Why Compulsory Voting is Wrong

181 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Wed, 2008-11-05 20:16

Kloch

quote:

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]
It is a good question to be asked in a deliberative assembly. But in such an assembly, I bet you will develop a motivation to answer it.[/b]

So, if you were in this "deliberative assembly", what would you suggest? Imprisonment, a fine? Could a person be excused if they were alive but incapacitated? What if I got into a car accident on the way to the polling station and was hospitalized? Would I be excused from paying the fine provided a brought a doctor's certificate to a justice of the peace?

Do you see the kind of bureaucratic machine that would be required to meaningfully support this enterprise?

Wed, 2008-11-05 20:22

#103

Benoit

quote:

Originally posted by Kloch:
[b]
So, if you were in this "deliberative assembly", what would you suggest? Imprisonment, a fine? Could a person be excused if they were alive but incapacitated? What if I got into a car accident on the way to the polling station and was hospitalized? Would I be excused from paying the fine provided a brought a doctor's certificate to a justice of the peace?
Do you see the kind of bureaucratic machine that would be required to meaningfully support this enterprise?[/b]

Deliberative assemblies have always determined what is economical and what is not. Humanity is now in a position to make this fundamental process more explicit and systematic.

Wed, 2008-11-05 20:30

#104

Cueball

In anycase, what it amounts too is that at some point were someone to refuse to comply with the will of the deliberative assembly, even if it were a ticket, and in this country, and in most, if you refuse pay a fine on a ticket you are liable for jail time, if the court so wishes it, and so, you are talking about violently enforcing the will of the "deliberative assembly", and if your position really is that there are only two choice, "morality or violence" then you have opted for the latter and not the former.

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Wed, 2008-11-05 20:30

#105

Kloch

quote:

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]
Deliberative assemblies have always determined what is economical and what is not. Humanity is now in a position to make this fundamental process more explicit and systematic.[/b]

I'll repeat the question:

quote:

So, if you were in this "deliberative assembly", what would you suggest? Imprisonment, a fine? Could a person be excused if they were alive but incapacitated? What if I got into a car accident on the way to the polling station and was hospitalized? Would I be excused from paying the fine provided a brought a doctor's certificate to a justice of the peace?

Wed, 2008-11-05 20:32

#106

Slumberjack

quote:

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]Deliberative assemblies have always determined what is economical and what is not. Humanity is now in a position to make this fundamental process more explicit and systematic.[/b]

"Systematic" solutions has an errie ring to it. And what the hell is a "deliberative assembly" anyway? Is that like a Gauleiter and a bunch of neighborhood snoops comparing notes down at the local beerhall?

Wed, 2008-11-05 20:33

#107

Webgear

I now this is not really part of the thread topic however 85% of soldiers in Kandahar voted in the last election.

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Webgear ]

Wed, 2008-11-05 20:38

#108

Benoit

No human being can become an autonomous individual all by himself. In our society, it is mostly nuclear families that are dealing with children’s refusal to comply with the adult rules. You will never find one sane individual that has grown up in a family that has never become a deliberative assembly to deal with some relational issues it had to face.

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

Wed, 2008-11-05 20:38

#109

Slumberjack

quote:

Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]I now this is not really part of the thread topic however 85% of soldiers in Kandahar voted in the last election.
[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Webgear ][/b]

It could be the captive audience effect, or just simply a slow day behind the wire scratching their nuts, so why not go and vote.

Wed, 2008-11-05 20:39

#110

Cueball

quote:

Originally posted by Slumberjack:
[b]
"Systematic" solutions has an errie ring to it. And what the hell is a "deliberative assembly" anyway? Is that like a Gauleiter and a bunch of neighborhood snoops comparing notes down at the local beerhall?[/b]

Well this is what is interesting about Benoit has brought forward as description of Fascim:

quote:

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]
Shooting them is the fascist way to do thing. Learn something about fascism. Fascism is about personally cult. It is about totally identifying yourself with the leader. For a fascist there cannot be more than one candidate to vote for.
[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ][/b]

I submit that Fascism does not require subserviance and identificaiton with "the leader" but in fact can be constituted as "identification" with a state, or even [i]a process[/i]. Even if the process is one where one nominally has the ability to select a leader between two or even more, options. As long there is little discernable political differences between those offered choices, and they all act in the name of the process or state, and hold that as the central theme of their beliefs, it could easily be considered a fascist process.

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Wed, 2008-11-05 20:40

#111

Cueball

quote:

Originally posted by Webgear:
[b]I now this is not really part of the thread topic however 85% of soldiers in Kandahar voted in the last election.
[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Webgear ][/b]

I rest my case.

Wed, 2008-11-05 20:41

#112

Cueball

quote:

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]No human being can become an autonomous individual all by himself. In our society, it is mostly nuclear families that are dealing with children’s refusal to comply with the adult rules. You will never find one sane individual that has grown up in a family that has never become a deliberative assembly to deal with some relational issues it had to face.
[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ][/b]

Of course they can. I have met numerous people who do exactly this. Just because most human interaction takes place in the context of human social organization, it is not necessarily the case that one needs to extend restrictive measures on every single aspect of everyones daily life.

For example, voting.

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Wed, 2008-11-05 20:46

#113

Benoit

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]
I submit that Fascism does not require subserviance and identificaiton with "the leader" but in fact can be constituted as "identification" with a state, or even [i]a process[/i]. Even if the process is one where one nominally has the ability to select a leader between two or even more, options. As long there is little discernable political differences between those offered choices, and they all act in the name of the process or state, and hold that as the central theme of their beliefs, it could easily be considered a fascist process.
[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]

Fascism is a particular form of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism means a process that is closing alternatives to individuals. Voting is essentially doing the opposite: it is opening opportunities. If you don’t like any candidate, you have to present yourself as one more.

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

Wed, 2008-11-05 20:49

#114

Cueball

Totalitarianism is the totalization of the state ideology in every aspect of daily life. Enforcing democracy by enforced voting is to make democracy totalitarian.

Wed, 2008-11-05 20:52

#115

Benoit

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Totalitarianism is the totalization of the state ideology in every aspect of daily life. Enforcing democracy by enforced voting is to make democracy totalitarian.[/b]

The will of the people is impossible to circumscribe in its entirety.

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

Wed, 2008-11-05 20:53

#116

Cueball

So what? All you are doing is talking about extending the totalitarian measures for the enforcement of "democratic" ideology. Just because there is no totally "totalitarian" society, does not mean that your idea is not a totalitarian measure.

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Wed, 2008-11-05 20:58

#117

Benoit

You said that the will of the people doesn't exist and it can be subverted! Where is your logic!?

Wed, 2008-11-05 20:59

#118

Cueball

That was a joke. In anycase I changed my post to your edit.

Wed, 2008-11-05 21:02

#119

Cueball

quote:

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]You said that the will of the people doesn't exist and it can be subverted! Where is your logic!?[/b]

So again, enforced voting is a totalitarian measure. It embeds the "democratic" process in a totalitarian form, regardless if there is choice within that context.

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Wed, 2008-11-05 21:03

#120

Benoit

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]So what? All you are doing is talking about extending the totalitarian measures for the enforcement of "democratic" ideology. Just because there is no totally "totalitarian" society, does not mean that your idea is not a totalitarian measure.
[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]

Extending the totalitarian measures is an oxymoron.

Wed, 2008-11-05 21:05

#121

Papal Bull

I think we should have a blank ballot with the options of "yes" or "no".

Democracy is black and white. A yes or no question. Let's get down to the fundamentals and break some pottery!

Wed, 2008-11-05 21:07

#122

Cueball

quote:

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]
Extending the totalitarian measures is an oxymoron.[/b]

Then there has never been a totalitarian state, because no state exerts total control. As you rightly pointed out "the will of the people can not be circumscribed [i]entirely[/i]". You were the one to introduce totalitarianism into this conversation, not I. The oxymoron is of your own making.

I posed the issue of being one of imposing a "totalitarian" process. A state, a government, a family, are all social processes. Nothing is absolute. What ever made you think it was.

Even if you did manage to institute your totalitarian scheme it would never succeed because the "will of he people can never be circumscribed, entirely" and someone somewhere would manage to subvert your fascist plan by not voting. 5% of all Australians "not vote" against fascism every election.

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Wed, 2008-11-05 21:12

#123

Benoit

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]
Then there has never been a totalitarian state, because no state exerts total control. As you rightly pointed out "the will of the people can not be circumscribed [i]entirely[/i]". You were the one to introduce totalitarianism into this conversation, not I. The oxymoron is of your own making.
I posed the issue of being one of imposing a "totalitarian" process.
[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]

Imposing voting is analog to forcing a treatment upon a paranoiac. Totalitarianism and paranoia grow together.

Wed, 2008-11-05 21:14

#124

Cueball

And how do they force treatment upon paranoics?

Wed, 2008-11-05 21:17

#125

Benoit

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]And how do they force treatment upon paranoics?[/b]

Go see by yourself in the nearest psychiatric hospital.

Wed, 2008-11-05 21:19

#126

Fidel

Australia isn't close to being a fascist state. Get real you guys.

Wed, 2008-11-05 21:20

#127

Cueball

From whose perspective? Aboriginal Australians, might think otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]
Go see by yourself in the nearest psychiatric hospital.[/b]

By violence or the threat of the imposition of violence. Often done at psychiatric hospitals. But then this violence, how does it square with:

quote:

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]
In politics you have only two choices: violence or morality.[/b]

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Wed, 2008-11-05 21:25

#128

Benoit

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]
By violence or the threat of the imposition of violence.[/b]

Hey! For a paranoiac anything can be irrationally violently threatening.

Wed, 2008-11-05 21:28

#129

Fidel

But we've had [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/series/apartheid/]Canadian apartheid[/url] under successive Liberal and Tory federal governments. Is Canada fascist then?

[url=http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Afghan_ESal_Iraq_Elections.h... Afghan, El Salvador, and Iraq Elections[/url]

Compulsory voting is not truly fascist unless there is a real threat of violence or even death as was the case in so many U.S. managed elections around the world where they've propped up brutal and corrupt regimes

Wed, 2008-11-05 21:29

#130

Cueball

quote:

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]
Imposing voting is analog to forcing a treatment upon a paranoiac. Totalitarianism and paranoia grow together.[/b]

quote:

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]
In politics you have only two choices: violence or morality.[/b]

You are the one who is imposing the a-moral totalitarian measure. You want to grow totalitarianism. Therefore...

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Wed, 2008-11-05 21:32

#131

Cueball

quote:

Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]But we've had [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/series/apartheid/]Canadian apartheid[/url] under successive Liberal and Tory federal governments. Is Canada fascist then?
[url=http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Afghan_ESal_Iraq_Elections.h... Afghan, El Salvador, and Iraq Elections[/url]
Compulsory voting is not truly fascist unless there is a real threat of violence or even death as was the case in so many U.S. managed elections around the world where they've propped up brutal and corrupt regimes[/b]

Yes, from the perspective of many FN Canadians, I am sure Canada has looked, and possibly still does look pretty fascist.

Ultimately, even the enforcement of things such as tickets are backed up with the threat of violence. If you don't pay your tickets you can go to jail. Imprisonment is violence.

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Wed, 2008-11-05 21:35

#132

Benoit

Violence is close-ended and morality open-ended.

Wed, 2008-11-05 21:40

#133

Benoit

quote:

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
[b]I think we should have a blank ballot with the options of "yes" or "no".
Democracy is black and white. A yes or no question. Let's get down to the fundamentals and break some pottery![/b]

On a blank ballot people would write their own name as the best MP or the name of their best friend...

Wed, 2008-11-05 21:40

#134

Cueball

You are the one who wants to violently impose the will of the "deliberative assembly", in order to make everyone recognize it by putting an X in some box.

You stated there were too choices, morality or violence. You have chosen violence.

Wed, 2008-11-05 21:43

#135

Fidel

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]
Ultimately, even the enforcement of things such as tickets are backed up with the threat of violence. If you don't pay your tickets you can go to jail. Imprisonment is violence.[/b]

I knew a guy from Toronto who went to live in Quebec to avoid paying thousands of dollars in parking tickets. QPP picked four of us up in his car somewhere between Matagami and Noranda, open wine bottles and beer everywhere. He was slapped with an affordable fine back then in the 90's. We went on our way to peelers in Noranda about 15 minutes behind schedule.

But that's not like being menaced by Hitler's guardsmen standing over us at the ballot box, or the transparent ballot boxes in 1980's El Salvador with Duarte's thugs standing within eye shot. Our federal Liberals and Tories were real asshole-deluxes in the good old days. But aside from a few indigenous Canadians arrested by RCMP and dumped outside city limits to suffer severe frostbite and even freeze to death, Canada has no real desaparecidos.

Wed, 2008-11-05 21:45

#136

Benoit

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]You are the one who wants to violently impose the will of the "deliberative assembly", in order to make everyone recognize it by putting an X in some box.
You stated there were too choices, morality or violence. You have chosen violence.[/b]

Choosing deliberation is obviously choosing morality.

Wed, 2008-11-05 21:46

#137

Cueball

Regardless if you friend did not pay his parking tickets he could go to jail. The same would be the case for a ticket for not voting. It would be a political crime, where one could go to jail.

Wed, 2008-11-05 21:47

#138

Cueball

quote:

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]
Choosing deliberation is obviously choosing morality.[/b]

Choosing is one thing. [i]Forcing[/i] people to choose, is something entirely different. Hitler ran a number of referendums where people were forced to choose.

Wed, 2008-11-05 21:52

#139

Benoit

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]
Choosing is one thing. [i]Forcing[/i] people to choose, is something entirely different. Hitler ran a number of referendums where people were forced to choose.[/b]

In a deliberation everything is "on the table": the use of force, the number of choices, everything...

Wed, 2008-11-05 21:54

#140

Cueball

Fine. Just don't come at me with bollocks like this:

quote:

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]
In politics you have only two choices: violence or morality.[/b]

Wed, 2008-11-05 21:58

#141

Benoit

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Fine. [/b]

Next time you better think twice before pointing your finger at moralists.

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

Wed, 2008-11-05 22:00

#142

Fidel

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]
Choosing is one thing. [i]Forcing[/i] people to choose, is something entirely different. Hitler ran a number of referendums where people were forced to choose.[/b]

I think you may be on to something. Canada may not be a brutal U.S.-backed rightwing dictatorship or even bear semblance to a corporate-sponsored European fascist state of the 1930s and 40s, but perhaps there is something in between? Liberal fascism?

[b]Jack Lint:[/b] [i]"This is information retrieval not information dispersal."[/i]

In the words of Monthy Python:

"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise....

Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency....

Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope....

Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry... are such elements as fear, surprise....

I'll come in again."

Wed, 2008-11-05 22:01

#143

Cueball

quote:

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]
Next time you better think twice before pointing your finger at moralists.
[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ][/b]

What are you talking about?

You specifically stated that you could either be moral or violent. The fact is that ultimately violence is at the heart of any law when it is enforced. If you pose the idea the violence and morality are juxtaposed, and then say you want to force people to vote, you are backing that up with violence, and saying therefore that your position is amoral.

Utterly illogical tautology. Of course you did not mean that. You meant that violence is justifiable in the name of the "will of the people".

What you are is some kind of Corporatist Totalitarian.

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Wed, 2008-11-05 22:04

#144

Benoit

quote:

Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]
Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise....
Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... [/b]

Surprise without fear cannot be a weapon since it is what makes life exciting.

Wed, 2008-11-05 22:07

#145

Cueball

Fan of Doris Lessing's Shikasta series no doubt.

Wed, 2008-11-05 22:14

#146

Benoit

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]
What are you talking about?
You specifically stated that you could either be moral or violent. The fact is that ultimately violence is at the heart of any law when it is enforced. If you pose the idea the violence and morality are juxtaposed, and then say you want to force people to vote, you are backing that up with violence, and saying therefore that your position is amoral.
Utterly illogical tautology. Of course you did not mean that. You meant that violence is justifiable in the name of the "will of the people".
What you are is some kind of Corporatist Totalitarian.
[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]

The people's will forever will evolve and escape any totalitarian attempt but the individual wills cannot be kept isolated from some collective will.

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

Wed, 2008-11-05 22:16

#147

Fidel

quote:

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]
Surprise without fear cannot be a weapon since it is what makes life exciting.[/b]

What about ruthless efficiency?

I once neglected to declare a few dollars of income(less than $5 bucks) on an application for UI(before it became the very Orwellian "Employment Insurance"). The feds knew about it and scolded me for it , went so far as to hold up my claim because of it. Meanwhile multinational corporations have deferred and unpaid corporate income taxes to the tune of billions and billions of dollars. You and I would probably go to jail for non-payment of income taxes. And their friends in industry can dump toxic waste into the environment and maybe pay a slap on the wrist in affordable fines. You and I would be fined what we would consider serious dough for dumping a bag of trash where we're not supposed to. The people will police themselves in a liberal-fascist setup, but corporations often get away with murder.

Wed, 2008-11-05 22:21

#148

Benoit

Ruthless efficiency is yet another oxymoron since a slave will never be more productive than a self-motivated person.

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

Wed, 2008-11-05 22:22

#149

Cueball

Oh but we will enslave people to democracy. It's not enough for people to be self-motivated to vote, they must be forced to it with the jack boot. Now that is rich. You talk about oxymorons?

You don't even have a consistent thesis.

[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Wed, 2008-11-05 22:28

#150

Fidel

quote:

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]
Ruthless efficiency is yet another oxymoron since a slave will never be more productive than a self-motivated person.[/b]

That's true. Slave labourers in Nazi occupied Europe weren't so productive as they were worked to death. Slave labour in the complete absence of human rights has always been a wet dream for capitalists. Stalin used forced labour as he realized a massive military buildup was taking place in Germany in violation of the Versaille Treaty, but many of those labourers paid even a meagre wage in Russia during the war years knew what the consequences were for losing.

Wed, 2008-11-05 22:29

#151

Benoit

quote:

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Oh but we will enslave people to democracy. It's not enought for people to be self-motivated to vote. Now that is rich. You talk about oxymorons?
You don't even have a consistent thesis.
[ 05 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]

Democracy is like friendship. If friends choose to chain themselves together is will be the most original form of chain.

Pages

Topic locked