Heartland

Dark wrote:My first thought was "Since when did Eldritch have a daughter?"

Aren't we all his children, we dodgy darklings, we offspring of the night?

markfiend wrote:Say what you like about democracy, sure it's liable to fall victim to 'bread and circuses' voting, but it's better than living in any kind of dictatorship.

With the exception of Ankh Morpork, perhaps? There's a system of One Man, One Vote I can get behind.

I would normally have been inclined to agree that democracy is the worst system apart from all the others. However, given that the last 50 years in the west have seen plummeting voter turnout and a desire to remain completely ignorant of politics by the vast majority of people in the kinds of places that have become apathetic about the whole process (it's a thing of wonder that people will turn out in droves to vote in places like Zimbabwe even they risk getting the snot kicked out of them by Mugabe's goons, but you can't get the average westerner to turn off whatever reality TV show is currently sapping the national IQ to have his voice heard), I'm not certain that I continue to hold this view. Democracy is the better system on paper, but if the electorate refuse to put the necessary work in to make it a functioning system then it doesn't get out of the gate. Sure there are solutions - make voting mandatory (I believe Australia fines you if you don't vote), make political education part of the core curriculum in schools, whatever, but no-one seems overly keen to institute these measures.

Question - would you rather live in a "free" society (for example, the US or the UK) where your freedoms are curtailed via the backdoor (detention without trial, widespread use of surveillance of the citizenry by the state) or a "closed" society (like Brunei) where you know that the monarch controls everything but where there is effectively no poverty, everyone gets healthcare, pays no personal income or capital gains tax, and the country isn't spending itself into the poorhouse via ill-advised military ventures?

EvilBastard wrote:Question - would you rather live in a "free" society (for example, the US or the UK) where your freedoms are curtailed via the backdoor (detention without trial, widespread use of surveillance of the citizenry by the state) or a "closed" society (like Brunei) where you know that the monarch controls everything but where there is effectively no poverty, everyone gets healthcare, pays no personal income or capital gains tax, and the country isn't spending itself into the poorhouse via ill-advised military ventures?

Good riddance. Choice wisely for your two bottles.

EvilBastard wrote: ...words...

If you've never read Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, you might want to. He addresses precisely this issue, at great length (mostly in the latter portions).

nowayjose wrote:Good riddance. Choice wisely for your two bottles.

You see - that's rather the point. People who live in Brunei pay a price for a pretty comfortable existence - no booze, no freedom of the press, no free elections. People who live in the democratic societies should be prepared to pay the price for that freedom - that price is engagement in the political process. In the 2004 US presidential election voter turnout was 64% - 36% of Americans didn't pay their whack. In the UK the story is worse - the 2005 general election saw 61% of Britons engage in the political process, and in 2001 only 59% did - the lowest figure since the second world war.

I posed the question because somewhere along the line we've lost sight of the fact that democracy only works when the electorate is engaged, and evidence suggests that people don't want to engage. Would the 41% of the electorate in the UK that didn't vote in 2001 be happy to live in a system like Brunei's? Probably not, although it's possible that they wouldn't notice. But if you told them that unless they supported the democratic system then that's what would happen they would probably shrug and tell you, "Well, I'll vote so long as I don't have anything better to do, or it's not raining, or I can get the time off work, or the footie's not on."

When it works, when the electorate takes an active interest in the process, when it holds its elected officials accountable, when the officials themselves hold themselves to a standard befitting someone whose job it is to represent the people, even the ones that didn't vote for him, the democracy is a beautiful thing. The citizens of Zimbabwe see that despite all of the threats and thuggery the democratic process is the only thing that stands a chance of ridding themselves of the insult to humanity that is Robert Mugabe - and they don't live in a society that's anything like as "free" as the ones that most of us enjoy.

But until we are prepared to engage, to actively participate in the democratic process, then maybe we're not ready to live in a democratic society.

James Blast wrote:The Man in Black's daughter on why she'd be a better VP than Sarah Palin http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081027/cash

Genius!

...not to mention, a very cute hat.

Just because people don't turn out to vote, doesn't mean they are not voting; a non-vote can indicate that neither party attracts them enough to place an X in the box. Why go to the polls just to write "None of the above" or, more likely, "either will do"?

I probably wouldn't vote this election for just that reason, except that there's several propositions (TRUE democracy) which I have strong opinions on.

EvilBastard wrote:"Well, I'll vote so long as I don't have anything better to do, or it's not raining, or I can get the time off work, or the footie's not on."

It's the old issue of freedom only being valued if it's lost.

The choice between a free country like the UK and somewhere like Brunei is a no-brainer for me, the UK every time. While there are abuses, there are at least things that we can try if we want to prevent them. Political campaigning isn't entirely futile even if the major parties are in the lobbyists' pocket.

I simply can't understand how people can not vote, it seems wilful ignorance to refuse to educate oneself about the political process.

sultan2075 wrote:...links are now coming out between Obama and groups like the Democratic Socialists of America and the New Party...

Are these like the "links" with the Weather Underground?

And the US media biased against the Republicans? You've got to be kidding me.

The allegations of electoral irregularities, if true, are certainly worrying, but the Democrats don't have a monopoly on that sort of thing. In fact, I'd argue that voter intimidation, as routinely practised by the GOP, is worse.

markfiend wrote:The choice between a free country like the UK and somewhere like Brunei is a no-brainer for me, the UK every time. While there are abuses, there are at least things that we can try if we want to prevent them. Political campaigning isn't entirely futile even if the major parties are in the lobbyists' pocket.

I simply can't understand how people can not vote, it seems wilful ignorance to refuse to educate oneself about the political process.

sultan2075 wrote:...links are now coming out between Obama and groups like the Democratic Socialists of America and the New Party...

Are these like the "links" with the Weather Underground?

And the US media biased against the Republicans? You've got to be kidding me.

The allegations of electoral irregularities, if true, are certainly worrying, but the Democrats don't have a monopoly on that sort of thing. In fact, I'd argue that voter intimidation, as routinely practised by the GOP, is worse.

Oh no, these links are apparently much more solid. And yes, the US media (with the notable exception of Fox News) is--and has been, for a rather long time--biased against conservatives generally. This is old news, and has even been confirmed in a few recent studies (one was from Harvard, I think).

As for Obama, see, for example, the New Party's page on archive.org, where he is identified as a member (back in October of 1996). He's identified again as such in this editorial from the Progressive Populist, dated November 1996. Both claim him as a member of the New Party.

As for voter fraud, no major political party has clean hands in this regard. One might say, however, that in Chicago it's been raised to an art form.

markfiend wrote:
I simply can't understand how people can not vote, it seems wilful ignorance to refuse to educate oneself about the political process.

Oh, and I wanted to comment on this. I have no problem with people not voting. If they can't put forth the effort to educate themselves about the political process, I don't want them to vote. Similarly, if somebody can't put forth the minimal amount of effort to get to a polling place in the United States (don't have a car? Call the local political party. They'll be happy send a driver. Even then, polling places tend to be easily accessible), I don't want them to vote. Attempts to mandate voting through a series of fines (isn't that what Australia does?) or through a lottery (recently proposed in Arizona or Nevada, I think) strike me as wrong-headed. High voter turn-out is not prima facie a good thing. If you have an informed electorate who has thought about the issues, it is a good thing. That is basically what we (in the broadest sense, i.e., we liberal democracies) have now--those who are informed and motivated turn out to vote. Those who are neither do not.

I have no problem with this. We ought not to fetishize the wisdom of the crowd: remember, the pet rock was a hit because more people bought them than vote in any given election. Is there some overlap? Probably. But ask yourself this: do you want your country's future determined by people who made the pet rock a hit? Or do you want it determined by people who care enough to inform themselves and are motivated enough to take a few minutes out of their day to register their opinion? Res ipsa loquitur.

sultan2075 wrote:...links are now coming out between Obama and groups like the Democratic Socialists of America and the New Party...

...and thank f*ck for that. Then again, according to that little political compass thingamajig, I'm a (small "L") libertarian socialist, so I should probably not be wasting my time or breath pursuing discussions with Neo-Cons, innit?

SINsister wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:...links are now coming out between Obama and groups like the Democratic Socialists of America and the New Party...

...and thank f*ck for that. Then again, according to that little political compass thingamajig, I'm a (small "L") libertarian socialist, so I should probably not be wasting my time or breath pursuing discussions with Neo-Cons, innit?

A. I'm not a conservative, neo- or otherwise.

B. "Libertarian socialist" is a contradiction in terms.

sultan2075 wrote:We ought not to fetishize the wisdom of the crowd

WHAT "wisdom?!" Good g*d man, you're talking about a collection of ignorant, infantilized cretins. "The crowd's" something I've steered clear of my entire friggin' life!

sultan2075 wrote:A. I'm not a conservative, neo- or otherwise.

B. "Libertarian socialist" is a contradiction in terms.

-Oh, really? Wow, that's interesting...

-No, it's not. I'd like a government to 1. provide a safety net of sorts, so that no one falls through the cracks - through universal healthcare, etc. b. Then, that government can politely stay the f*ck out of my personal life, and out of the personal lives of everyone else, as well.

SINsister wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:We ought not to fetishize the wisdom of the crowd

WHAT "wisdom?!" Good g*d man, you're talking about a collection of ignorant, infantilized cretins. "The crowd's" something I've steered clear of my entire friggin' life!

Was I unclear? You're essentially repeating back my point, without nuance, and then claiming you're an individual. Good for you, I guess.

SINsister wrote:
-No, it's not. I'd like a government to 1. provide a safety net of sorts, so that no one falls through the cracks - through universal healthcare, etc. b. Then, that government can politely stay the f*ck out of my personal life, and out of the personal lives of everyone else, as well.

That's not libertarianism, that's libertinism.

sultan2075 wrote:I have no problem with this. We ought not to fetishize the wisdom of the crowd: remember, the pet rock was a hit because more people bought them than vote in any given election. Is there some overlap? Probably. But ask yourself this: do you want your country's future determined by people who made the pet rock a hit? Or do you want it determined by people who care enough to inform themselves and are motivated enough to take a few minutes out of their day to register their opinion? Res ipsa loquitur.

Heh. Yes, and in the UK more people voted in Big Brother than in the general election the same year. I see your point, people who don't care enough to vote probably shouldn't bother, but I don't understand why people don't care about politics, is what I'm basically trying to say.

markfiend wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:I have no problem with this. We ought not to fetishize the wisdom of the crowd: remember, the pet rock was a hit because more people bought them than vote in any given election. Is there some overlap? Probably. But ask yourself this: do you want your country's future determined by people who made the pet rock a hit? Or do you want it determined by people who care enough to inform themselves and are motivated enough to take a few minutes out of their day to register their opinion? Res ipsa loquitur.

Heh. Yes, and in the UK more people voted in Big Brother than in the general election the same year. I see your point, people who don't care enough to vote probably shouldn't bother, but I don't understand why people don't care about politics, is what I'm basically trying to say.

Tocqueville makes a convincing argument that when power is centralized, people will become disconnected from politics. Specifically, he means that you need to have local control over local issues in order for people to be engaged. If local governments cede more and more power to a centralized administrative power, people are going to feel remote from it, and they will cease to take an interest in government (because it happens "over there"). If power is centralized "over there" (in, say, Washington D.C.), people who are not near it will lose interest. Power has to be diffused throughout the nation to keep the people actively interested in government.

I don't know how things developed in the United Kingdom (so this might not apply to you that much, if at all), but in the US, during the 20th century, the federal government gets more and more powerful at the expense of the local and state governments. In the Federalist Papers, Madison describes the US as a "compound republic," arguing that in addition to the division of powers on the national level you need to have a split between national or federal and local authority, with each one able to check the other: hence the US Senate was originally meant to be elected by state legislatures, giving each state a direct influence on the federal government, and if necessary, some sort of check on it. The 17th amendment to the Constitution changes that, and the result is that state governments lose power over and against Washington (they now have to hire lobbyists). Today, people have much more to do with the federal government than they did 70 years ago, and much less to do with the state governments, who are now largely in the position of acting as administrators for state governments. Because state and local governments have less power than they used to, people have less incentive to be interested in local politics (I'm as guilty of this as anyone: I can't even name the mayor of the city I live in). Because they're less interested in local politics, they lose interest in politics period, because it simply doesn't matter to them. Tocqueville's argument is that local control rather than centralization is a necessary condition for an engaged electorate. I think he's probably right about that.

sultan2075 wrote:Was I unclear? You're essentially repeating back my point, without nuance, and then claiming you're an individual. Good for you, I guess.

Thanks!

sultan2075 wrote:That's not libertarianism, that's libertinism.

Oh, really?

Unfortunately, that's not what you advocated. I'm also not going to debate this further with you, as it strikes me as rather pointless.

Really, I thought socialism died out with the miners strike... its sad to see itsu gly head rise again.

nodubmanshouts wrote:Really, I thought socialism died out with the miners strike... its sad to see itsu gly head rise again.

various governments' part-nationalisation of the banks seems to suggest to me that the socialist ideal of collective ownership was right all along.

In re: increased centralisation of government at the expense of increased voter alienation, I think the same thing has happened in the UK. It's a process that the Labour government has tried to reverse, with Scotland's Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, but rather than true devolution, it seems to me that it's simply an added layer of government. (Although I don't live in either Wales or Scotland, so I don't have first-hand experience of this.)

I would agree that if people had more control at a local level, perhaps there would be less voter alienation. Which ties back into a socialist picture...

Ignore Obama and McCain.

Vote MARK FIEND FOR PRESIDENT!

Couldn't resist.

And then I can start my Stalinist purges...