Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election

[Guest]

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 Based on this and my point above, I'm not so sure it's outdated...flawed?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 But not outdated.

[gvg]

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.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/13/AR2010101303925_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.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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   /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)

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?

[Quag]

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

[Guest]

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.

How can the government take my house from me if I'm inside it? Actually, I suppose they have ways. They can make it almost impossible for me to sell it, for example. But, my point wasn't how powerful the government's monopoly is. My point was that the government doing that IS violence against me.

Would you justify Harriet Tubman's enslavement because she accepted meals from her master? Of course not, and similarly it's not my fault that the government has a monopoly on roads. Just because I use roads and just because Harriet Tubman ate her master's food doesn't mean it's right to force for me to pay for roads or Harriet Tubman to pay for the food (through labor, not money). And you're right, you shouldn't have to pay for the roads that I use unless you want to.

I'm not sure why statists always seem to have a problem with privatizing roads, but they do time after time again and use it to justify using violence against me through the state to continue funding their government programs and wars.

And what is this nonsense about "you can go to H**L"? Something about people being evil if they don't have guns pointing at them forcing them to pay for government roads, perhaps?

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.

Not using violence to force people to buy wars they don't want to is definitely not worse than forcing them to pay for the wars against their will at gun point.

And there's plenty of information for how much money is spent on the military/wars so it would be easily determinable if I wanted to not pay for a certain portion of the spending (military spending, Afghanistan/Iraq War spending, etc):

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/6SCfa8/www.mint.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/DAT2010mint.jpg

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_current_gs.php?year=2010_2015&view=1&expand=3050&expandC=&units=b&fy=fy11

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

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.

Oh, dang, HAITI! I forgot about that! You're right! We better start pointing guns at people or else the vast majority of us are going to lose our education, material possessions, etc, and fall into poverty! Why didn't I see it before?

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.

Thanks for calling me a jerk. I don't think society breaks down if you stop pointing guns at people, but you don't seem to be in the mood to listen so I'll just leave it at that for now.

[gvg]

Quag: i just feel that mandatory voting in some form is better. In fact, some areas where it's not even enforced still see a higher voter turnout simply because it's a 'law' and people follow laws.

And think about this: it is, by law, mandatory NOT to litter. You can still do so, but you pay a fine. I see no reason that instead we should pay those who don't litter and not pay those who do. I understand that it's a different situation, but you see what I mean don't you?

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Compulsory_voting This website is good for both sides =)

And UtF: If you don't pay the fines, then you break the whatever the law about not paying fines. Thus you would then be punished for not paying your fines, not for not voting. And anyway, if you don't wish to vote, don't register! Simple. Avoids the issue completely.

And no, not wanting to do something is not an excuse for not doing it. Is it excusable not to do jury duty if you're called because you don't want to? is it ok to not tell the truth in a court of law because you didn't want to?

[Quag]

UTF yup i think anyone who thinks anarchy is good is a jerk as they are thinking only of themselves.

If we have no govt we have no police no police means i can take a gun and shoot you take your stuff and thats that all mine game over for you no consequences for me!

roads food slavery?? apples oranges and anarchists none of it goes together.

your right i cant take your education but in an anarchistic society you dont get any unless you pay or rather unless your parents decide to pay for it. cause as a child you cannot earn money untill you old enough to have some sort of usefull skill. there being no govt to make chilkd labor laws.

the stuff about going to hell is the same thing that makes communism fail. Anarchy and communism assume FALSLEY that all people will work to the betterment of others even if in the short term it is to their detriment. SORRY IT DONT HAPPEN! take away rules and laws and such eventually it becomes kill or be killed. at least untill some enlightend peopel reinstitute laws and some for of govt.

People arent inherently evil most the vast majority I believe are good. But if you place people in a world where someone with a gun can do what they want the bad peopel will eventually force the good people to act liek them or lose everything. please read lord of the flies.

Sorry you dont liek wars neither do i but seriously if not wanting to pay taxes for a war you dont liek is your strongest arguement just move to another country that isnt at war. worked for those peopel who moved tothe falkands (yeah cheap jab i know what ya want its saturday night and im sitting at a puter)

Those are estimates after the fact. youre saying the govt goes to war then afterwards when you see the price you can say no thanx?

What im saying is anarchy will ead to haiti where people do poitn guns at each other kids dotn get educated etc. personally I would prefer no one uses guns but that is being unrealistic and utopic. Given the choice i would rather have the guns in hands of peopel who follow a set of rules that are defined and as needed modified by a govt structure and that that govt can be changed by a democratic process. Like winnie said it isnt the wost possible system except when compared to all others.

Yes i would liek to pay no taxes or even less. Yes I would like ther to be less govt waste etc but to think that letting people decide what taxes they will pay would lead to a better world is compeltely unrealistic, It would lead to the total shut down of govt and the decay of the countries infrastrure incease gang activity once the cops are all gone, disease once the garbage stays in the street illiteracy as schools close etc. ALL THIS WILL HAPPEN if you let people decide what taxes they can pay because pretty soon people will stop paying all taxes and then all these govt servces will cease.

gvg if you litter you can damage the enviroment and make unsanitary conditions that can negatively affect me. If you dont vote well then you are just irrelevant. not the same Ill say it again go for the carrot forget the stick. you havent given me one good reason the stick is better than the carrot.

wanna vote get a tax break dont wanna vote dont get it. simple no pain for those who dont vote as it is invisible to them well except for UTF he dotn pay taxes

[Guest]

I forgot to reply to this:

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)

It appears you accept a different definition of anarchism than I do. I'm aware that the word anarchy has been degraded over the years and is now often used to mean chaos, etc. Even this morning in the New York Times of all places I read, "Many expressed mild frustration about limits on their access to damaged homes, the pace of road clearing and power restoration, and anarchic traffic jams caused by roadblocks and nonfunctioning signals." ( http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/us/01fema.html?partner=rss&emc=rss ). Just looking at the article again to show you I see they got rid of "anarchic" which I of course completely agree with because it is a very barbaric use of the word that does no respect for the political position.

There are lunatics in the world who claim to be anarchists and then go shoot people, etc. I don't consider these people anarchists. All of the actual political anarchists would only non-violently revolt against the governments that enslave them by swaying peoples' minds through political discussions like this, etc. Real anarchists, not the lunatics who call themselves anarchists and then go terrorize government people and use violence, are the non-violent people. Anarchism is what you get when you accept the non-aggression principle. You don't have to follow it completely to be an anarchist, but if you learn enough about what anarchism is you'll realize that violence of the kind that the government uses against people (like forcing them to pay taxes or go to jail) is absurd.

Before I was an anarchist I was having a political discussion with my friend (who is an anarchist) once. I rejected what he was saying about the non-agression principle saying that he wasn't really an anarchist and that it was impossible to be an anarchist. I said that if he was to truly follow his principles then he shouldn't initiate force against trees by cutting them down and using them to build his house or whatever else. That's a form of violence if you think about it, even if it's not as severe as some other things like killing a dog or a human. But, after picking at all the little flaws in his argument that his anarchist views were what stemmed from the non-aggression principle I looked back at taxation and it all of a sudden seemed absurd to not let people choose to not pay for one thing or another (whether it be the Afghanistan War or even government healthcare or even police, public schools or roads. A few years ago I thought I was leaning to the liberal side of the political spectrum (like Democrats over Republicans). I thought that all of the government stuff was necessary and that my anarchist's friend's objections about violence were just silly. I thought that for the greater good of society taxation was necessary. I thought that without the gun-enforced taxation and the rest of the aspects of government, then society would "dissolve into anarchy" as people always say using anarchy in a derogatory sense. But, really I had no reason to back up my views. I hadn't tried solving societal problems without violence before. Seriously, try coming up with ways to solve all of the problems that it is currently the government's job to solve without violence. I had never tried the task before. But, the more I thought about it the clearer it all became and eventually I realized that the government's violence wasn't necessary and I didn't have to keep telling myself "but, it's necessary for society to function" to justify the government using violence to force people to do things they don't want to do. Anyways, I'm ranting now and this is getting off topic.

[Guest]

Quag: i just feel that mandatory voting in some form is better. In fact, some areas where it's not even enforced still see a higher voter turnout simply because it's a 'law' and people follow laws.

That is a funny phenomena, isn't it? People follow laws just because it's a law. Many times I have been discussion politics with people and I ask them if they think a certain thing is right or wrong. They often express that they think it's wrong, but then they decide that they're going to say it's right because "it's the law" and if people don't follow "the law" then the system won't work and society will collapse. Crazy? Yes. Think of the military soldiers who go shoot people because they were ordered to. If the U.S. government is telling me to do it then it must be a good thing to do! It's the same phenomena. If you were a police officer and were supposed to arrest me because I didn't pay the portion of my taxes for the War in Afghanistan and I said, "No thanks. I haven't committed a crime. I'm not going to let you arrest me because if I let you arrest me I know I'll end up in a jail cell because of the perverted morals of this system." Would you really point your gun at me to force me to go to jail? Why? Because it's your job? Because it's the law? That's nonsense... If you're going to arrest me, do so because you think should use violent force against me for declining to financially support the war in Afghanistan.

[benjer3]

The trouble with anarchism is that it is impossible for people to live together unless they have a common law. What if I felt like taking some food from your garden? Who says it's wrong? You would want to shoot me because I'm stealing your food, but I think it's as much mine as anybody else's, and I'm going to shoot you because you're threatening my life. If there isn't some uniform set of laws for a people to live by, no one is right--there is no right--and everybody is justified to do whatever they want to.

Furthermore, even though we give some of our freedom to the government (or the government "takes" it from us), it protects us from the captivity that would be imposed on us by a tyrannical power. If our government didn't protect us, some group could easily overpower us and turn us into slaves that work until they die.

Hey, without any governments, I could get together with a good number people and decide I wanted to wipe out the human race. If I have a big enough group of people, no one can stop me. I'll just do as I please, and what everyone else wants won't matter.

[Guest]

And think about this: it is, by law, mandatory NOT to litter. You can still do so, but you pay a fine. I see no reason that instead we should pay those who don't litter and not pay those who do. I understand that it's a different situation, but you see what I mean don't you?

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Compulsory_voting This website is good for both sides =)

And UtF: If you don't pay the fines, then you break the whatever the law about not paying fines. Thus you would then be punished for not paying your fines, not for not voting. And anyway, if you don't wish to vote, don't register! Simple. Avoids the issue completely.

And no, not wanting to do something is not an excuse for not doing it. Is it excusable not to do jury duty if you're called because you don't want to? is it ok to not tell the truth in a court of law because you didn't want to?

If you throw your trash onto my property that is a form of violence--it is an initiation of force--against me. I wouldn't use violence against you for throwing trash onto my property, but I would appropriately deal with your crime non-violently. The point is, I would regard that as a crime. But, if I do NOT pay for the Afghanistan War that the U.S. government is holding, is that a crime? If I do NOT give my money away to the mafia, is that a crime? I certainly wouldn't say so, but then again I'm an anarchist and you're a statist, so maybe you do think that it is a crime that merits a violent punishment (such as a choice between paying a fee, going to jail, or getting shot at). (Note: If you sell me a book (or any other product) and I run out of your store before paying you, then yes, I would obviously regard that as a crime. But, again, if I was the bookseller I wouldn't use violence against the book-thief. There are non-violent ways to deal with criminals that don't involve pointing guns at them and locking them up in cells).

The fines are a form of violent punishment, because if I don't pay the fines then that means the government is going to come after me with their guns to bring me to prison and if I refuse they are going to grab onto me and handcuff me to take me in and if I defend myself from that they'll shoot me.

And why do you think I should be punished for not paying a fine for not voting? That's the same thing as not paying my taxes. Why should I have to pay? Anyways, this is a silly discussion (the mandatory voting one). If you're willing to point a gun at me to make me vote then that's that and I'm done with this discussion.

[benjer3]

(Whoops, missed the edit time)

This means there would be more violence in a government-less world. The only reason good governments use "violence" is because they must to defend their citizens from real violence, i.e. killing. As for laws, "violence" must be used or some people will choose not to follow the laws, and then nobody will follow them, and then we're down the government-less toilet described above.

And how do you deal with criminals without violence?

Edited May 1, 2011 by benjer3

[Quag]

UTF youem to be saying that you are a pacifist not an anarchist.

GAWD i hate these debates on meanings of words. I will use the dictionary definiton of anarchy.

[Guest]

The trouble with anarchism is that it is impossible for people to live together unless they have a common law. What if I felt like taking some food from your garden? Who says it's wrong? You would want to shoot me because I'm stealing your food, but I think it's as much mine as anybody else's, and I'm going to shoot you because you're threatening my life. If there isn't some uniform set of laws for a people to live by, no one is right--there is no right--and everybody is justified to do whatever they want to.

Furthermore, even though we give some of our freedom to the government (or the government "takes" it from us), it protects us from the captivity that would be imposed on us by a tyrannical power. If our government didn't protect us, some group could easily overpower us and turn us into slaves that work until they die.

Hey, without any governments, I could get together with a good number people and decide I wanted to wipe out the human race. If I have a big enough group of people, no one can stop me. I'll just do as I please, and what everyone else wants won't matter.

I'd want to shoot you because you're stealing my food? Speak for yourself. Would you really shoot someone for stealing some vegetables from your garden? Dang, maybe it's good we have police instead... just kidding. Anyways, of course I wouldn't shoot you for stealing from me. I'd ask you to give the food back. I'd tell you I consider it theft. I'll tell you that if you try to do it again I'm going to stop you. I would let everyone else in the community know what you did. And of course I could always go to my dispute resolution organization, which of course I would if what you stole was of significant value and you refused to recompensate me a way I found acceptable.

How big is this group of people that you're going to wipe out humans with? A democratic majority? Anyways, I don't think I have to worry about mass numbers of people wiping out all humans in a stateless society. If I did they would wipe us out in our current society.

[benjer3]

I'd want to shoot you because you're stealing my food? Speak for yourself. Would you really shoot someone for stealing some vegetables from your garden? Dang, maybe it's good we have police instead... just kidding. Anyways, of course I wouldn't shoot you for stealing from me. I'd ask you to give the food back. I'd tell you I consider it theft. I'll tell you that if you try to do it again I'm going to stop you. I would let everyone else in the community know what you did. And of course I could always go to my dispute resolution organization, which of course I would if what you stole was of significant value and you refused to recompensate me a way I found acceptable.

How big is this group of people that you're going to wipe out humans with? A democratic majority? Anyways, I don't think I have to worry about mass numbers of people wiping out all humans in a stateless society. If I did they would wipe us out in our current society.

I'm just following the theme of violence, and I'm thinking of the kind of society that would exist--where everybody has to raise their own food, and stealing food would threaten your life. But you would try to stop me. That dispute resolution organization would have to use violence to return whatever I took. And stopping me would be a form of violence. What if I believed that everything belongs to everybody, that you have no right to stop me? Then you would be using violence to satisfy your own sense of justice.

And just as a side note, that organization would probably be unable to exist without the use of violence to prevent it from being toppled.

[Guest]

UTF youem to be saying that you are a pacifist not an anarchist.

GAWD i hate these debates on meanings of words. I will use the dictionary definiton of anarchy.

I'm not a pacifist. I'll use violence in self defense. I just don't support using violence to force other people to give you their money.

[Guest]

I'm just following the theme of violence, and I'm thinking of the kind of society that would exist--where everybody has to raise their own food, and stealing food would threaten your life. But you would try to stop me. That dispute resolution organization would have to use violence to return whatever I took. And stopping me would be a form of violence. What if I believed that everything belongs to everybody, that you have no right to stop me? Then you would be using violence to satisfy your own sense of justice.

And just as a side note, that organization would probably be unable to exist without the use of violence to prevent it from being toppled.

The theme of violence? Wow, at least put in a little effort.

Everyone doesn't have to raise their own food... there's this thing called one person can make/grow food and someone else can eat it. And no, dispute resolution organizations don't use violence.

If you thought that you owned the food I was growing in my garden, everyone would think you were crazy and they'd probably suggest you seek some help or just stop acting dumb.

[gvg]

My idea to fine people was just an example. i don't necessarily support it. Just defending the idea. Mostly because I'm defending this side of the argument in a week in school, so i'm testing it out =) Thankfully I don't think my opponenent is a clever as you are.

In actuality, i do think it should be mandatory, but what would happen if you didn't? Tough call.

Maybe instead we could make it mandatory to vote (if you're registered, which again you don't have to do) if you want your tax returns or a tax cut or something? I dunno. I just feel that it being mandatory would make the voting process better. Am i being optimistic? Possibly, which is unusual of my, as I'm usually a little more realistic. but, i dunno, something about it.....

http://www.aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/anarchy Here's another definition. Just adding a different one

[benjer3]

UtF: I'm sorry for the animosity. That's the kind of thing that can't happen for any form of society to work well. Don't think my views have changed, but I don't want to keep being angry about it.

I do think I see where you're coming from, and it does make sense in many ways. I think maybe that you are like me in being an idealist, which isn't necessarily bad, though we may want perfection when perfection isn't possible.

I believe that the perfect society is possible, where everyone is united and no one would have to do anything they do not want to do. There would not have to be a government because everyone, or nearly everyone, would have most of the same values and goals, and would want to do what's right, and so the people would be able to govern themselves without dispute. Any obstacles would be able to be overcome.

But once a significant—maybe not even large—amount of the people believe differently than the others, contention breaks loose and the society breaks down. If everyone believes differently, nothing will be able to be decided on and nothing will be accomplished. If a group of people try to take over, the division in the society will cause them to fall into their hands.

That is why, I believe, we need governments. Governments provide a common law that cannot be disputed, allowing an extremely diverse people to be united and to accomplish great things. Democracies are the best option because they allow the majority (at least to some extent) of the population to decide what this common law is, so there is as little dispute as possible. It is impossible for a government to be perfect as long as the people are divided, but they create the greatest unity possible.

And I think that without unity, very little is possible, as I mentioned before. Without unity of beliefs, trading goods and services, defending the society against outside forces, preventing crime, and doing many other things would be extremely difficult and maybe even impossible. The perfect society would only be possible if everybody had the same values and did their best to carry them out. As for me, I believe this is possible only through religion, but that is for another discussion.

Governments must use its people’s resources in order to maintain itself and the nation’s unity. When learning about civics, we hear about a social contract—an agreement between a people and its government to support each other. The government provides protection and unity while the people provide support and loyalty. If the people do not do their part, the government falls, and vice versa. Both must be strong for a nation to prosper.

Thus, the social contract must involve compromises. Some of the people’s freedom must be given up in order to maintain the rest of their freedom that might otherwise be lost. We are lucky who live in America and countries with similar governments, as we have greater freedom than we can have through any other system.

Finally, with this incredible system at our disposal, it is our duty to make the best of it. No, we may not agree with everything our government does, but we need to support it as well as do our best to change it for the better, or else the whole system decays and tumbles. When we vote, pay our taxes, let our voice be heard, et cetera, we make our government and therefore our society the best it can be. (And if we completely disagree with everything our government does, then we have the right to move to another nation that we do agree with.) And then, if it is possible for our people to join into one heart and one mind, we can create the perfect society, with perfect freedom and with power and respect never before seen on the Earth.

And that’s my view of it. I’d really like to hear what you have to say as well.

[Guest]

I'm a little curious where the concept of money comes from in a "stateless" society? If there isn't some overarching entity that decides what constitutes "money," how do people interact financially? Should they go back to wampum?

Also, I have to say that a "dispute resolution organization" sounds vaguely governmental in function. Who runs such an organization and who gives them the authority to resolve disputes? If I don't want to listen to the verdict of a DRO, what entity in a stateless society can compel me to listen?

For being "non-aggressive," there's certainly a lot of talk of using violence on this thread. Benjer3's right that a stateless society is only going to work if everyone is committed to working together from the get-go. And that just isn't the case right now. Maybe in 500 years or so, but definitely not now.

Do you suppose that you might feel differently about the government if you were an African American growing up in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957? The Federal Government (sometimes violently) started to force the Southern states to treat all of their citizens with the same respect. Of course, the Civil Rights movement was just beginning then, but it was the strength of the Federal Government that allowed that to come about in that instance. Would it have been better if everyone would have had to stand up for themselves?

To change the subject and turn to the Electoral College, I used to think that the EC should be abolished like gvg said, but having thought about it more, I do think that while it's somewhat broken and needs serious work, it shouldn't be removed outright. If elections were decided purely by popular vote, then politicians would only focus on population centers. California, Texas and New York would become more important, not less without the EC.

Population of CA: 36,961,664  Electoral Votes:  55

Population of TX: 24,782,302  Electoral Votes:  34

Population of NY: 19,541,453  Electoral Votes:  31

Population of WY: 544,270  Electoral Votes:  3

Population of AK: 698,473  Electoral Votes:  3


Ratio of Population:

WY/CA:  0.015


Ratio of Electoral Votes:

WY/CA:  0.055

Source: Jul 2009, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division

You can argue whether or not Wyoming or Alaska should be irrelevant to the political system (), but abolishing the Electoral College would make them more irrelevant than they currently are.

[Guest]

Hmm...I don't recall if I added this but I think I did not though I meant to..re: EC

Bush was elected President without gaining the majority of the popular vote. This is a strong argument against the EC, right? I say no. Not because the idea behind is flawed, it is not. Certainly the majority of voters should be listened to. I disagree with the assertion simply because we have no way of knowing if the majority of voters would have voted for Bush under a different system.

I did not vote in 2000. Why not? Living in Texas it was clear that Bush would carry the state (which is why I disagree with the assertion that Texas and California are key states that candidates focus on. There are key states, they just aren't Texas and California, presently). So how many people didn't vote because they felt their vote was devalued. Who knows how the results would have turned out. Mayhaps Bush would have carried the nation.

I will support an argument that the EC system dissuades people from voting, but not that it should be abolished because it allows the loser of the popular vote to still get elected.

Edited May 2, 2011 by maurice

[Guest]

Hmm...I don't recall if I added this but I think I did not though I meant to..re: EC

Bush was elected President without gaining the majority of the popular vote. This is a strong argument against the EC, right? I say no. Not because the idea behind is flawed, it is not. Certainly the majority of voters should be listened to. I disagree with the assertion simply because we have no way of knowing if the majority of voters would have voted for Bush under a different system.

I did not vote in 2000. Why not? Living in Texas it was clear that Bush would carry the state (which is why I disagree with the assertion that Texas and California are key states that candidates focus on. There are key states, they just aren't Texas and California, presently). So how many people didn't vote because they felt their vote was devalued. Who knows how the results would have turned out. Mayhaps Bush would have carried the nation.

I will support an argument that the EC system dissuades people from voting, but not that it should be abolished because it allows the loser of the popular vote to still get elected.

What do you think about going the Maine/Nebraska route, making each district go to whichever candidate gets the most popular vote in that district? It seems like an interesting balance toward the popular vote, while still maintaining the EC structure. I'm not sure how it would affect the elections, but it certainly could have a large impact. It also might entice people who want to make a statement with their vote to vote since it could actually give their candidate an EV.

[Guest]

Hmm...I don't recall if I added this but I think I did not though I meant to..re: EC

Bush was elected President without gaining the majority of the popular vote. This is a strong argument against the EC, right? I say no. Not because the idea behind is flawed, it is not. Certainly the majority of voters should be listened to. I disagree with the assertion simply because we have no way of knowing if the majority of voters would have voted for Bush under a different system.

I did not vote in 2000. Why not? Living in Texas it was clear that Bush would carry the state (which is why I disagree with the assertion that Texas and California are key states that candidates focus on. There are key states, they just aren't Texas and California, presently). So how many people didn't vote because they felt their vote was devalued. Who knows how the results would have turned out. Mayhaps Bush would have carried the nation.

I will support an argument that the EC system dissuades people from voting, but not that it should be abolished because it allows the loser of the popular vote to still get elected.

What do you think about going the Maine/Nebraska route, making each district go to whichever candidate gets the most popular vote in that district? It seems like an interesting balance toward the popular vote, while still maintaining the EC structure. I'm not sure how it would affect the elections, but it certainly could have a large impact. It also might entice people who want to make a statement with their vote to vote since it could actually give their candidate an EV.

I'd like that. You'd still have some districts where the winner may be overwhelmingly obvious but the impact would be diluted. And in Texas there are hugely Democratic pockets.

Again, I'm not saying the EC is good not bad, I just don't agree with the two big arguments against it (outdated & popular winner doesn't always win)

[Quag]

Dawh very good points about anarchy, was goona make them myself escpecially the money one. You beat me to it so ill just say: I agree with your post. except the no govt working 500 years go bit. No govt can work only on a very small scale such as a village. Beyond the point where a population grows so big people dont really know About the electoral college, well being canadian we have a completely different system so ill let you americans thrash that one about. I prefer our system personally, not perfect but well seems to work better.

UTF:

If you thought that you owned the food I was growing in my garden, everyone would think you were crazy and they'd probably suggest you seek some help or just stop acting dumb.

Why is it your garden? With no govt. there are no laws including property laws. Is it yours just because you said so? What if I disagree and say nope its mine? what do we do then? eventually these kind of problems will lead to violence. No govt means no roads no garbage colection no laws no police no regulation of any kind.

As to the not paying taxes on the war bit. ok lets say you dont pay them. how do you insure the govt doesnt spend that money on the war and instead just cuts pack on say medicare instead?