porchrat
Honorary Master
Luckily I personally have never been faced with that problem. I personally don't know what I would do in that situation.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Have you ever ordered a product online and received a fake knock-off?
'I am a non-voting Atheist'
- Thread starter TELESPHORE
- Start date
Luckily I personally have never been faced with that problem. I personally don't know what I would do in that situation.
alloytoo
Honorary Master
Well the ANC doesn't set the opposition bar high.
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
voting for Mickey Mouse would be better than voting for the ANC... but vote Dangit! 
alloytoo
Honorary Master
voting for Mickey Mouse would be better than voting for the ANC... but vote Dangit!
Actually I was disenfranchised in the last SA election.
But I voted in my local By election.
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
alloytoo
Honorary Master
Did you go to the doctor?
No, I was in Australia at the time.
This isn't Zimbabwe.
Nonsense, I have no obligation to others, and my rights are not granted to me by "society". "Society" doesn't get to willy nilly create the rights they want to have. You don't have a right to the fruits of my labour (Slavery) pure and simple, regardless of what your or soceities opinion on the matter is.
As I pointed out, moral relavatism is the most absurd notion I have ever heard. Whoever thinks that slavery back in the 1800's or whatever (Because it was accepted at the time), was ethical, is a moron, not to mention evil.
Anarchy = order my friend. That is the irony. Again my uneducated fellow, go google an article called "I, pencil." by Leonard Read. Then you would understand that "anarchy" in the world arranges itself into an order so complex, ultimately no man understands it. Which is why the whole of idea of central planning and collectavist notions are doomed to fail.
I've mentioned this article by Mr Read, multiple times on this forum and never got an answer or response, the reason is because no one has any retort, no one can dispute the lesson taught by the article.
The article is eye-opening for those who have central planning and collectavist notions.
I believe the technical term of this concept is called "Chaos Theory". But that's beyond the understanding of most people...just saying. When you rely on handouts of course you wouldn't want anyone to stop the handouts.
The irony is those who consider themselves anarchist are probably more independent than you, work harder than you and pay more taxes than you (Not by voluntary choice, but under threat), because they don't believe in collectavism and living off of their fellow man.
Your the lazy parasite, not us.
Why do want to vote for the person who you think would run the country best, because you feel that choice is in your best interest. Whether financially or altruistically, it is just as selfish a reason as those who vote ANC for the financial benefit.
Your motivations might be different but they are still YOUR motivations.
And in the meantime I get screwed by a system you insist I endorse? That is complete gobbledegook.
Nonsese, your motivations might be different but you still vote based on YOUR motivations. You can never prove otherwise. If you vote argue that you vote for someone based on other people's motivations or objectives, then technically your motivation is to benefit others. But it is ultimately YOUR motivation because it is YOUR choice.
You can never prove I voted for someone because I didn't want to vote for them. You did, the rationale might seem irrational to others, but it is perfectly rational to you, hence the reason you voted that way.
It is just as selfish as others. You are fulfilling YOUR desires whatever they may be.
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
For someone who uses a lot of words, you sure don't say much. You need to learn to get the point and stop waffling. It impresses nobody.
As for Taxes, if you wanna wave your e-peen around then you can send me copy of your IRP5 and we'll see who is really paying their way here.
I doubt that you have paid as much taxes in your entire life as what I pay in one year.
As for Taxes, if you wanna wave your e-peen around then you can send me copy of your IRP5 and we'll see who is really paying their way here.
I doubt that you have paid as much taxes in your entire life as what I pay in one year.
Last edited:
Now who is insecure.
Let me ask you a simple question, whom do you think works harder, or someone who believes in taking care of themselves and their family, who someone who believes they need taking care of?
Any sane person would answer the former. An anarchist, is a person who believes in that SO strongly they view government as an evil organisation as by defintion it has to take through force.
Anarchists are most likely not to vote in terms of an ideological belief. You view this idea, an hence these people, as lazy.
Does that seem logical at all?
You simply want the non-voters to vote with you. If ALL of us non-voters voted ANC, would you thank us for voting?
That was a rhetorical question. The simple answer is if you are unhappy with the state of things now, you wouldn't want us voting with the masses. So at the end of the day what you really want is us to vote with you, are atleast against your "enemies".
I fully understand that if you do not have a personal opinion about a party the most rational voting option is to vote for the opposition so as to prevent too much power from resting in one party. I fully support the idea of removing power. Anarchist believe in NO government, I.E. no one having the power. It is simply an ideological stance, not to support a system that supports or encourages a group of people having power over other people.
It is not wrong or lazy, if all the voters for the oppostion stopped voting and the ANC took soo much power and destroyed this country, it is because of the ideological stance and the actions of the ANC and those in power, not those who refuse to vote.
Yes we might be able to do something, but if most of us left the country that would have the same result. And if you have the view that we MUST vote in order to prevent the ANC or anyone else from having so much power that they can destroy the country, then logically you must ALSO be in favour of forcefully preventing people leaving this country, as that would have the same effect?
Now I already know that is something you are not in favour of, but then you are not logically consistant as anyone who doesn't stand up in your view is partially at fault. All these people are doing is what they believe will be in their best and their families best interest. If leaving the country is it, then they should be allowed to leave. If not voting is it, due to an ideological necessity, then they should be allowed not to vote, without being criticised or mocked for having a belief that a group of people should not rule over another group by force and simple majority.
The real truth is you have no intellectual argument, it is an emotional one. Me voting for the opposition is in your best interest, which is why you want me to vote.
If I was a big ANC fan, you wouldn't be arguing this with me.
PS: As for lot of words, I simply have all the retorts to your arguments. They have been heard before. I ask people to read one louzy article, and they can't. They simply resort to insults.
Last edited:
"Mises on Might and Ideology
In his magnum opus, Human Action, Mises explains the connection between might and ideology:
A durable system of government must rest upon an ideology acknowledged by the majority. The "real" factor, the "real forces" that are the foundation of government and convey to the rulers the power to use violence against renitent minority groups are essentially ideological, moral, and spiritual. Rulers who failed to recognize this first principle of government and, relying upon the alleged irresistibility of their armed troops, disdained the spirit and ideas have finally been overthrown by the assault of their adversaries. The interpretation of might as a "real" factor not dependent upon ideologies, quite common to many political and historical books, is erroneous. …
He who interprets might as physical or "real" power to carry on and considers violent action as the very foundation of government, sees conditions from the narrow point of view of subordinate officers in charge of sections of an army or police force. …
However, things are different for the head of the government. He must aim at preservation of the morale of the armed forces and of the loyalty of the rest of the population. For these moral factors are the only "real" elements upon which continuance of his mastery rests. His power dwindles if the ideology that supports it loses force.
With this foundation, Mises later in the book draws a connection between governments and the approval of the masses:
[Classical] liberalism realizes that the rulers, who are always a minority, cannot lastingly remain in office if not supported by the consent of the majority of those ruled. Whatever the system of government may be, the foundation upon which it is built and rests is always the opinion of those ruled that to obey and to be loyal to this government better serves their own interests than insurrection and the establishment of another regime. The majority has the power to do away with an unpopular government and uses this power whenever it becomes convinced that its own welfare requires it.
Even Dictators Rest on Ideology
Many people scoff when they first hear Mises's claims. Surely there is a sense in which a dictator, who violently suppresses all opposition, rules through force and not consent?
Yet the actual behavior of dictators proves the deep truth in Mises's analysis. For example, the very mark of a closed, totalitarian society is that the media are all controlled by the government. Even graffiti challenging the regime is very quickly removed, far more quickly than authorities would clean up something comparable in a relatively open society. The schools serve as indoctrination camps, teaching the next generation about the virtues of the regime. Finally, the supreme ruler might spend hours every week giving long-winded speeches, not explaining how many guns and secret police agents are at his disposal, but on the contrary explaining how fortunate the people are to be taken care of by such a wise and benevolent leader.
"It is ultimately ideas that determine which way the soldiers point their guns."
These tell-tale signs of a dictatorship all reinforce Mises's observation: the regime can only last if it maintains the illusion that it is beneficial to the masses. Mere physical strength is not sufficient, because it is ultimately ideas that determine which way the soldiers and police point their guns.
We can interpret events in the Middle East through this prism. To understand why Mubarak was toppled relatively easily, in contrast to the bloodshed in Libya, we need to push the analysis deeper and ask why Mubarak lost the support of the army, whereas Gaddafi maintained loyalty on the part of a sizable number of subordinates who were willing to kill and be killed on his behalf.
As Mises explained, such an analysis of "power politics" doesn't primarily concern military statistics on troop strength. Instead, the analysis would focus on the prevailing ideologies animating both the armed forces and the general public who were rising up against the regime.
Lessons for Liberty
Looking through a Misesian lens, there are two important lessons we can draw from the turmoil in the Middle East. First, we see that it is possible to topple a hated regime without resorting to a civil war. Although American commentators are bickering over just how peaceful the Egyptian mobs were, it is undeniable that few people, even six months ago, would have predicted that Mubarak's implosion would occur so spontaneously and with such little loss of life.
The second lesson is the importance of having a sound ideology, so that the masses have a shared vision of how a free society works and what is needed to maintain it. Everyone the world over longs for freedom, and no one enjoys living under a brutal dictatorship. But if Egyptians believe that the historical success of the United States came from its periodic elections — as opposed to its relative respect for the institution of private property — then they are in for a rude awakening.
Both lessons underscore the critical importance of educating for liberty. If enough people understand freedom and withdraw their consent, an oppressive regime will topple under its own weight."
In his magnum opus, Human Action, Mises explains the connection between might and ideology:
A durable system of government must rest upon an ideology acknowledged by the majority. The "real" factor, the "real forces" that are the foundation of government and convey to the rulers the power to use violence against renitent minority groups are essentially ideological, moral, and spiritual. Rulers who failed to recognize this first principle of government and, relying upon the alleged irresistibility of their armed troops, disdained the spirit and ideas have finally been overthrown by the assault of their adversaries. The interpretation of might as a "real" factor not dependent upon ideologies, quite common to many political and historical books, is erroneous. …
He who interprets might as physical or "real" power to carry on and considers violent action as the very foundation of government, sees conditions from the narrow point of view of subordinate officers in charge of sections of an army or police force. …
However, things are different for the head of the government. He must aim at preservation of the morale of the armed forces and of the loyalty of the rest of the population. For these moral factors are the only "real" elements upon which continuance of his mastery rests. His power dwindles if the ideology that supports it loses force.
With this foundation, Mises later in the book draws a connection between governments and the approval of the masses:
[Classical] liberalism realizes that the rulers, who are always a minority, cannot lastingly remain in office if not supported by the consent of the majority of those ruled. Whatever the system of government may be, the foundation upon which it is built and rests is always the opinion of those ruled that to obey and to be loyal to this government better serves their own interests than insurrection and the establishment of another regime. The majority has the power to do away with an unpopular government and uses this power whenever it becomes convinced that its own welfare requires it.
Even Dictators Rest on Ideology
Many people scoff when they first hear Mises's claims. Surely there is a sense in which a dictator, who violently suppresses all opposition, rules through force and not consent?
Yet the actual behavior of dictators proves the deep truth in Mises's analysis. For example, the very mark of a closed, totalitarian society is that the media are all controlled by the government. Even graffiti challenging the regime is very quickly removed, far more quickly than authorities would clean up something comparable in a relatively open society. The schools serve as indoctrination camps, teaching the next generation about the virtues of the regime. Finally, the supreme ruler might spend hours every week giving long-winded speeches, not explaining how many guns and secret police agents are at his disposal, but on the contrary explaining how fortunate the people are to be taken care of by such a wise and benevolent leader.
"It is ultimately ideas that determine which way the soldiers point their guns."
These tell-tale signs of a dictatorship all reinforce Mises's observation: the regime can only last if it maintains the illusion that it is beneficial to the masses. Mere physical strength is not sufficient, because it is ultimately ideas that determine which way the soldiers and police point their guns.
We can interpret events in the Middle East through this prism. To understand why Mubarak was toppled relatively easily, in contrast to the bloodshed in Libya, we need to push the analysis deeper and ask why Mubarak lost the support of the army, whereas Gaddafi maintained loyalty on the part of a sizable number of subordinates who were willing to kill and be killed on his behalf.
As Mises explained, such an analysis of "power politics" doesn't primarily concern military statistics on troop strength. Instead, the analysis would focus on the prevailing ideologies animating both the armed forces and the general public who were rising up against the regime.
Lessons for Liberty
Looking through a Misesian lens, there are two important lessons we can draw from the turmoil in the Middle East. First, we see that it is possible to topple a hated regime without resorting to a civil war. Although American commentators are bickering over just how peaceful the Egyptian mobs were, it is undeniable that few people, even six months ago, would have predicted that Mubarak's implosion would occur so spontaneously and with such little loss of life.
The second lesson is the importance of having a sound ideology, so that the masses have a shared vision of how a free society works and what is needed to maintain it. Everyone the world over longs for freedom, and no one enjoys living under a brutal dictatorship. But if Egyptians believe that the historical success of the United States came from its periodic elections — as opposed to its relative respect for the institution of private property — then they are in for a rude awakening.
Both lessons underscore the critical importance of educating for liberty. If enough people understand freedom and withdraw their consent, an oppressive regime will topple under its own weight."
Haha, this discussion has actually reached the point where people are proud about how much the government has ripped them off! Hilarious.
Personally, I'm proud of how much I **** the government over by using their own loopholes and inane bureaucratic deficiencies against them. Every single government in the world is a slow and stupid bloated mess, only good at stealing from fools and murdering people en-masse.
Every penny they don't take is another penny that I can puts towards recapitalization, productive investment and job creation. Every penny they do take is something they can put towards more petty tyranny, more cronyism and more bunk regulations.
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
sorry, not even gonna bother wading through all of that. It was hard enough to try and figure out what the heck you were trying to say when your posts were only two lines.
Your pointless twaddle has not convinced me one jot.
Your pointless twaddle has not convinced me one jot.