'I am a non-voting Atheist'

[porchrat]

Remove yourself from the territory.

Exactly. There is a choice. The man acts like he has none. This is a fallacy. He has chosen to reside here and hence chosen to be a citizen here. As such he has accepted everything that goes with that choice. If he doesn't like it he leaves. Not rocket science.

Once again I must ask why you believe this to be legitimate?

And once again I must reply "because you made the choice."

 

[alloytoo]

There is a lot one can do for society without the need to vote.

Imo voting is the minimal thing anyone can do for society. Especially the citizens that vote every four years and then sit on their ass for the next four years expecting miracles. I really think we got democracy wrong. Ideally it should not matter who is appointed to office in a democratic country. For the government's job is to keep the upkeep of the country and not meddle with the citizens lives. It shouldn't be majority rule. It should be majority chooses who does the upkeep. What should rule is the constitution of the country in conjunction with the scientific method to deal with problems. What provides us with freedoms is our constitution and not some appointed government. Essentially I am saying people should have the right to rule themselves without meddling of their appointed officials.

Government(s?) has forgotten their duty. How would they not? Have you seen the credentials which some of these appointed people hold? Its like phoning an electrician to come do the plumbing at ones house.

I wasn't referring specifically to voting, voting is the least of a persons responsibilities.

 

[murraybiscuit]

i think the premise of governments and beurocratic forms of leadership all being bad is an incorrect assumption.
they may be inefficient - then you can vote to change the leadership, or litigate against individual members
they may not serve the interests of the majority or be representative of minorities - in which case either minority members didn't vote, their representatives aren't strong enough, or the majority can't vote.

if the politicians are corrupt, does that mean that the system is corrupt?
there should be constitutional safeguards which watch the watchmen, but if the watchmen don't comply, the people should hold them to account.
i think the greatest problem with modern governance is that individuals don't hold their leaders to account and don't protest when the leaders don't act in popular interest.

imo, apathy is the worst by-product of the system.
not voting is not the solution - voting, coordinated effective activism, and constructive social involvement is.
my 2c.

 

[Rkootknir]

Exactly. There is a choice. The man acts like he has none. This is a fallacy. He has chosen to reside here and hence chosen to be a citizen here. As such he has accepted everything that goes with that choice. If he doesn't like it he leaves. Not rocket science.

I'm sorry porchrat, but that still sounds like extortion to me. You're effectively saying that if somebody doesn't want to play "choose your masters", he has to go look for citizenship somewhere else or renounce citizenship completely.

 

[murraybiscuit]

I'm sorry porchrat, but that still sounds like extortion to me. You're effectively saying that if somebody doesn't want to play "choose your masters", he has to go look for citizenship somewhere else or renounce citizenship completely.

i think the concept is less about dissatisfaction with political representatation and more about the complete rejection of the system altogether.
if you think that statism is inherently flawed, ultimately evil and capable of no good, surely you are silently consenting and at least perpetuating its existence by running onto the field and playing the game?
if you really think you could to a better job, and there's a bunch of other people who also think so, nobody's stopping you from formulating policy and standing for election to represent these interests.
that's how democracy should work.

by being part of a certain nation, you agree to abide by the set of rules that the majority of the population feels benefits them (and to some extent, the exclusive interests of the majority)
if that doesn't work for you, find a culture who's majority has interests more akin to your own and go live there.
countries, boundaries and economic systems aren't a perfect model, but one does have some choice in the matter.

 

[porchrat]

I'm sorry porchrat, but that still sounds like extortion to me. You're effectively saying that if somebody doesn't want to play "choose your masters", he has to go look for citizenship somewhere else or renounce citizenship completely.

No I'm saying no such thing. You don't have to play choose your master. Nobody is forcing you to vote. However if you remain here and wish to trade, interact and otherwise profit from the group then you must contribute to the group for the safety and security that that membership provides. If you don't wish to then leave because we aren't going to provide security etc. to someone that isn't willing to contribute.

Someone has to pay our police, our army, our legal representatives. If you aren't prepared to contribute but you still want to hang around and benefit from them then you're a leech. Get out.

 

[MiY4Gi]

Here's the bit I don't get: Out here in the real world our country is teetering on the edge. If the ANC get a large enough majority representation the will steer the country straight into the abyss. Responsible citizens have a duty to their country and fellow citizens to ward against them becoming a complete oligarchy. The only practical means available to ordinary citizens is their vote. You can dance around the issue all you like, and appeal to your principles until the cows come home, but if you do not vote you fail your countrymen. Your inaction is to the country's detriment. You will be the principled straw that eventually breaks the camel's back.

YESSSS!

 

[murraybiscuit]

we've got this situation in our complex where a couple of people don't pay levies.
the rest of us therefore have to cover the shortfall in order to maintain service levels.
it would be nice if that person could not receive the service and still stay in the same spot, but that's not how it works.
if you buy into the complex, you have to contribute. that was the deal up front. otherwise the benefits of collective bargaining don't work.
if that doesn't work for you, you have every right to find like-minded individuals and change the policy through majority vote; to leave and start your own thing; or to find another complex which better suits your interests.

 

[alloytoo]

No I'm saying no such thing. You don't have to play choose your master. Nobody is forcing you to vote. However if you remain here and wish to trade, interact and otherwise profit from the group then you must contribute to the group for the safety and security that that membership provides. If you don't wish to then leave because we aren't going to provide security etc. to someone that isn't willing to contribute.

Someone has to pay our police, our army, our legal representatives. If you aren't prepared to contribute but you still want to hang around and benefit from them then you're a leech. Get out.

well said.

 

[Sonic2k]

Gawd... is this debate still raging...?

 

[WilD_CaT]

and yet... that is not what voting is all about. Voting is not you forcing your rights or opinions on others.

It is you saying you will work along with the community to find a common consensus on what is best for all.

It is not hard.

Bollocks. Voting is about putting your guy in power over someone else's. It is about whats best for you not everyone else.

I mean jees if majority consensus gives us a terrible system now, if we consent to the same system what will you get.

The same.

 

[LazyLion]

Bollocks. Voting is about putting your guy in power over someone else's. It is about whats best for you not everyone else.

I mean jees if majority consensus gives us a terrible system now, if we consent to the same system what will you get.

The same.

Utter crap. Not voting is about laziness and apathy. It is the height of crass self promotion and selfishness.
Majority consensus does sometimes give a poor result, but the alternative is anarchy and lawlessness.
Which is the end result of what you are proposing.

 

[Hard Rain]

Majority consensus does sometimes give a poor result, but the alternative is anarchy and lawlessness.
Which is the end result of what you are proposing.

"Majority consensus" will always give poor results for the other 49% facing off against the 51%.

Also, why would anarchy be "lawless"? Do you think most people need to have the state police following them everywhere making sure they're not harming another person or their property 24/7?

The word "anarchy" has its root in Greek simply meaning "without leaders", not "without laws".

Your next question would probably be: "well, who would protect your person or property if need be?" The answer: You're responsible now even with a State, so you'll still be responsible! Whether you choose to do it yourself (we'd all be able to legally purchase and carry firearms under anarchy) or you could hire a lot of private security.

"But wouldn't that be quite expensive?" you ask. Remember, this is anarchy we're in now. No more taxes. No more inane State intervention and regulations. Petrol is 1/3 the price it is today, most goods and services have probably halved in price at the least and crime is not so much an issue because people are being hired and starting businesses everywhere! Now anyone can work and be hired for any wage of their choosing and they're free to operate any kind of business they wish without needing to jump through bureaucratic hoops or face-off against the State-aided rent-seekers.

Anyways, just a thought experiment ;-)

 

[LazyLion]

no, your type of anarchy just gives rise to utter ignorance and laziness.

History has always been about a majority of the people choosing their leaders, often even in non-democratic forms of government.

But you just want to sit at home doing nothing. I hope somebody else comes along and exercises his own "rights" to the exclusion of yours.

That will quickly make you sit up and start taking an active role in the running of this country, rather than playing with yourself all day.

 

[Praeses]

Whether people like the idea of Democracy is irrelevant. You live in a democratic country and therefore you need to vote democratically. By not voting, you're letting opposition parties do as they please - e.g. changes in the constitution and essentially turning this country into another typical African country with dictatorships etc. I'd expect most of the people on MyBB have enough braincells to want to prevent that. Thinking that not voting is beneficial/pointless for whatever reason is stupid. Face the facts - we're part of a democracy whether you like it or not.

 

[LazyLion]

I'd expect most of the people on MyBB have enough braincells

apparently that is not the case!

 

[porchrat]

Bollocks. Voting is about putting your guy in power over someone else's. It is about whats best for you not everyone else.

I don't vote for who I think is going to be best for me. What kind of idiocy would that be.

I vote for who I think would be best for the country overall.

 

[alloytoo]

I don't vote for who I think is going to be best for me. What kind of idiocy would that be.

I vote for who I think would be best for the country overall.

Alternatively for the candidate you find least objectionable (or who will do the least damage)

 

[LazyLion]

Alternatively for the candidate you find least objectionable (or who will do the least damage)

And if he doesn't work, then the next time you vote for someone else.
The nice thing about the vote is that you get multiple chances to find the person best for the job.
But this is all common sense to you and me.
Seems like it is just gobbledygook to those that cannot put two and two together.

 

[porchrat]

And if he doesn't work, then the next time you vote for someone else.
The nice thing about the vote is that you get multiple chances to find the person best for the job.
But this is all common sense to you and me.
Seems like it is just gobbledygook to those that cannot put two and two together.

I don't think it's gobbledygook to people like wildcat. He understands it. He just likes to generalise like a muppet and tell us that because some people might vote for who is directly best for them and not focus on the big picture that means EVERYONE votes like that. I resent that. Baseless generalisations are for muppets and honestly I expected better from wildcat as he has shown in the past that he is an intelligent well-read dude.