'I am a non-voting Atheist'

[LazyLion]

I'm a hard-working taxpayer, but because I don't vote I'm just as bad as the ANC members who have never paid tax in their lives, yet vote every time they get the opportunity?

I doubt it.... but pretty much yeah, your not voting is accomplishing the same thing as their voting for the ANC.

 

[agerbon]

I understand the importance of democracy. However I think we corrupted democracy.

To put it mildly;

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting to decide what's for lunch.

-Marshall Fritz

 

[Hard Rain]

I understand the importance of democracy. However I think we corrupted democracy.

Why do you consider democracy to be important? Why do you think democracy is inherently virtuous, as opposed to our "corruption" of it?

 

[MiY4Gi]

I'm a hard-working taxpayer, but because I don't vote I'm just as bad as the ANC members who have never paid tax in their lives, yet vote every time they get the opportunity?

Wow. Just, wow.

http://www.plognark.com/Art/Sketches/Blogsketches/2008/thestupiditburns.jpg

What use would it be if you blindly pay taxes to a corrupt government? So you'll refuse to vote, and continue to pay your taxes, even if the ANC start a black apartheid? You're simply leeching from all the good things the voting public have fought for.

Tell me something. Did you vote in the 1994 elections? If not, why not? If you have, why did you stop?

 

[bitesize]

i'm just athiest cause i don't want to believe in religion, i do like science though lol.

 

[MiY4Gi]

Why do you consider democracy to be important? Why do you think democracy is inherently virtuous, as opposed to our "corruption" of it?

Would you prefer communism, or a dictatorship? Look where communism got Cuba. Look where a dictatorship got Zimbabwe. And look where a corrupt democracy got Germany. It's fine to believe that democracy won't work when the ignorant public chooses who will rule them, but democracy is also one of the only ways to ensure that the people aren't condemning themselves to a dictatorship.

If you feel that South Africa's democracy isn't the kind of democracy or the kind of rule you prefer, then at least fight for what you believe in. Don't ignore it. If South Africa falls apart due to a corrupt government, your ignorance would be partly to blame.

 

[agerbon]

Why do you consider democracy to be important? Why do you think democracy is inherently virtuous, as opposed to our "corruption" of it?

It offers the illusion of choice to the simple minded.

I don't think it's virtuous at all.

The thing about democracy is that it tends to give me the chills.

e.g; How many of these so called leaders of the country have a grasp of The theory of evolution. A mere thing like that makes me quite weary. How could anyone trust any of them?

 

[Hard Rain]

Would you prefer communism, or a dictatorship? Look where communism got Cuba. Look where a dictatorship got Zimbabwe. And look where a corrupt democracy got Germany. It's fine to believe that democracy won't work when the ignorant public chooses who will rule them, but democracy is also one of the only ways to ensure that the people aren't condemning themselves to a dictatorship.

If you feel that South Africa's democracy isn't the kind of democracy or the kind of rule you prefer, then at least fight for what you believe in. Don't ignore it. If South Africa falls apart due to a corrupt government, your ignorance would be partly to blame.

Great job setting up those straw man arguments, Myagi. You really knocked them out of the park! Where exactly in my two questions did I ever infer my preference to democratic rule is dictatorship? If you read over the previous few pages you may spot my post where I directly answered other users' questions relating to my political and anti-political preferences.

Moving on, why do you think the realm of political discourse goes from communism to dictatorship to democracy? Are these really the only three choices we have for political discourse? South Africa most certainly does not exhibit the "kind of rule" I prefer so I am fighting for it; not at the superfluous ballot box, but by non-violently withdrawing my consent and through rational discourse and discussion.

I do find it ironic that you chose Zimbabwe to represent a "dictatorship", even though it has been a democracy for over 3 decades. But I guess when democracy fails we can just re-brand it as something else like a "dictatorship" or a "kleptocracy" or "corruption" or something. Never are we ever compelled to contemplate that the system itself is inherently doomed to be besotted with demagoguery and tyranny.

 

[mshepstone]

Lets get one thing clear ....I do Vote...and everyone should vote but I kinda see his point? our demographics combined with mass voter perception is such that the ruling party seems like they are invincible. I am of the opinion that most South African voters (And yes that is a generalisation across the full population spectrum) do not make educated votes based on policies and ruling party history and performance.

Who would argue with me that the current leader of the opposition (and therefore the opposition party) would do a better job in running this country than the current ruling party??

Further who would argue with me about the probability of that happening? Less than 5%?

 

[mshepstone]

Did you even read WilD_CaT's post? http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...ting-Atheist?p=5694199&viewfull=1#post5694199

In particular:



The only form of government I will support - and one the world will never have, for obvious reasons - is a meritocracy.

Great Point? I quickly googled meritocrocy!! Perhaps we should have a points system that your vote carries a weighting according to the amount of tax you pay...Wouldt that be fair?

think of it...The shaiks wouldnt be able to vote all dodgy tax dodgers also not?
All average honest south africans paying their dues will have a large say
and high earners who by definition got there by merit will even have a greater say?
LOL - Do you think the ANC will go for it?

 

[Hard Rain]

mshepstone: My main point is that the whole exercise of democracy is the pursuit of garnering the people who promise you the most future benefits (by robbing some other "group" you believe yourself not connected to) with the authority to utilize force or any other means to do this. Yeah, this really is some choice, some peace, some freedom. No thank you.

 

[alloytoo]

people who don't vote should be dragged out in the street and shot

Lets vote on that.

 

[alloytoo]

Great Point? I quickly googled meritocrocy!! Perhaps we should have a points system that your vote carries a weighting according to the amount of tax you pay...Wouldt that be fair?

think of it...The shaiks wouldnt be able to vote all dodgy tax dodgers also not?
All average honest south africans paying their dues will have a large say
and high earners who by definition got there by merit will even have a greater say?
LOL - Do you think the ANC will go for it?

Of course not, the ANC relies on Idiotcracy.

Voting by the idiots for the idiots.

I favour the original democratic principle where only citizens had the vote, coupled with Heinlein's "Citizenship is earned" concept from starship troopers.

 

[The_Assimilator]

Tell me something. Did you vote in the 1994 elections? If not, why not? If you have, why did you stop?

In 1994 I was exactly half the legal age to vote and I didn't particularly care about politics at that stage anyway.

I favour the original democratic principle where only citizens had the vote, coupled with Heinlein's "Citizenship is earned" concept from starship troopers.

This is more along the lines of my thinking of how a meritocracy could work. Voting should not be a right by birth, it should be a right that is earned - and one of the ways to become a citizen, and therefore earn the right to vote, would be to pay taxes. If you don't pay tax, you don't get to vote, simple as that.

 

[Palimino]

I favour the original democratic principle where only citizens had the vote, coupled with Heinlein's "Citizenship is earned" concept from starship troopers.

From a previous post:

The sci-fi book ‘Starship Troopers’ by Robert Heinlein, specifies a period of community service before voting rights are awarded. In the book, military service was the community service but it needn’t be. Looking at our political landscape today it seems that the people who are in charge are not the best people for the job. Instead of a competition of ability come election time, we have a popularity contest that will be won by the snazziest dresser, the biggest suck up, the most politically connected and the right skin colour. The result is that the power does not go to those who can best wield it but rather to those who have best been able to dupe the electorate. All that is required in a modern democracy is to be born in the country, be over a certain age and have a pulse and BAM! You have the vote. No effort, no fuss... that's it. A vote costs nothing, thus is worth nothing. The result? A three ring circus come election time... and then slacking off until the next election living off the peoples' teat. Maybe there are politicians and leaders out there who actually do their jobs well - but they are in the minority.

Making citizenship (and voting rights) not an accident of birth but rather something to be informed about and strived for, should be the method. In short, the mantle of citizenship should only be bestowed on those who are willing to earn it through service to their country and have a clue about democracy. What about (shock, horror) a meritocracy. A minimum requirement to be informed vaguely about the standing parties platforms and where the right to vote is earned and not given. Don't confuse service to the country with anything as vulgar as "struggle credentials", but rather that this service be in a form that anyone if they so choose can take part in. These services should be over a number of years, and can be in the form of military service, medical services, education and the like. Any services which aid the community. The advantage of this system is that it is entirely fair... anyone can take part, sex, race, religion, creed do not matter as long as you do the service you earn your rights as a citizen and are able to exercise them by voting and taking part in government.

Those that do not wish to take part and remain civilians shall retain all their basic rights and be allowed to prosper and grow. The only difference between now and the past is that the door is always open to anyone who wishes to become a voting citizen. There is no discrimination. Everyone who does attain citizenship has spent time in the proverbial trenches with their fellow citizens. They have actually worked for their country and done something positive to build their community. Upon completion of their service they are awarded their citizenship and their right to vote. All political parties should be involved in the definition. No matter what administration is in power, the problem remains. A huge, ill-educated underclass, easily manipulated to political ends, racked by poverty and unemployment.

The idea is to supply food, shelter, clothing and education to those unemployed and equip them with post-service skills (as well as the vote). While performing their service, they would form a huge, disciplined force of skilled manpower to be deployed where it is deemed necessary.

The revenues to pay for 3 years worth of universal service for millions and millions of people, would be amortised by the ‘service’ acting as a glorified employment agency. In other words, you wouldn’t have highly skilled people picking-up litter (unless this was their chosen employment). They would work in exactly the same jobs at the same rate of pay (except they wouldn’t get it for the period of their service). They would merely wear clothing (I guess) to indicate that they were doing their service (incidentally, circumventing dress codes, dolling-up for meetings, etc.). The organisation would pay their salary (generally more) to the service who would pay the worker his service stipend and keep the rest. The service would become the first port of call for potential employers to see if anyone in the area fitted their required employee profile.

The taxpayer would be supportive to see tax money going on a constructive system **instead** of the current profligate waste. The system would produce an **educated** voter who has demonstrated (and sacrificed for) their citizenship, not a moronic sheep.

The government does not disburse the salary right back to the worker. It disburses the **service stipend** to the worker and keeps the rest to amortise costs. From the companies perspective, they pay the same amount whether it’s to the worker or not (no money to be saved here). In this scenario **service** is the criterion, not **money**. You can be obscenely wealthy and not have the vote. You can be as poor as a church mouse and have the vote. There is not a big difference between a (voting) citizen and a (non-voting) civilian. There is no advantage enjoyed by citizens over civilians, other than the right to vote and (possibly) they would be more informed. Any (South African) can become a citizen after a period of Service. The citizen (the difference is so miniscule that they may not even mention the fact in common social intercourse) may have a better grasp of politics within the country and be more educated than their peers. There may be a ‘social cachet’ to being a citizen (responsibility) and they will be entitled to vote if they choose, but those are the only differences. I would imagine that their ‘Service’ period may be dwelt upon like military service or uni. anecdotes prevail today (the comradely point of view). Military service and university are currently a fund of anecdotes when the teller was young and shared hardships with others and exploited a communal independence (experiences of most forumites, I imagine. Examine your memories).

 

[Hard Rain]

"The taxpayer would be supportive to see tax money going on a constructive system **instead** of the current profligate waste. The system would produce an **educated** voter who has demonstrated (and sacrificed for) their citizenship, not a moronic sheep."

This is great, if I never become one of these "worthy" citizens does that mean I'm exempt from taxation? By all means, you can have my "democratic rights", they're useless in any case

How about we skip the absurdity of voting for our favourite thieves, let people keep the fruits of their labour and their wealth (no taxation or public expropriation) and then people can use their own wealth to support/patronize whatever causes or businesses they see fit. That way, there are no entitlements to benefits paid for with stolen loot, just a whole lot of opportunities to become productive or else having to hope for the generosity of private charities etc.

 

[alloytoo]

"The taxpayer would be supportive to see tax money going on a constructive system **instead** of the current profligate waste. The system would produce an **educated** voter who has demonstrated (and sacrificed for) their citizenship, not a moronic sheep."

This is great, if I never become one of these "worthy" citizens does that mean I'm exempt from taxation? By all means, you can have my "democratic rights", they're useless in any case

Nope, moronic sheep pay tax too, worthy citizens have the additional responsibility of directing expenditure.

 

[porchrat]

How about a system where everyone gets 1 vote and then you get extra votes depending on a variety of factors?

That way everyone gets at least a small say but some have more say than others depending on education levels or tax contributions or whatever.

 

[LazyLion]

How about a system where everyone gets 1 vote and then you get extra votes depending on a variety of factors?

That way everyone gets at least a small say but some have more say than others depending on education levels or tax contributions or whatever.

I love that idea... but can't see it ever seeing the light of day due to it being patriarchal, racist, colonial, bladdy agent, etc.

 

[MiY4Gi]

How about a system where everyone gets 1 vote and then you get extra votes depending on a variety of factors?

That way everyone gets at least a small say but some have more say than others depending on education levels or tax contributions or whatever.

Sounds like a brilliant idea. It would add more weight to an individual's vote. It's disgusting when the votes of those who know the country's political status, and actually want change, get negated by those who are bought off with food parcels and "empty promises". The tricky part would be the criteria by which people are awarded extra votes.