Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election

[Guest]

Many people probably still consider voting patriotic--they say it's your duty as a U.S. citizen to vote, especially in major elections such as the 2012 presidential election. But, really? Is voting really a good thing? What if I don't support the government?

Currently the government taxes us to pay for many things many of us don't support. If I don't support various wars in the Middle East, for example, should I be forced to pay for them anyways?

In the U.S. we have this thing called free speech, in which we can express our disagreement with these wars without being kidnapped and held captive by the government. But, if we wish to follow through with our disagreement by not financially supporting these wars that we don't support, all of a sudden we will get kidnapped and locked in a cage by the government. Why? Why don't we have the right to disagree?

Currently I don't have the right to not pay taxes for the Afghanistan War, but that's a right I think I should have.

In 2012, whether Barack Obama gets reelected or the Republican nominee gains control of the big guns, neither will do any nothing to stop the government from violently forcing me and many other people from paying for these things that we do not wish to support.

Should I still vote for the candidate that I think is less immoral? Or should I vote for some no-name (like myself) who stands no chance of getting elected? Or should I not vote at all?

I think any vote gives legitimacy to the government. Any vote for any candidate is an expression that I support the system. I don't support the system, though. I don't want Barack Obama or any of the Republican candidates to be the President. I don't want anyone to be the President. I don't want anyone to be able to declare war and force me to pay for it against my will.

So I shouldn't vote. I could vote for the lesser of two evils, but that would just perpetuate the government I despise. I think voting IS bad after all.

What do you think? Is voting bad?

Remember that when you vote you give legitimacy to the government that uses violence to force me to pay for other people to go across the world and commit more violence against other violent people. You might think that violence should be used against those other violent people to prevent them from committing their crimes against the innocent citizens of some of those foreign states. But, if that is the case, then remember that you can pay to go fight wars against those people yourself. You don't have to use violence against me as well to force me to pay for the wars against my will.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Use the Force

[Guest]

Aaah, so much I can say here, both in agreement and in disagreement. But I will let the smartest man I've ever heard (almost said known, but I guess I didn't "know" him ) jump in on this one.

"I don't vote. Two reasons. First of all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The sh#@ they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn't mean a f&^%ing thing. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around ; they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with."

That was George Carlin

Edited April 29, 2011 by maurice

[Quag]

OK UTF Ill play devils advocate here

If you don’t vote don’t b***H. I understand you like neither of the 2 options that have any hope of winning the election, but there are other people you can vote for or even spoil your ballot. If you vote for a 3rd party candidate or spoil your vote than you have said to the 2 main parties here is someone who takes the time to vote but doesn’t like us. they will and trust me they continually do ask themselves the question of how to get you to vote for them. The parties all consider voter participation as a factor. the lower the turnout they have to listen to the population and only have to gear themselves to their "Core" voters. This is the main reason that the republicans and the democrats as parties are drifting farther and farther to the right and left respectively. the Middle doesn’t vote so ya gotta get the extremes worked up so that they come and support your side.

Remember if you take the time to spoil your ballot you have said to BOTH main parties I am politically engaged but like neither of your parties. If enough people spoil their ballots the 2 parties will both try and figure out what these people who vote neither Dem nor Rep want and adopt their platforms to try and get you to support them. No political party is likely to ever be 100% in sync with your political beliefs but you hope they come close.

Should I still vote for the candidate that I think is less immoral? Or should I vote for some no-name (like myself) who stands no chance of getting elected? Or should I not vote at all?

So basicall i`m saying vote either for the lesser of 2 evils (as you view them, please I'm not advocating dem/rep), 3rd party or spoil your ballot.

Remember that when you vote you give legitimacy to the government that uses violence to force me to pay for other people to go across the world and commit more violence against other violent people. You might think that violence should be used against those other violent people to prevent them from committing their crimes against the innocent citizens of some of those foreign states. But, if that is the case, then remember that you can pay to go fight wars against those people yourself. You don't have to use violence against me as well to force me to pay for the wars against my will.

I must say I dislike your use of the term violence here. The govt of does not shoot you with bullets if you dont pay taxes. They will fine you and if you continue to refuse to pay your taxes they can put you in jail but i do not consider incarceration as violence. that is an increadibly broad view of the term you are using and comparing incarceration for unpaid taxes to the horrors of war in afganistan and iraq is well.. unseemly to me.

I also disagree with your point on being forced to pay for wars you dislike. What about things that dont bother you but may bother others. should they have the right to refuse paying taxes on those items? If you go down that road eventually what you get is just anarchy as everyone will refuse to pay taxes on everything.

[Quag]

"I don't vote. Two reasons. First of all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The sh#@ they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn't mean a f&^%ing thing. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around ; they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with."

lol problem with that statement is that it assumes you voted for the party/politicans that won the election. I cant remember the last time i voted for a candidate that actually won. Being canadian we have a different system here and dont directly elect your prime ministers. So far I have only once in my life had the chance to vote directly for the sitting prime minister. I am proud of the fact that I voted against him even though he won his seat anyway. Thefore I can always complain as i never voted for any of the morons running my country just the people who never gotten the chance to prove that they are as incompetant as those who won

[Guest]

Before I read all this and reply in full, I just want to say:

Money != Speech

[gvg]

Personally, I go by what a ancient greek political figure said: (Not a quote, I don't have the exact wording)

If one does not participate in government, does not try to make society better, then they are useless to their country and countrymen.

I follow that idea. I thin it's a civic duty to vote, and personally, I wish that we had mandatory voting here in the US.

I agree with Quag. Spoil the ballot. Or vote for a third party. Of course, i hate political parties but that's another issue....

[Guest]

There's no point in evading what you can't evade, so just vote for the candidate that applies to your president ideal.

[Guest]

I agree with pretty much everything that Quag said. I have to disagree with George Carlin on this one. Inaction is as much a form of action as voting is. But you proactively removed yourself from the possibility to affect the system. Like Quag said, if you don't vote, then the people in government won't care about you at all. If you vote for the other guy, then they have to start to listen. ( Quag, not sure what your leanings are, but I just read an article that indicated there could be a big shake-up in the Canadian government, if polling stays accurate to the outcome.)

To expound on my earlier post, the idea of equating money with speech has always seemed patently absurd to me. The idea behind "free speech" is that everyone has a voice and has a chance to present their opinion in the public sphere. We all have the same opportunity because we all have the same power behind our voice. If you treat money as speech, then suddenly we are not all equal in terms of "free speech." If I have $500,000 and you have $30,000, do I have more speech than you do? That doesn't make any sense. It's just an excuse for rich people and corporations to try to influence elections under the guise of "free speech" without being obstructed by laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.

I'll add my own quote to the "Wisest of Political Figures" game:

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

--Sir Winston Churchill

I agree that a lot of the time the choices stink and there are definitely flaws in our system of government (relating to political parties in particular, h/t to gvg ), but to abstain from the process seems wrong-headed in my view. If you have no ideological bent and no knowledge of the candidates and such, then maybe an abstention would be appropriate (though I would argue you should make yourself knowledgeable of the candidates, but there's no way to compel that in the truly apathetic ), otherwise, you should participate in what small way that you can. I would strongly support Instant Run-off voting. In that system, you rank the candidates on the ballot (instead of simply choosing one). They tally the votes and remove the lowest-grossing first-choice candidate from the list. All the people whose first choice was removed get their votes shifted to their second choice and the votes are retallied. This process continues until there is only one candidate left. This won't ever get support of the major parties precisely because it dilutes their power, since people won't be as afraid of supporting third-party candidates instead of the major party ones.

I also agree with Quag's assertion that UtF's system of taxing would equate to anarchy. I don't support the wars either, but had Al Gore been sworn into office in 2001 instead of Bush, I'm confident that the number of wars in which we would have engaged in the last decade (and the amount of money poured into them) would have been greatly diminished. But Bush managed to squeak his way onto the podium and it is what it is. If I were allowed to stipulate that I didn't want the government to spend "my" money on X, Y or Z, then soon we would have government unable to do anything (and I mean anything). Everyone would be putting so much red tape on how their money could be used, it wouldn't be possible to use it anywhere (even where it ought to be used and needed to be used). The only sane method for controlling where your money gets used by the government is to help elect people who will use the money as you want it to be used. And helping to get that candidate elected by, I don't know, community organizing or something.

[unreality]

OK UTF Ill play devils advocate here

If you don’t vote don’t b***H. I understand you like neither of the 2 options that have any hope of winning the election, but there are other people you can vote for or even spoil your ballot. If you vote for a 3rd party candidate or spoil your vote than you have said to the 2 main parties here is someone who takes the time to vote but doesn’t like us. they will and trust me they continually do ask themselves the question of how to get you to vote for them. The parties all consider voter participation as a factor. the lower the turnout they have to listen to the population and only have to gear themselves to their "Core" voters. This is the main reason that the republicans and the democrats as parties are drifting farther and farther to the right and left respectively. the Middle doesn’t vote so ya gotta get the extremes worked up so that they come and support your side.

Unfortunately you are entirely incorrect Quag... the parties aren't drifting away from center, they're drifting toward center. Everyone thinks they know the difference between Democrats and Republicans but it has become so convoluted that I challenge you to go to their websites, look at their platforms (in detail, not their broad statements), then the legalese, and try to tell me how different they really are. If you constrict your mind to one of the two main parties, you really are choosing between the lesser of two evils. Though they are both quite evil so it's hard to say what's lesser

Remember if you take the time to spoil your ballot you have said to BOTH main parties I am politically engaged but like neither of your parties. If enough people spoil their ballots the 2 parties will both try and figure out what these people who vote neither Dem nor Rep want and adopt their platforms to try and get you to support them. No political party is likely to ever be 100% in sync with your political beliefs but you hope they come close.

Agreed. 3rd party is the way to go.

So basicall i`m saying vote either for the lesser of 2 evils (as you view them, please I'm not advocating dem/rep), 3rd party or spoil your ballot.

yep those are pretty much the options haha.

I must say I dislike your use of the term violence here. The govt of does not shoot you with bullets if you dont pay taxes. They will fine you and if you continue to refuse to pay your taxes they can put you in jail but i do not consider incarceration as violence. that is an increadibly broad view of the term you are using and comparing incarceration for unpaid taxes to the horrors of war in afganistan and iraq is well.. unseemly to me.

Sure one is not as bad as the other perhaps but they're both using force to dominate a less powerful. Argue the semantics all you want but the end result is the same, and that's control.

Many people probably still consider voting patriotic--they say it's your duty as a U.S. citizen to vote, especially in major elections such as the 2012 presidential election. But, really? Is voting really a good thing? What if I don't support the government?

Currently the government taxes us to pay for many things many of us don't support. If I don't support various wars in the Middle East, for example, should I be forced to pay for them anyways?

In the U.S. we have this thing called free speech, in which we can express our disagreement with these wars without being kidnapped and held captive by the government. But, if we wish to follow through with our disagreement by not financially supporting these wars that we don't support, all of a sudden we will get kidnapped and locked in a cage by the government. Why? Why don't we have the right to disagree?

Currently I don't have the right to not pay taxes for the Afghanistan War, but that's a right I think I should have.

In 2012, whether Barack Obama gets reelected or the Republican nominee gains control of the big guns, neither will do any nothing to stop the government from violently forcing me and many other people from paying for these things that we do not wish to support.

Should I still vote for the candidate that I think is less immoral? Or should I vote for some no-name (like myself) who stands no chance of getting elected? Or should I not vote at all?

I think any vote gives legitimacy to the government. Any vote for any candidate is an expression that I support the system. I don't support the system, though. I don't want Barack Obama or any of the Republican candidates to be the President. I don't want anyone to be the President. I don't want anyone to be able to declare war and force me to pay for it against my will.

So I shouldn't vote. I could vote for the lesser of two evils, but that would just perpetuate the government I despise. I think voting IS bad after all.

What do you think? Is voting bad?

Remember that when you vote you give legitimacy to the government that uses violence to force me to pay for other people to go across the world and commit more violence against other violent people. You might think that violence should be used against those other violent people to prevent them from committing their crimes against the innocent citizens of some of those foreign states. But, if that is the case, then remember that you can pay to go fight wars against those people yourself. You don't have to use violence against me as well to force me to pay for the wars against my will.

Aaah, so much I can say here, both in agreement and in disagreement. But I will let the smartest man I've ever heard (almost said known, but I guess I didn't "know" him ) jump in on this one.

"I don't vote. Two reasons. First of all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The sh#@ they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn't mean a f&^%ing thing. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around ; they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with."

That was George Carlin

I agree with both of the above. I do not support the government either. Let's face it, the government sucks. They've all but drowned themselves in their own red tape. The counterargument to that is "you can't do better, try running a country!" but that's a bunch of bullsh*t. Sure there's going to be red tape, there's going to be corruption, there will be problems. Money, taxes, are always problematic because people like money. But despite all that, I guaran-f*cking-tee you I can run a country better than what's going on right now Any of us here could. Working together is where it gets hard of course, but if we tore it all down and started again it would be so much better, you can't deny that. But I digress. As Charles Beard said, ""It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."

I agree with pretty much everything that Quag said. I have to disagree with George Carlin on this one. Inaction is as much a form of action as voting is.

That's the whole point. By not voting you are making a statement. A statement more powerful than you could make by voting, perhaps. But I don't really believe in nonvoting either. I plan on voting for a third party because that's even more impact... aka, your vote is tallied, but in defiance of the dems/reps, and in favor of something you actually support. When anyone says they've voted for a Democrat or Republican I immediately lose respect for them (political respect at least), though when people say they don't vote I lose a lot of respect there too because I chalk it up to apathy. But when they don't vote as a legitimate statement, I can accept and respect that at least.

To expound on my earlier post, the idea of equating money with speech has always seemed patently absurd to me. The idea behind "free speech" is that everyone has a voice and has a chance to present their opinion in the public sphere. We all have the same opportunity because we all have the same power behind our voice. If you treat money as speech, then suddenly we are not all equal in terms of "free speech." If I have $500,000 and you have $30,000, do I have more speech than you do? That doesn't make any sense.

Of course it doesn't make sense but it's the unfortunate reality. Money talks and despite the rampant liberalism we still live in a capitalist society, so of course money has found its way into free speech. Whoever has more money, does indeed have more ability to reach more people with their message.

I also agree with Quag's assertion that UtF's system of taxing would equate to anarchy. I don't support the wars either, but had Al Gore been sworn into office in 2001 instead of Bush, I'm confident that the number of wars in which we would have engaged in the last decade (and the amount of money poured into them) would have been greatly diminished. But Bush managed to squeak his way onto the podium and it is what it is. If I were allowed to stipulate that I didn't want the government to spend "my" money on X, Y or Z, then soon we would have government unable to do anything (and I mean anything). Everyone would be putting so much red tape on how their money could be used, it wouldn't be possible to use it anywhere (even where it ought to be used and needed to be used). The only sane method for controlling where your money gets used by the government is to help elect people who will use the money as you want it to be used. And helping to get that candidate elected by, I don't know, community organizing or something.

That's so distant. Congressmen hardly do what you want them to, and a lot of times they don't even vote. It may be the best way but it still sucks.But the majority of the organized world we have to put up with is terrible in one way or another so what can you do

[Quag]

Quag, not sure what your leanings are, but I just read an article that indicated there could be a big shake-up in the Canadian government, if polling stays accurate to the outcome.)

im a social liberal fiscal conservative. there is no such party here in canada or it seems in the US either. The shake up mostly seems that the liberals may be back into 3rd place behind the NDP conservative swill probably form another minority govt. here in canada there are 4 parties that get any votes 3 national and 1 silly provincial party that runs in the national electiosn but they get 30-50 seats so they cant be ignored. The NDP are the left leaning party the conservatives are yup you guessedit right leanign the liberals are neither. Often people think they are between the two, sorta middle of the road party but they actuall are just a weather vane party that just says anything to get elected. It has proved very succesfull in the past but the corruption and scandals are still strong in peoples memories which is partially why they may come in 3rd place over all this election. And yes if you havent guessed i do not like the liberal party.

Biggest problem i have now is that the last liberal govt (ie corrupt thieves) changed the rules so now when you vote for a party the govt gives them about 2$. I am strongly against this as I am being forced to pay for a political party even if i only voted for them because they were the only party that could beat the party i hated more in my riding.

gvg:

I follow that idea. I thin it's a civic duty to vote, and personally, I wish that we had mandatory voting here in the US.

couldnt disagree more! perhaps an incentive system like i believe they have in Australia where you get a tax break if you vote would be ok but mandatory no way. If you get people who have no clue, interest or knowledge being forced to vote, you will have even worse govts than you've got now. I think it should go the opposite way, a very simple easy to pass multiple choice exam say 3-5 questions if you fail you have too little knowledge of politics to make an informed vote and thus are denied the right to vote this time around. Again it should be simple and easy. Here in canada it could be who is the prime minister? and who is the leader of the opposition? Basic stuff, unfortunately i know several people who would fail this type of exam but they do vote and always for the same party because thats the party their parents voted for. NO CLUE!!!!! this is the biggest danger to democracy people who vote without bothering to learn even the very basics of what they are voting for.

I do not like instant runoff voting but our system here is different than yours. Seems even down there in the USA it can lead to abuse. You have 2 real parties there, though more could exist they dont atm. Now if i was a politicain say a democrat, Id get a third party to have an even more left wing candidate to run. this would get all the republicans to pick me the democrat over the farther left guy and of course the farther left guy voters would pick me the democrat over the republican on the 2nd round. Seems this would lead to multiple candidates from all sides using this type of strategy. not a particularily honest tactic but then this is politics. (please note i used democrats as an exampele only, same thing work in reverse for republican)

[benjer3]

I agree with almost everything that Quag and Dawh have said, and I'd just like to add my two cents:

While it is impossible to have a perfect government as long as it involves imperfect humans, and while most people greatly dislike many of their governments' aspects, it needs to be remembered that without government there is only chaos. Governments allow at least some peace and cooperation in what would otherwise be a violent, unsafe, primitive, brutish world.

Of course, totalitarian governments are not any better than complete anarchy. There has to be a balance between freedom and oppression. With human nature an unavoidable obstacle, democracy seems to be the best solution.

Taxes and our other duties as citizens are needed to keep these institutions running. They are the prices of having some chance at "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Furthermore, by not doing these duties, you are essentially saying that you are revoking your citizenship. Thus, you are an "illegal alien," and the government has the right to remove you via prison; you also have no right to the benefits of citizenship if you fail to do your part.

Now it seems we're stuck between two evils: support a government with which we disagree or rebel against an institution that gives us safety and peace. The solution? Do our part as a citizen to make our government and our nation the best it can be, including voting, expressing opinions, giving support, and, most importantly, creating unity.

My wise political quote: "United we stand, divided we fall."

[unreality]

I'll probably vote for Ron Paul, Gary Johnson or whoever runs with the Green Party, if you must know though. First I need to register because I didn't turn 18 until between the last one and now so I haven't done that yet Does anyone know about the time limits there? I should probably get on that...

[unreality]

im a social liberal fiscal conservative. there is no such party here in canada or it seems in the US either.

It's called the Libertarian Party (like me ) You're not alone. IN fact it's the 3rd biggest party

[unreality]

Now it seems we're stuck between two evils: support a government with which we disagree or rebel against an institution that gives us safety and peace.

this is a quote war so I'm gonna throw down mr franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[Quag]

Sure one is not as bad as the other perhaps but they're both using force to dominate a less powerful. Argue the semantics all you want but the end result is the same, and that's control.

control is not violence. unfortunately governments are required for a functioning societly they may do things you dont like but better to be in a democracy where you can fire the people in charge onc ein a while instead of needing a revolution liek all other systems of govt.

That's the whole point. By not voting you are making a statement. A statement more powerful than you could make by voting, perhaps. But I don't really believe in nonvoting either. I plan on voting for a third party because that's even more impact... aka, your vote is tallied, but in defiance of the dems/reps, and in favor of something you actually support. When anyone says they've voted for a Democrat or Republican I immediately lose respect for them (political respect at least), though when people say they don't vote I lose a lot of respect there too because I chalk it up to apathy. But when they don't vote as a legitimate statement, I can accept and respect that at least.

If you dont vote no political party will pay much attention to you as you are not voting AGAINST them you have basically opted out of the political process and left your fate completely in the hands of others. Yeha if you vote and your side loses you still lost but the winners will know that X% of th epopulation is against them and will keep an eye on that and perhaps only perhaps try to find ways to win you over next time. dont vote they wont even bother doing that.

Of course it doesn't make sense but it's the unfortunate reality. Money talks and despite the rampant liberalism we still live in a capitalist society, so of course money has found its way into free speech. Whoever has more money, does indeed have more ability to reach more people with their message.

This is true up to a point there is a certain level where you saturate the market with your message and even if you spend 2x mor eit wont affect anything in fact often it does the reverse as people get turned off by the obvious attempts to "buy" votes.

That's so distant. Congressmen hardly do what you want them to, and a lot of times they don't even vote. It may be the best way but it still sucks.But the majority of the organized world we have to put up with is terrible in one way or another so what can you do

Ye sgovt can always be improved but much thought must be put into it often the attempts to improve govt has only made things worse. As a whole i hope everyone here can agree that the systems we have (in democratic countries) nowadays is better than have existed in the past. The progress may be slow and often beset by setbacks but hopefully it will continue to move towards a better wolrd in the long run

[Quag]

It's called the Libertarian Party (like me ) You're not alone. IN fact it's the 3rd biggest party

Please note I'm in Canada, there is no libertarian party here. I can't say I know enough about it in the US to say if it is what i am. Labels can be misleading.

We vote on monday and I still not sure who i'll vote for or if i'll spoil my ballot (in-laws think I always vote conservative because they always vote liberal and I argue with them a lot (they cant even imagine a vote for the NDP), but unlike them I DO NOT always vote for the same party

[benjer3]

this is a quote war so I'm gonna throw down mr franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Yes, I would have to say I agree with this. But what I am trying to say is not that we should just go willy-nilly along with our government, but that we cannot just ignorantly rebel.

The difference between the Revolution and now is that the colonies were a united people fighting against a tyrannical outside power while we seem to be trying to knock out our rotting supports without thinking about the roof that would fall right on our heads. We're not united or organized; we just care about getting rid of our only shelter. If change for the better is to happen, it needs to happen from the bottom up. If the people are united then the government will flourish, and then the nation can receive the power, respect, and pride it once had.

[Guest]

I must say I dislike your use of the term violence here. The govt of does not shoot you with bullets if you dont pay taxes. They will fine you and if you continue to refuse to pay your taxes they can put you in jail but i do not consider incarceration as violence. that is an increadibly broad view of the term you are using and comparing incarceration for unpaid taxes to the horrors of war in afganistan and iraq is well.. unseemly to me.

I also disagree with your point on being forced to pay for wars you dislike. What about things that dont bother you but may bother others. should they have the right to refuse paying taxes on those items? If you go down that road eventually what you get is just anarchy as everyone will refuse to pay taxes on everything.

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.

What about thinks that don't bother me but bother some other people? I think they should have the right not pay for those things, yes. And yes, if you go down this road of not pointing guns at people to force them to pay for things then you're on your way to anarchy. 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. If someone comes after me with a knife I'd shoot them if that was the only way to stop them from hurting me, but not if they were minding their own business, hurting nobody, and I thought they should have to pay for this or that just because they live in the middle third of North America. Why would I point a gun at them then? Just because I think they should pay for something doesn't mean I'm right. I choose to let them disagree.

[Guest]

thin it's a civic duty to vote, and personally, I wish that we had mandatory voting here in the US.

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?

[Guest]

Not the best thoughts on your BIRTHDAY, are they?

[Guest]

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

Uh, no. Just no.

[benjer3]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[gvg]

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/vt/compulsory_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.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_(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.................

Edited April 30, 2011 by gvg

[Quag]

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   /ˈænərkɪst/ 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.