.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Two pounds of flax! Am I right?

Fidel

And if the idea of compulsory voting isn't hideous enough, we should propose that it could lead to killing non-voters to death as standard policy.

But if it's possible to kill people for not voting, wouldn't it also be possible to kill them [i]for[/i] voting? This is making even less sense than the 22 percenters in Toronto after their thank god it's not real democracy Friday night at the pub

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

I think you may be having trouble mastering symbols. Of course one who was would not be really capable of judging wether or not they were having trouble mastering symbols. I can see this difficulty.

For example the statement that there are two choices in politics, "violence and morality" followed by the assertion that using the inherent violence in the system to affect a totalitarian formulation of democracy through forced voting is moral, is clearly at odds with itself.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]


In a discussion forum, I cannot be in a position to use the inherent violence in the system to affect anything.

Slumberjack

Every vote would be a complete success for the agenda of the deliberative council, starting with the vote that would create the death squads, who could then commence killing off those who voted against them. Haven't we seen this model before?

Pages

Topic locked