Voting is Still Wrong

130 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cueball Cueball's picture

Not that it will make much difference to your post, since of course most of your posts are just repetitions of rote slogans and pseudo-philosphy, but I edited my previous post after you posted.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I think that requiring everyone to cast a ballot in an election is not in and of itself a bad idea. The question as for any rule is what is the punishment for not complying. Instead of the negative compulsory vote make it a tax bonus for paying attention.  

Benoit

error

Benoit

Cueball wrote:

Not that it will make much difference to your post, since of course most of your posts are just repetitions of rote slogans and pseudo-philosphy, but I edited my previous post after you posted.

Were you afraid of the moderators?

Cueball Cueball's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I think that requiring everyone to cast a ballot in an election is not in and of itself a bad idea. The question as for any rule is what is the punishment for not complying. Instead of the negative compulsory vote make it a tax bonus for paying attention.  

 Its an aboslutly abhorent and undemocratic idea. Funny that on the one hand you come in with a sarcastic diatribe about "fascist Canada" as if its a bad thing, and then start promoting your authoritarian views.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Cueball wrote:
kropotkin1951 wrote:
Cueball wrote:
KenS wrote:
Cueball wrote:

Re: I demonstrated several instances of "non-voters as agents obviously of some kind of importance":

The Czar's power was simply swept away because even the army and the police force, were unwilling to supress the revolutionary movement.

Really I thought that the Cheka merely became the KGB. I think the current fascist state that controls our country is about as ready to wither away as teh Cheka were in the Soviet Union.

I am not really sure what you are talking about. First of all, I specifically excluded from the discussion the "civil war period". That was the caveat. The Cheka (later the NKVD, MGB, KGB) came into existance primarily as a force to repress competing new power structures, such as those of the anarchists, Mensheviks, and the SR's, and this happens in the period that can loosely be described as the "civil war" period. The actual siezure (replacement) of power was actually quite bloodless, until the Bolshviks started centralizing and consolidating their grip on power, against their competitors. This doesn't actually have anything really to do with the collapse of the Czarist state.

Oh, and I didn't say anything about Canada being a fascist state. Keep your pants on. 

You see I don't see a period of easy transition and then something else. The problem with most revolutions is that the most brutal people with the best guns win.  So in Iran the marxists in the front were all murdered quickly by the fundamentalists. Etc.    

I just don't accept the premise that the power of the elite in our society will disappear because citizens stop voting. I also don't think that the people I see in Burnaby look like they are about to become the vanguard of a new revolution.  Most of them look like they are far more interested in the deals at Zeller's and Walmart than the state of the global economy and the historic opportunity they have to rise up and overthrow their masters.  

I don't know why you are concerned about my pants. I never said you said anything about our government being fascist. I said it, I did not attribute it to you. So stay out of my wardrobe please.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Not at all. I said you were a Fascist plain and simple. And its true. I have no problem pointing out Fascists in public. Its a pleasure. And in fact, its an important thing to do. It is incumbent on any moral person to identify Fascists and their Fascist ideas for what they are.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I am begining to get the impresstion that you think the Cheka was a hold over from the Czarist period. Am I wrong in thinking that you believe that?

Benoit

Paranoiacs may see fascists everywhere.

 

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

Anyone who think people should face the courts for excersizing their right not to vote is a Fascist. Especially when they forsee the punishement as Jail. You are a Fascist. Simple.

Benoit

Exercising their right not to vote means in reality losing the right to vote.

Cueball Cueball's picture

It means whatever it means. Putting people up in the courts for not voting is fascist. And you are a Fascist.

Benoit

I am a deliberative democrat.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Cueball wrote:
Anyone who think people should face the courts for excersizing their right not to vote is a Fascist. Especially when they forsee the punishement as Jail. You are a Fascist. Simple.
This is not very nice. Stamp your feet three more times and then hold your mouth and nose shut until you get your way.

LOL Cry 

Benoit

Cueball is very close to hate speech.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Benoit wrote:
Exercising their right not to vote means in reality losing the right to vote.

Benoit wrote:
I am a deliberative democrat.

No you are a person who believes that a persons vote belongs to the state, and that you, and it, have the right to determine what their vote means. Allowing the state, rather than the indivdual to determine what their vote means, and then to enforce that with a criminal process, is the essence of thought crime.

Cueball Cueball's picture

heh

TVParkdale

Cueball wrote:
Anyone who think people should face the courts for excersizing their right not to vote is a Fascist. Especially when they forsee the punishement as Jail. You are a Fascist. Simple.

 

Cueball:

I was truly wowed [and I don't mean that factiously] with your discussion until you called the other fella a "fascist".

"Fascism" would imply he believes dictatorial governmental corporate, religious and social control which wasn't in any of his posts.

Putting people in jail for not voting isn't necessarily  "fascist"

Putting people in jail for not voting  could be  considered "Dictatorial" "Tyrannical" "Demagogic" or possibly "Theocratic" [if he believes it's your God-given responsibility to vote] but not necessarily "Facist", since fascists historically were voted in. [of course, once in, the voting stopped]

Wink

Cueball Cueball's picture

Well, I guess I should be clear. 

In this case I did not call Kropotkin a Fascist. He merely supports a Fascist measure. However the sum total of Benoit's philosophy, as expressed variously, including his psychologizing the political, so that persons who exclude themselves from the political practice of power, such as by not voting, are people who are suffering from psycholigical disabilities that can be cured (presumably by the removing their rights and freedoms and incarcertating them mental institutions or re-education camps -- Pol Pot), his assertion that press should be prohibited from reporting the statistics of elections as far as how many people who do not vote, the idea that "left and right" could be "united" (Mussolini) was thematic among early 20th century fascist ideaologist, as well as the one that asserts that states are inevitably locked in a life and death struggle for supremacy (Luddendorf/Hitler).

More abstractly this is all posed in a Totalitarian form because it aims to assert the ideology of Democracy as a totalizing absolute, to which all persons must adhere. Any ideology when asserted as a totalized absolute, to which all members of a society must adhere, on penalty of imprisoment, exclusion, or state persecution is the essence of totalitarian, regardless of the brand of the ideology imposed.

I know if one wandered into this conversation at this point, it would seem like an extreme assertion, prima facie. Totalitarian Communist social behaviourist freak in the vein of Pol Pot, might be more accurate, but Fascist is simpler.  And I don't use it lightly. I am using as a term that more or less accurately describes Benoit's (coincidence:Benito?) political ideology.

Fascist, often allowed voting. Hitler allowed for a number of plebicites on his foreign policy initiatives, and of course the "Enabling Act" was designed to determine who could vote. The "final solution" was an act voted in by a committee at the Wansee conference. I don't see voting as being anti-thetical to Fascism, I think Fascism can employ voting if it detemines who can vote, and how.

Is there really much of a difference between arresting someone for voting for the Communist party or the SPD, and arresting them for not voting because they did not want to participate in a corrupted democratic process? All Germans were required to vote in Hitlers "referendums".

TVParkdale

Well in the interests of clarity Cueball I put a wink there because I was jerking your chain, humorously.

You were doing a rather good job of explaining why those outside the system are better equipped to fight the system--a position I have been screaming at the top of my lungs about social services for years now. 

I am frustrated with those who are in the system claiming they are "changing it from the inside on behalf of the poor" which to me, is a load of self-delusional bollocks. What it is, is a way of keeping guilt at bay while pimping a middle-class paycheque by pathologizing poverty, state induced trauma and oppression.

Absolutely it's not a position guaranteed to win friends and influence people*sigh*

Your take on it is what fascinated me with this discussion. 

Until you pointed it out in the above--I never looked at the same concept from the viewpoint of vote/not vote idea. So thanks for the larger picture.

Benoit

Cueball wrote:

Benoit wrote:
Exercising their right not to vote means in reality losing the right to vote.

Benoit wrote:
I am a deliberative democrat.

No you are a person who believes that a persons vote belongs to the state, and that you, and it, have the right to determine what their vote means. Allowing the state, rather than the indivdual to determine what their vote means, and then to enforce that with a criminal process, is the essence of thought crime.

 

You have no way to know what my beliefs are if I don’t tell you: a person’s vote belongs to that individual as long as s/he is recognized as a citizen equal to any other one by a state. Allowing people to skip elections is allowing people to lose its identity and die slowly from marginalization.   

Benoit

I’m posting to get you stop referring to Mussolini. Are you devoting a personality cult to him?

KenS

yawn

Cueball Cueball's picture

If you have not indicated what your belief's are, how come you post here so often? Or are you finally admitting that you are not saying much of anything?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Benoit wrote:

I’m posting to get you stop referring to Mussolini. Are you devoting a personality cult to him?

You are saying that people should be forced to vote. No abstentions from the process. You have even asserted that I "that too much insistence on secret voting can transform a democracy into a dictatorship." You have said that "Jehovah Witnesses have no good reason not to vote", justified on the basis that "all rights are instituted by a collective will". That's not ethics. That is simply saying that because you think something is right, you have the right to impose that upon others, right?

How is that not totalitarian? It's clear where you stand.

Right. Right. Right.

Benoit

A Fascist state is an organic state. Its conception of totality revolves around a conception of an organism as a self-enclosed system. Therefore a fascist state is very scary when one particular individual comes to incarnate to head (or the will) of that organism and all other individuals are happy to see themselves as the arms of that will.

Cueball Cueball's picture

But its not scary when the power of the state is absolute? What better conditions to create an absolute despot than one where "all rights are determined by a collective will", and the state can simply make up rules, because a majority decides what the collective will is, regardless of the will of the individual. Anyone can be shot for anything, just because 50+1 decide it should be so.

There are many ways to set a society on this path, and one way is to make a persons vote the property of the collective state, which will certainly become not a collective state at all when the majority of the collective decides, for example, to make Jews non-citizens. 

Regardless, you have admitted that you think Fascism is not scary when it is collectively fascist, as opposed to in the hands of a single despot. Only then does your collective Fascism become scary to you.

However, we know that a collective Fascism devolves into individual tyrrany, simply through the assertion of the right of the state to determine the actions and value of its citizens with absolute authority, which can be made up as we go along because "all rights are determined by the collective will, so why not..." whatever.

 That is why I equated your collectivized totalitarian state with Pol Pot, and his merry band of know-it-all "collectivizers."

Benoit

Cueball wrote:

But its not scary when the power of the state is absolute? What better conditions to create an absolute despot than one where "all rights are determined by a collective will", and the state can simply make up rules, because a majority decides what the collective will is, regardless of the will of the individual. Anyone can be shot for anything, just because 50+1 decide it should be so.

There are many ways to set a society on this path, and one way is to make a persons vote the property of the collective state, which will certainly become not a collective state at all when the majority of the collective decides, for example, to make Jews non-citizens. 

Regardless, you have admitted that you think Fascism is not scary when it is collectively fascist, as opposed to in the hands of a single despot. Only then does your collective Fascism become scary to you.

However, we know that a collective Fascism devolves into individual tyrrany, simply through the assertion of the right of the state to determine the actions and value of its citizens with absolute authority, which can be made up as we go along because "all rights are determined by the collective will, so why not..." whatever.

 That is why I equated your collectivized totalitarian state with Pol Pot, and his merry band of know-it-all "collectivizers."

 

That right exists only when some humans act as a group is simply a fact of life. A person can show that an order is not right only by showing to some humans acting as a group that the order is not founded on a collective will that is inclusive.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I see, so the Jews in Dachau merely had to be able to show that the orders for their incarceration were illegal, and not properly authorized by the collective. Do I have it right?

Mojoroad1

[/I don't know how this can be more existential thread drift] 

 Cueball Vs. Benoit: Samuel Beckett would be pleased.Wink

 (not quite as good as "the NDP must make sure to keep steady supply lines, before monitoring it's artillery technology in WWII" thread.......but interesting none the less)

 

 [/ End I don't know how this can be more existential thread drift] 

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

It could be more existential if you had not made it.

What newspapers and magazines do you regularly read?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Third post actually, and none of them have been on topic. But whose counting fish? All of them have been trolling attacks on... wait for it... me!

 Thanks for the "thoughtful" insights and your "contributions".

Cueball Cueball's picture

Any other posts you want to edit in order to cover up your errors, after they are corrected? I can think of a few that you might just want to delete altogether.

Speaking of errors, shouldn't that now read: "Third and final off topic trolling post for me"?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Even more new material, in the "third and final post".

Kind of got yourself into a bind there, haven't you, having to re-edit the same post over and over again, so that you can make it appear that you have actually flounced, when you haven't.

 ETA: The post above was a lighthearted joke.

Mojoroad1

Same ones as Sara Palin.

& "The Quixotic Fish".Tongue out

3rd and last post on this topic for me BTW. Wink

 

ETA: The post above was a lighthearted joke & I no longer play Billiards.

ETA: Nothing whatsoeverCool

 

TVParkdale

Benoit wrote:

You have no way to know what my beliefs are if I don’t tell you: a person’s vote belongs to that individual as long as s/he is recognized as a citizen equal to any other one by a state. Allowing people to skip elections is allowing people to lose its identity and die slowly from marginalization.

Okay, I HAVE to challenge that statement because it is utterly ludicrous.

Marginalized people are marginalized because the parties and candidates in power and running for election do NOT reflect their needs. 

A bunch of white, upperclass lawyers do NOT represent the interests 80% of working class and poor in this country. Their "political identity" has nothing to do with the "identity"  of the majority of those who are marginalized.

If you haven't noticed, those "marginalized" people can't afford the luxury of starting political parties and running for office.  Hell, go to an all candidates meeting, if any politicians outside the fringe will even bother to show up in some poverty neighbourhoods. Look around the room for a while.

What in the name of Jeebus Tapdancing Cripes have the people on the platform  to do with the interests of the disenfranchised constituency on the floor many cases?

Voting in the next self-interested bozo looking for a fat pension isn't doing much either for this "marginalized neighbourhood", I can tell you. And we actually have some decent candidates who can't get past their own parties or parliament in our best interests.

So, you want to penalize people who chuck in their cards at the rigged poker game and refuse to play anymore?

Sounds like shoving a gun in someone's face and demanding they believe in "democracy". 

 

 

 

Benoit

Cueball wrote:

I see, so the Jews in Dachau merely had to be able to show that the orders for their incarceration were illegal, and not properly authorized by the collective. Do I have it right?

 

The only way for Nazis to show to anyone that killing Jews would be including them in German society is by credibly showing that they are ready to deify the Jews.

Benoit

TVParkdale wrote:
Benoit wrote:

 Allowing people to skip elections is allowing people to lose its identity and die slowly from marginalization.

Okay, I HAVE to challenge that statement because it is utterly ludicrous.

 

The best example I can give is New Orleans: Because low electoral participation rates bring political corruption, Katrina has left residents of this city either dead or lost.    

Cueball Cueball's picture

That's right blame the victims.

Benoit

Blaming the victims is an integral part of any deification process.

remind remind's picture

Cueball wrote:
You are talking about the right to vote for which member of the ruling class to elect to the highest office:

Quote:
Layton comes from a long line of politicians. His great-granduncle, William Steeves, was a Father of Confederation. His great-grandfather Philip Layton was a blind activist who led a campaign for disability pensions in the 1930s. His grandfather, Gilbert Layton, was a cabinet minister in the Union Nationale government of Maurice Duplessis in Quebec, and resigned due to the provincial government's lack of support for Canadian participation in World War II. His father, Robert Layton, was a Liberal Party activist in the 1960s and 1970s, and served as a Progressive Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) and Cabinet minister in the 1980s.

The Devine Right of Kings is the ghost in the machine.

Well, I am a little late to the party, being the invitation was put in the wrong mail box, and all, but better late than never. You have proven nothing by that quote, regarding a notion (gotten from wiki?) that Layton comes from a long line of politicians.

 Uh, his great grandfather was an "activist" not a politician,  his great uncle, is nothing more than his great "grand" uncle, as Layton is from a different line than his. Now that his grandfather was minor politician in PQ means nothing much by way of "historical" national ascendancy, nor indeed does his father as a backbencher MP indicate anything much. All that  your quote notes is that the Layton family has history of activism, and political interest. Politics in a family is like having musical ability in a family, or dance, or even business, one is more likely to enter into what is known rather than some other field.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Benoit

It’s not a thread about Layton but about voting. There will always be too much gossip about individuals and never enough deliberations about concepts.

TVParkdale

Benoit wrote:
TVParkdale wrote:
Benoit wrote:

Allowing people to skip elections is allowing people to lose its identity and die slowly from marginalization.

Okay, I HAVE to challenge that statement because it is utterly ludicrous.

 

The best example I can give is New Orleans: Because low electoral participation rates bring political corruption, Katrina has left residents of this city either dead or lost.

Okay I have to do this...

/EXTREMElY EPIC FACE PALM!!!!!

 

Uh Hello? what newsfeeds are you getting?

Katrina was a bollocks because the disenfranchised Blacks of the city were sold out by the city, the state and the feds.

I highly doubt that while the majorly white population was bailing for the hills that any level of government was yelling,
"BooYA! Look at them good white folks run! Now them bad black folk well BooYA  CHECK THE VOTING MACHINES  before ya send in the Red Cross!"

"Look Dubya  THEY DIDN'T VOTE REPUBLICAN so llet the muthas drown!" 

....uh, blame the victims much there Benoit?

 

/double face palm finish 

 

Benoit

Katrina is all about years of non-existent prevention.

TVParkdale

Benoit wrote:

Katrina is all about years of non-existent prevention.

Uh yeah.

And according to your theory, it's because black people don't vote? 

Cueball Cueball's picture

remind wrote:
Cueball wrote:
You are talking about the right to vote for which member of the ruling class to elect to the highest office:

Quote:
Layton comes from a long line of politicians. His great-granduncle, William Steeves, was a Father of Confederation. His great-grandfather Philip Layton was a blind activist who led a campaign for disability pensions in the 1930s. His grandfather, Gilbert Layton, was a cabinet minister in the Union Nationale government of Maurice Duplessis in Quebec, and resigned due to the provincial government's lack of support for Canadian participation in World War II. His father, Robert Layton, was a Liberal Party activist in the 1960s and 1970s, and served as a Progressive Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) and Cabinet minister in the 1980s.

The Devine Right of Kings is the ghost in the machine.

Well, I am a little late to the party, being the invitation was put in the wrong mail box, and all, but better late than never. You have proven nothing by that quote, regarding a notion (gotten from wiki?) that Layton comes from a long line of politicians.

 Uh, his great grandfather was an "activist" not a politician,  his great uncle, is nothing more than his great "grand" uncle, as Layton is from a different line than his. Now that his grandfather was minor politician in PQ means nothing much by way of "historical" national ascendancy, nor indeed does his father as a backbencher MP indicate anything much. All that  your quote notes is that the Layton family has history of activism, and political interest. Politics in a family is like having musical ability in a family, or dance, or even business, one is more likely to enter into what is known rather than some other field.

___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"

 

Yes well, with less spin that is more or less what the Wiki article says. Don't see what the objection is. What you left out about Layton's father, though, is that he was not a backbencher, but in fact Minister of state for Mines under Mulroney in the first two years of the of the Mulroney government. Robert Layton was a cabinet minister who oversaw an important resource portfolio when the greatest government designed sell-off of Canadian industry and resources was conceived.

What does that say about Layton? Let me be clear; not much, necessarily, but we are talking about class here, and inherent class interests, not political outlook per se, but if you think a family like that is not an establishment family, I'd hate to see what you think "working class" is.

Benoit

TVParkdale wrote:
Benoit wrote:

Katrina is all about years of non-existent prevention.

Uh yeah.

And according to your theory, it's because black people don't vote? 

yes

Fidel

Somebody's been reading the Watchtower news letter again?

Benoit

Jehovah's Witnesses cannot be absolutely certain that only the Afterlife is worthy of our attention.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

JW's are as certain as other religious zealots that their views are the only correct ones. Believe has nothing to do with logic when it comes to religion. Blind faith in mysteries is always part of being a true believer. 


From North of Manifest Destiny

Pages

Topic locked