babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
"Deliberative democracy is about the persuading force of the better argument."
So then use arguments, not force. Persuade people to vote. If you force them, that's not democracy, as you just said.
"Giving up your vote would be like voluntarily enslaving yourself to another person."
Yes, well, that's precisely why I have no intention of giving up my vote to your authority, to instruct me in whether or not I'm using it properly. I will use it as I see fit, including not using it if I so choose. If I allowed you to take that option away from me, I really would be enslaving myself.
You will never, ever control my vote, fascist, so give up your dreams of making the polls run on time.
And Brian. I already explained why voting is not a social responsibility like some might consider military service to be. I'm actually a big believer in social responsibility, but your vote is the opposite of a responsibility. It is what you get in return for submitting yourself to society's authority. If others can control how you use it, (or don't, as the case may be) then it isn't really yours, and we're right back to tyranny.
It's a very fine line that's all too easy to step over. Stay on the side of good, Brian. Don't try to enforce the "proper behaviour" of voting, as defined by you. You don't have that right.
- On a discussion forum, I can only try to persuade people.
- I'd have authority on you only if you give me your vote.
Of course. And what of it? That is precisely the point. Persons, especially those from the poorer segements of our society are prevented from forwarding themselves as candidates competing with the established parties. Instead they are relegated to the role of mere voters or foot soldiers.
Of course we will be told that working your way up in the party structure is just part ot the process, but that is irrelevant. The party structure enforces a pre-established agenda, and policy outline already, which persons must, more or less conform too. Not to mention the existance of established power blocks within the party.
Changing the party from within is the bait that is thrown to those who dissent from the adopted agenda. But the fact remains that the party itself depends largely on the largesse, not only of the government, but also those well-to-do donors who keep the party functioning in all its facets in and out of elections cycles, and those persons, quite naturally have interests which influence the party. That is aside from the fact that the well healed have time to go to meetings, attend workshops, and otherwise manage the party so that it does not ever seriously undermine their interests.
So, from top-to-bottom, in the election process, the internal organizational realities of the official parties skews the agenda away from those who are the least well off in our society, slowly and inexonerably toward what we call the right.
You have merely made the agruement, which co-opts those political activists from the lower strata of the society by promising, more often than not, the lesser of two evils on the basis that the worst outcome can be prevented.
"Preventing the worst outcome" is not progressive. Progressive is changing what exists now and making it better.
If the NDP were truly interested in benefitting those who most need the support of our society, they would first and foremost take on those issues that directly affect their ability to enter the political arena as full enfranchised participants by demanding the election deposits be pro-rated for income, or dropped altogether, and making the elimination of the FPTP the central theme of its policy platform, even if this this actually was detrimental to the parties long term prospects. But no, the NDP cynically offers up progressive sounding anti-poverty statements, and worker positive platform positions, aimed at attracting votes from the underclass of our society, rather than energizing them and empowering them to stand for themselves.
No, living in a capitalist system is like involuntarily enslaving myself to another person. Voting is not a liberating act.
And maybe it is just a coincidence, but I can't believe that I'm the first person to notice this with all the fascist talk, but Benoit? Benito?
But, you would have to run in a party that is already established, has that policy, and has the bank account (from donors who have the money to give or from the per vote subsidies) to back it up. Even if I wanted to become a member of the NDP I would never win a nomination without years of concealing my true politics. That is, unless they are desperate for a candidate in a no-hope seat, and even then I would probably be too radical for them. But me winning the provincial NDP for my relatively safe NDP riding - forget about it.
What if I wanted to run for a smaller party that doesn't have that kind of money, or as an independent?
With no money, I am here and now founding a new federal political party with a program promising perpetual world peace.Perpetual Peace: A program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_peacehttp://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm
The Conservatives will vote for this new Party.
No they won't. You don't have any money.
Tip: people already thing you're a fascist in disguise. Stop digging.
You are confusing k and g.
Money is only a form of trust and our new party promises to mint it.
Spelling flames are the last resort of those who know they have lost and arguement.
agreement or what?
an argument or what!?
"Edit it" is a diktat.An arguement. Your repeated attempt to get points for correcting typos, is a supercilious as your freshman renderings of early enlightenment philosophy. It's prevarication on point, because you can not win arguement on the substance of the discussion.
Sorry.
We don't have time. You are either in the debate or out. It looks like you're out.
I'm sorry, Benoit. I thought you were just a pig-headed ideologue, but I'm getting the impression that you're actually an idiot. You're not ignoring the points of others. You just don't understand what people are saying. None of your responses have addressed any of the points I've made. I'll make one more stab and then leave you alone with your fantasies of being a benevolent dictator.
" On a discussion forum, I can only try to persuade people."
Obviously. My point is that you would like to do far more. You would like to force people to vote when they don't want to. That's why I said you should use persuasion instead of force. Not because of what you are doing, but because of what you would like to do. That should have been evident.
" I'd have authority on you only if you give me your vote."
You would have authority over my vote if I didn't stop you from making voting mandatory. You would have prevented me from exercising the option not to vote if I chose to. Again, this was very clear, and again, you are responding a manner that leads me to believe that you have no comprehension skills.
Anyway, I'm done with you. Good luck with that party of yours (where's my roll-eyes smiley?)
- You cannot know what I would like to do unless I tell you.
- You didn't stop me from trying to make voting mandatory.
You have been telling us what you would like to do regarding voting for almost three whole threads!
I will tell you again and as long as it takes for you to understand: I would love to motivate people to force themselves to do what is right.
With a capital e please.
Well, you have moved from simplistic renderings of 18th century pie-in-the-sky philosophy, to redundant grammar and spelling lessons. This is a message board. Not a grammar class. You started this topic, it would kind of you to stay somewhere within the realm of the subject you began.
Thanks.