Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election


  • Please log in to reply
502 replies to this topic

#21 Use the Force

Use the Force

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 424 posts

Posted 30 April 2011 - 02:26 AM

...it needs to be remembered that without government there is only chaos...

Uh, no. Just no.
  • 0

#22 benjer3

benjer3

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 298 posts

Posted 30 April 2011 - 02:46 AM

Uh, no. Just no.

Can you imagine a world where humans are just a bunch of animals?

The only way to get food would be to get or grow it yourself, or trade it for something that you can make or do of equal value. And if that guy doesn't want to give you anything for your stuff, he can just kill you. Of course, you could always kill him first, but eventually you'd be the last one to the trigger.

There would be hardly any technology or advancement, because people would have to worry about their food, shelter, protection, et cetera before anything else. Nothing beyond simple--simple, short, dirty, dangerous--living would happen.

Humans would be no more than slightly smarter chimpanzees. Society is what makes them great.
  • 0

#23 Use the Force

Use the Force

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 424 posts

Posted 30 April 2011 - 03:06 AM

Can you imagine a world where humans are just a bunch of animals?

The only way to get food would be to get or grow it yourself, or trade it for something that you can make or do of equal value. And if that guy doesn't want to give you anything for your stuff, he can just kill you. Of course, you could always kill him first, but eventually you'd be the last one to the trigger.

There would be hardly any technology or advancement, because people would have to worry about their food, shelter, protection, et cetera before anything else. Nothing beyond simple--simple, short, dirty, dangerous--living would happen.

Humans would be no more than slightly smarter chimpanzees. Society is what makes them great.

Humans are animals...

Without a government "humans would be no more than slightly smarter chimpanzees"?

I don't know what to say.
  • 0

#24 gvg

gvg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 April 2011 - 07:24 AM

Mandatory voting? So what happens if I don't vote? You support the government locking me up in jail? And if I refuse to go to jail, you support the government coming after me with guns?


I never said jail would be the punishment. There is another form: Fines and penalties and the like. The term mandatory in this case is slightly misleading. You don't have to vote. You just have to pay not to vote. And you can't fight that, because it's paying for something you believe in =) (i.e. not voting)

And in response to others: First off, I think mandatory voting would get people more involved in the political process. This then makes an educational type change; people start to learn about the issues, slightly because they feel they have to.

In fact, in many countries, they have 'mandatory voting' on the books, but nothing gets done to enforce it. But even then, it's shown that these nation's have a higher voter turnout rate, and more political involvement.

(TThis is a good website, i believe, for both sides of the issue: http://www.idea.int/...sory_voting.cfm)

And obviously, by the way, if you have an acceptable excuse (for ex. sickness, death in the family, etc.), you are excused.

Now, i do agree with the test thingy that I think Quag brought up. if you don't know the pres., then why the hell should you vote?

I get that. i suppose that can fall under a good excuse, which is (to put it bluntly): extreme political stupidity.

Probably sounds harsher then I meant it to be.

Also, it would definitely need to go hand in hand with voting change. WTF are we still doing with the electoral college system? It allows candidates to focus on a few key sttates (like texas and california) and not care what anyone else thinks. It's very true that some votes don't count. it's a bad system. May have worked in the past, but it needs to change: only the popular vote should be the measure of who wins.

And UtF: Back to the anarchism huh? =)

I know we were through this a lot already on the 'new gov.' forum (forget the actual name), but I will be brief:

1. Anarchy is selling the idea of a sort of utopia. i don't trust utopias. Communism promises a different sort of utopia, and look at how well that's done.

2. I would argue that (as of my current 9th grade ss pre ap edu.), the period that was closest to anarchy (after prehistory of course)was dark age/medieval europe. Lot's of decentralization, manors all over the place, so on. While I realize that that is not true anarchy, i can't help but wonder: this is one of the most decentralized things the world has seen. And it sucked, plain and simple. I don't see how more decentralization would be better, unless at some point it righted itself, which I highly doubt.

Government keeps order and, if run properly, protects freedoms. You think in an anrachaic (is that right?) society, there would be any end to discrimination of sexual, racial, and religious minorities? Or the disabled? Or women? Our government has made sure that such things have slowly left, and are still slowly leaving, our society. Lack of any rules against it, and it will run rampant.

And economically: Trusts, Monopolies, etc. All the bad things that come with them, like crappy labor conditions and slave labor. These things would make a return. Why? Nothing to stop it. nothing to keep it in check. You can say that people just won't use/work for it, but money talks. Loudly. And it makes everyone shut up. (Dawh said this, correct?) And i guarantee you that in that society, people would do anything for the right price.

I always say the freer the market the less free the users. A true,lazzie-faire, unregulated, unchecked, 'free' market is basically impossible, because it destroys itself. Our gov. has kept the free market running, and has improved it. (don't you like being able to have a small business?)

OK, I'm done. Not too brief, but I'm sure I couldve continued =)

One final note on third parties:

1. I say abolish all parties. (From Washington: "However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796." Right as usual =))

Candidates should run on what they believe, not that of the party. (I would love for an independent to run this country, though personally, if i was old enough, I'd vote for Obama. Not b/c he's a democrat (which as someone noted is another name for 'slightly more left republican'), but because i agree with his viewpoints, and I think that now that he won't have to worry about being too extreme to be reelected, he'll actually try. i could be wrong. But i dunno.....

2. However, if the party system stays, I'd love to have third parties, like the green party, rule. But not all third parties are good. The US Constitutional party clearly states that it wishes to bring a Christian theocracy (what a lovely idea) to the US. http://en.wikipedia...._(United_States). Hell, it places much of its party platform on the bible.

I know its just one party, but one must be careful with third parties................. :unsure: :thumbsup:

Edited by gvg, 30 April 2011 - 07:26 AM.

  • 0

#25 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 April 2011 - 04:23 PM

If I refuse to to let the government law enforcers bring me to jail for the non-crime that I commit (not paying for the Afghanistan War), then yes, they will shoot bullets at me in an effort to uphold their law.

several problems with this. How do you distinguish what part of your taxes go to the war? Why would the govt shoot you, unless you start shooting at them, or at least threaten to?

But again devils advocate:
I dont need roads as i walk everywhere. I wont pay those taxes.
I dont need fire dept because I live in a stone building. I wont pay those taxes
I dont need police as I have a dog. I wont pay those taxes
I dont believe in welfare. I wont pay those taxes
I dont believe in the military. I wont pay those taxes
I dont believe we should create waste (recycel ppl). I wont pay those garbage taxes
See where this is going?

I am an anarchist. What's bad about that? All it means is that I don't support the use of violence against people except in self defense


nope!
an·ar·chist   /ˈ?nərkɪst/ Show Spelled
[an-er-kist] Show IPA

–noun
1. a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.
2. a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
3. a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.

That is the definition of an anarchist. Fundamentally anarchy is a society without govt. problem is govt is necessary for certain things. Who will make/maintain roads? who will clean up the garbage? who will enforce the rule of law? (ok technically if no govt ther is no law but you get the point)

GVG I disagree with fines and penalties, a reward such as a small tax break would be a better way to go. If you place fines, people will not necessarily learn anything about the issues, they will just go vote. An uninformed vote is far far worse than not voting. Besides how do you fine a poor person for not voting? seems wrong. We pay people for doing their civic duty when they are slected for jury duty. Seems to me voting is also a civic duty and could be compensated as well (again meagerly such as jury duty). I dont want people to vote only for financial gain or to avoid financial loss.
  • 0

#26 maurice

maurice

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3612 posts

Posted 30 April 2011 - 06:39 PM

RE: Mandatory voting

There are people I do not want voting, even if they vote with me. It has little to do with intelligence and more to do with effort. People not voting isn't as much a problem to me as people not taking the time to care, and sure voting is part of caring, but voting alone does not demonstrate caring. So the person who turns on the radio, tv or whatever and goes along with what their favorite talking head says should not have a voice heard. The person who doesn't take the time to read up on the issues and just votes straight ticket, should not have a voice. I include myself. When I vote (and yes I vote) I don't feel the need to vote beyond the offices, bills I have read up on.

fwiw re: 3rd parties, I am torn. Historically their influence has been more to have their issues gobbled up by the 2 biguns. It does seem lately that more third parties have a foothold than before...I think I would like to see more oprions, but I fear the American society is content with two simple easy to follow labels: Red or Blue. I think that we lack the conviction to stand up for beliefs that may differ (or more accurately, appear to differ).
Living in Texas, the last Presidential election was pretty clear as far as who would carry my state. So I took the opportunity to have my voice heard, and voted for Nader. And I would do the same for Paul more than likely.

Re: Electoral college
It was put in place because the founding fathers did not trust the common citizen to make the right choices. Based on this and my point above, I'm not so sure it's outdated...flawed? Mayhaps...no no, yes flawed. But not outdated.
  • 0

#27 gvg

gvg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 April 2011 - 08:45 PM

Maurice:

People do vote based on their favorite talking head anyway. Think about it. TEA PARTY. There were several interviews done with supporters of the Tea party, many of whom are seniors, and they were asked why they support the destruction of medicare, SS etc.

One lady said: Oh.... I guess I don't agree with that. Look at that. I guess I'm not tea party. Huh. (Something like that, im just summarizing)

The people who most often don't vote are:

  • Busy younger adults/ middle aged adults (seniors vote more. Why? They have more time on their hands)
  • People like Carlin who are definitely intelligent enough to vote, but feel that not voting is the better option (for whatever reason)
  • Those who cannot vote b/c their job/school/work etc. schedule doesn't allow them to

These are the people we WANT voting more often. I think that those people who are most often voting are many times (though obviously not always) the people that everybody is most worried about. For instance, think about seniors. (Please note: I'm not putting down seniors at all. I'm just using them as an example)

Many seniors have slightly xenophobic/homophobic/etc. viewpoints. Why? That's the time period they were brought up in. It's not their fault entirely. But since seniors are more likely to vote than younger registered voters, their voice is most often heard. Why did republicans win so much in the past midterm election? Because more seniors lean republican, and seniors are most likely to vote in midterm elections than younger voters (http://www.washingto...01303925_2.html)

Other examples: Those who know nothing about the political process, like many (in my opinion) in the Tea Party movement, are most effected by the ideas given by fear-mongerers, like Glenn Beck (who borders on insane) and Bill O'Reily (who's simply a jack***). "Obama isn't a US citizen! Muslims/atheists/etc. want to get you!" so on and so forth. They listen, they're afraid, they vote as their TV masters tell them to. Meanwhile, those who actually know what they're doing can't vote, or (as Carlin did) choose not to vote. Not good.

I really think that mandatory voting will actually get more people who KNOW what they are doing to vote. And if we expand the number of voting days (just an idea), more people will have a chance to vote. So, I look at it differently.

And remember: If you really don't want to vote, but don't want to pay the fine, then write in your vote or something for someone who could never win. Or vote third party.

Also, we can make it so that it isn't mandatory to register as a voter, but if you do, it is mandatory to vote. Then, those who don't wish to vote technically don't have to.

Also, I know the reason it was made. But it is so flawed that it has BECOME outdated. It needs major change. I mean, think about it. There have been president's who didn't win the popular vote, but won the electoral college vote, and became president. How is that a democracy???????

Quag: I hate hurting the poor, as I'm sure you know. I obviously don't know how the thing would be carried out. But it seems to have worked elsewhere. And again, if a poor person doesn't want to vote but doesn't want to pay the fine, then don't register. or (I don't know if this is possible, but it should be)unregister.
  • 0

#28 Use the Force

Use the Force

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 424 posts

Posted 30 April 2011 - 10:15 PM

I never said jail would be the punishment. There is another form: Fines and penalties and the like.

And if I don't pay these immoral fines?

The term mandatory in this case is slightly misleading. You don't have to vote. You just have to pay not to vote. And you can't fight that, because it's paying for something you believe in =) (i.e. not voting)

And if I don't pay to not vote?

I don't believe paying to not participate in the system is right.

And obviously, by the way, if you have an acceptable excuse (for ex. sickness, death in the family, etc.), you are excused.

I think that not wanting to vote is an acceptable excuse, in which case I wouldn't have to pay. Or does someone else get to decide what is "acceptable" or not?

And UtF: Back to the anarchism huh? =)

I know we were through this a lot already on the 'new gov.' forum (forget the actual name), but I will be brief:

1. Anarchy is selling the idea of a sort of utopia. i don't trust utopias. Communism promises a different sort of utopia, and look at how well that's done.

2. I would argue that (as of my current 9th grade ss pre ap edu.), the period that was closest to anarchy (after prehistory of course)was dark age/medieval europe. Lot's of decentralization, manors all over the place, so on. While I realize that that is not true anarchy, i can't help but wonder: this is one of the most decentralized things the world has seen. And it sucked, plain and simple. I don't see how more decentralization would be better, unless at some point it righted itself, which I highly doubt.

I wasn't really an anarchist in that other thread a while ago. I was just trying out the position too see what happened. I am an anarchist today, though, and I highly doubt I'll ever change. It took me a while to finally figure out what anarchy is, but I have a pretty good sense of it now.

1. Anarchy is not utopian. In a stateless society there will still be theft, murder, rape, abuse, etc. I think there would undoubtedly be less, but these things would not go away. One example of theft that would go away, though, would be the theft by the government of people's money to pay (taxation). Does the fact that a democratic majority of people think it's okay to take your money make it okay to take your money? I wouldn't say so. I think it's still immoral. It's still stealing.

2. Rejecting anarchism because of the dark ages and medieval Europe is complete nonsense. And I'm not advocating decentralizing government; I'm advocating abolishing it. What is a government? What makes it different from all other human institutions? The difference is that it's the only institution with the legal right to use violence. Why? Why should anyone have the right to use violence to force others to do things against their will? Why in the world would you think that the fact that a democratic majority of people support an instance of violence against someone makes it right?

Government keeps order and, if run properly, protects freedoms. You think in an anrachaic (is that right?) society, there would be any end to discrimination of sexual, racial, and religious minorities? Or the disabled? Or women? Our government has made sure that such things have slowly left, and are still slowly leaving, our society. Lack of any rules against it, and it will run rampant.

You can call it a stateless society.

Government has never run properly in all of history and it never will. How can the government protect my freedom to spend my earnings how I would like to spend them if it is the very reason why I lack that freedom?

Our government is not responsible for those advances in civil rights, etc. First comes the outcry of the people, then the government action usually comes last. The people want to practice their own religions, and then the government finally allows it. The people want to abolish slavery and then the government finally stops defending slavery. The people cry out for women's rights and finally the government allows them to vote. The people change themselves and then finally the government catches on. The government isn't responsible for religious freedom and if you get rid of the government, wars aren't going to be fought to exterminate all the Jews. In fact, I think you need government for that.

And economically: Trusts, Monopolies, etc. All the bad things that come with them, like crappy labor conditions and slave labor. These things would make a return. Why? Nothing to stop it. nothing to keep it in check. You can say that people just won't use/work for it, but money talks. Loudly. And it makes everyone shut up. (Dawh said this, correct?) And i guarantee you that in that society, people would do anything for the right price.

The government is the cause of these trusts and monopolies. The government itself is in fact a monopoly on violence. No individual could ever compete. That's why I have to bow down and pay my taxes if I want to avoid going to jail or getting shot.


I always say the freer the market the less free the users. A true,lazzie-faire, unregulated, unchecked, 'free' market is basically impossible, because it destroys itself. Our gov. has kept the free market running, and has improved it. (don't you like being able to have a small business?)

Well I would stop thinking that; it's complete rubbish. Free markets don't destroy themselves. In a free market you get to trade in the absence of violence. Both buyer and seller must agree on what is to be sold and bought in order for a transaction to be made. That is completely free, not 'free' as you say.
  • 0

#29 Use the Force

Use the Force

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 424 posts

Posted 30 April 2011 - 10:28 PM

several problems with this. How do you distinguish what part of your taxes go to the war? Why would the govt shoot you, unless you start shooting at them, or at least threaten to?

But again devils advocate:
I dont need roads as i walk everywhere. I wont pay those taxes.
I dont need fire dept because I live in a stone building. I wont pay those taxes
I dont need police as I have a dog. I wont pay those taxes
I dont believe in welfare. I wont pay those taxes
I dont believe in the military. I wont pay those taxes
I dont believe we should create waste (recycel ppl). I wont pay those garbage taxes
See where this is going?



nope!
an·ar·chist   /ˈ?nərkɪst/ Show Spelled
[an-er-kist] Show IPA

–noun
1. a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.
2. a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
3. a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.

That is the definition of an anarchist. Fundamentally anarchy is a society without govt. problem is govt is necessary for certain things. Who will make/maintain roads? who will clean up the garbage? who will enforce the rule of law? (ok technically if no govt ther is no law but you get the point)

Well I could calculate the portion of my taxes that goes towards the U.S.'s wars and just send in the rest, but since I don't consider it a crime to not pay any taxes, let's just say I don't pay any of my taxes. Am I going to get arrested now? Of course (although I don't think I should be), but what if I choose to defend myself? I'm sitting in my home minding my own business and the government kidnappers come by with their guns and tell me that if I try to stop them from kidnapping they'll shoot me. In real life I would care about my life more than the injustice and would submit myself to them and allow them to take me to jail. In fact, in real life I would rather pay my mafia fee than go to jail so I pay my taxes anyways. But, ignoring that, let's say I decide that I'm not going to tolerate their mafia anymore. So here I am in my house and I say, "Okay, well even though you're threatening to shoot me if I don't let you kidnap me, I'm going to not let you kidnap me to the best of my abilities anyways." Now, I don't own a gun, but I imagine if I was going to try to stand up to the mafia I would get one first. So here I am in my house with my gun and they barge in through my front door. I yell out one more time to give them one last chance, "Are you sure you want to kidnap me? I'm not going to let you. The fact that you just broke into my house with your guns is making me fear for my life so if you get any closer I'm going to have to shoot you." So then they come in and shoot me and kill me. Whether I get of a few shots first and kill anyone is irrelevant. Anyways, I would never do this in real life because I value my life too much and know that me being one example of showing the American public that the U.S. government is an institution of violence wouldn't change anything. The media would pass me off as a lunatic. It would be completely pointless. But, this little story hopefully let's you see that from my perspective it's quite clear that I am acting in self defense. Are you that certain that not paying for the Afghanistan War is a crime that you're willing to use violence against me to make sure that I pay up?
  • 0

#30 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 April 2011 - 11:20 PM

UTF you claim to have a house, they wont kidnap you they will just take the house from you.
Sorry but you are using the govt for free. govt provides roads you use em?? you pay why should i pay taxes to pave a road you use?? no sense. now if no one builds roads then good bye grocery stores. food and goods, cant get to em, unless of course private roads are built and only those that pay can use em. but how dare you even think of walking on that private road! the list of examples go on forever. garbage nah ill just throw it out back untill my back yard becomes a festering cesspool that makes you sick and kills you. Too bad for you its my yard ill do what i want, you can go to H**L.

My point is there are some things we need govt to do. If no either they will be distributed very unevenly and their use restrcted or they wont get done.
roads garbage police firemen are the most obvious example.
Yes govt has never worked well but lack of govt has never worked at all. its a lesser of two evils situation.
as to the portion of the war how do you calculate that? where do you get your numbers from? sorry the govvt isnt even sure how much it has actually cost them.

Yeah i'm going overboard here a bit but your arguements make no sense it leads to a total breakdown of society, go visit haiti to see a place where govt is non existant.


Anarchy doesnt work it is a pipe dream if one guy lives liek that he is just a jerk if everyone does society breaks down.

gvg:
please drop the stick idea, the carrot approach is much much better, though i dont think either case will increase INFORMED voter turnout at least one way is not harming people
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users