'I am a non-voting Atheist'

MiyagiDono said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yea I have thought for a long time that that would be a better system than the one we have in place now.

I have no idea what criteria would constitute getting extra votes though. I would think that whatever they were they would need to be things that demonstrated that that individual had a heightened understanding of the nature of the issues facing their country.
 
Okay, so instead of responding to my arguments posters are now content to hold the position that if you do not vote you're some kind of apathetic cretin who deserves not to have rights whilst simultaneously proposing an arbitrary system where only the "worthy" should vote, or get even more votes. Hilarious.
 
Hard Rain said:
Okay, so instead of responding to my arguments posters are now content to hold the position that if you do not vote you're some kind of apathetic cretin who deserves not to have rights whilst simultaneously proposing an arbitrary system where only the "worthy" should vote, or get even more votes. Hilarious.
Click to expand...

I see nothing wrong with a situation in which one person has a more important opinion than someone else based on how informed they are. After all that is how it works with the rest of the world. Democracy is the only system in which everyone's opinion is considered equal and it is totally stupid to think that they are all equal.

If people don't want to vote that is their own business. I think they're lazy or politically disinterested both of which are pretty negative but to each their own.
 
porchrat said:
I see nothing wrong with a situation in which one person has a more important opinion than someone else based on how informed they are. After all that is how it works with the rest of the world. Democracy is the only system in which everyone's opinion is considered equal and it is totally stupid to think that they are all equal.
Click to expand...

Um, so they're not equal. Then they're equal. Then they're not equal. Which is it? Egalitarianism or meritocracy?

porchrat said:
...but to each their own.
Click to expand...

Except if a bunch of other people vote on it, right? Then anything goes?
 
Hard Rain said:
Um, so they're not equal. Then they're equal. Then they're not equal. Which is it? Egalitarianism or meritocracy?
Click to expand...
Opinions are not equal. I don't know where "then they're equal" came from. I never claimed opinions are equal. Some are informed opinions and some are not. To argue that all opinions are equal is just crazy talk. If you're going to argue that then why take legal advice advice from a lawyer instead of the bricklayer working at the construction site down the street.

Democracy is the only system that I can think of that tries to claim that all opinions are equal.


Except if a bunch of other people vote on it, right? Then anything goes?
Click to expand...
We all have human rights. You may choose to exercise them or not. So to each their own. You can't vote those away... so no not "then anything goes" because "people vote on it".
 
porchrat said:
Opinions are not equal. I don't know where "then they're equal" came from. I never claimed opinions are equal. Some are informed opinions and some are not. To argue that all opinions are equal is just crazy talk. If you're going to argue that then why take legal advice advice from a lawyer instead of the bricklayer working at the construction site down the street.
Click to expand...

All value judgements are subjective in nature. Hence why I called this mix of democracy and meritocracy completely arbitrary.


porchrat said:
We all have human rights. You may choose to exercise them or not. So to each their own. You can't vote those away... so no not "then anything goes" because "people vote on it".
Click to expand...

I am glad you admit that our rights (which are fundamentally only related to property) are not bestowed upon us by the State. However, would you agree that no person has the right to rob another person? Then why is the act legitimate when the government does it? Because of democracy?

"The State is the great fiction through which everyone endeavours to live at the expense of everyone else." - Frederic Bastiat.

"Government is essentially the negation of liberty" - Ludwig von Mises.
 
Hard Rain said:
All value judgements are subjective in nature. Hence why I called this mix of democracy and meritocracy completely arbitrary.
Click to expand...
Which says nothing about how equal they are. Take your stance that they're all subjective (and I suppose therefore equal or something) to heart in your own life and hire the bricklayer as your lawyer. No problem. I'll stick with the trained lawyer as my lawyer though thanks.

So in that light the "one vote for all but more than one for some" thing makes sense.


I am glad you admit that our rights (which are fundamentally only related to property) are not bestowed upon us by the State. However, would you agree that no person has the right to rob another person? Then why is the act legitimate when the government does it? Because of democracy?

"The State is the great fiction through which everyone endeavours to live at the expense of everyone else." - Frederic Bastiat.

"Government is essentially the negation of liberty" - Ludwig von Mises.
Click to expand...
This is off topic and has nothing to do with voting so I'm not going to address it. If you wish to discuss it make a new thread in the appropriate section and I'm sure you will have many contributors.
 
Last edited:
Hard Rain said:
Okay, so instead of responding to my arguments posters are now content to hold the position that if you do not vote you're some kind of apathetic cretin who deserves not to have rights whilst simultaneously proposing an arbitrary system where only the "worthy" should vote, or get even more votes. Hilarious.
Click to expand...

Go and read Robert Heinlein's book "Starship Troopers" ... the book, not the movie! ;)
Then come back and talk to us! :)
 
porchrat said:
So in that light the "one vote for all but more than one for some" thing makes sense.
Click to expand...

Again, you're not grasping subjectivity. Who decides who "deserves" more votes? Who is "worthy"? How many more votes should the worthy get? This line of reasoning does not fundamentally answer any of my aforementioned criticisms of the democratic system, it is merely aesthetic.

This is off topic and has nothing to do with voting so I'm not going to address it.
Click to expand...

Oh contrare, it has everything to do with voting. I am arguing that not only is voting ineffectual at enacting any net benefits en-masse, it also authorizes action which is deemed illegitimate in private society (theft and violence), but somehow becomes legimitate when enacted by the public State. So I ask you again, do you believe nobody has the right to rob another person? Since you support democractic governance I can only assume you tacitly support theft and violence, yet more reasons why I am against voting in the first place.
 
Hard Rain said:
Again, you're not grasping subjectivity. Who decides who "deserves" more votes? Who is "worthy"? How many more votes should the worthy get? This line of reasoning does not fundamentally answer any of my aforementioned criticisms of the democratic system, it is merely aesthetic.
Click to expand...
Like I said whatever criteria one uses to decide these things need to give the person a better understanding of the nature of the issues the country faces, the issues being addressed by politicians. It doesn't mean they all need to have been educated in the same way or that they need to all view the issues in the same light.

However it does mean a heightened understanding of the issues. Just as a lawyer has a heightened understanding of the issues of law than a bricklayer and thus has a more valued opinion when it comes to matters of law so those able to demonstrate a higher understanding of the issues facing a country and the possible results of the various policies pursued by the various parties should have a more valued opinion.



Oh contrare, it has everything to do with voting. I am arguing that not only is voting ineffectual at enacting any net benefits en-masse, it also authorizes action which is deemed illegitimate in private society (theft and violence), but somehow becomes legimitate when enacted by the public State. So I ask you again, do you believe nobody has the right to rob another person? Since you support democractic governance I can only assume you tacitly support theft and violence, yet more reasons why I am against voting in the first place.
Click to expand...
You're comparing taxation etc. to stealing. If someone agrees to it then it isn't theft so your comparison is a load of bunk.
 
Hard Rain said:
I can only assume you tacitly support theft and violence, yet more reasons why I am against voting in the first place.
Click to expand...

Why not vote instead for a party that can do something about the theft and the violence instead of doing sweet blow all about it? At least you will be doing something. But by doing nothing you also become guilty of condoning it and allowing it. In fact, I would argue the reverse. Those who are actively voting are the ones who are trying to change things. It's the lazy buggers sitting on their hands at home who are doing nothing about it... and in fact are actually supporting all that is wrong with this country.

I don't see where you get off accusing someone who actually tried to do something to bring about change (by voting) of supporting violence and theft, when you advocate doing sweet F-all about it? Hypocrite much?
 
Hard Rain said:
Okay, so instead of responding to my arguments posters are now content to hold the position that if you do not vote you're some kind of apathetic cretin who deserves not to have rights whilst simultaneously proposing an arbitrary system where only the "worthy" should vote, or get even more votes. Hilarious.
Click to expand...

i fail to see how you plan to affect social change through inaction however.
 
porchrat said:
You're comparing taxation etc. to stealing. If someone agrees to it then it isn't theft so your comparison is a load of bunk
Click to expand...

Are you trying to assert that taxation is voluntary? I don't consent or agree to be taxed so what would happen to me if I did not pay my taxes?

Why not vote instead for a party that can do something about the theft and the violence instead of doing sweet blow all about it?
Click to expand...

You're missing my point, I'm talking about the theft and violence the State commits, regardless of which "party" is elected to govern. By not voting I am withdrawing my consent to the entire charade. This is not inaction, it is a purposeful action.
 
murraybiscuit said:
i fail to see how you plan to affect social change through inaction however.
Click to expand...

Earlier in the thread I wrote: "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."

This is hardly inaction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X