Politics...who are you for?

[Bahamut810]

I was reading Doonesbury today (and was reading them backwords for a months worth) and I noticed some support there for one Howard Dean. Now...most times im more issues then politicians (as most of them are forked tongued nasty people) but I took a gander at his website for the heck of it.

I liked what I saw. Many of my views are shared by Mr. Dean (yes...I actually called him Mr.). I think he makes the ideal canadate (as you can tell). Especially compared to the current *cough* president.

I just thought I would bring this guy to your attenstion...he seems a good man.

Deans Site

[Joseph]

My $0.02 (taxable, void where prohibited) on this:

Politics: n. From the root words poli, meaning many, and tics, blood sucking parasites.

::smokin

[Bahamut810]

Lol!! Yes...a Mark Twain Quote I believe...

Try this one:

"If pro is the opposite of con...and Progress is to go forward...what does Congress mean?"

(edit: put in correct quote)

[phoenix]

I'm an anarchist. Basically, I believe that any form of government is just an organized crime syndicate under another name, and that trying to impose an unnatural order to solve problems imposed by the basic nature of humanity will only exacerbate those problems and cause them to reappear in different places.

That said, if Dean looks like the candidate most likely to overthrow Bush (though I doubt it'll happen), he's got my support (such as it is - I can't vote, of course, being 16) simply because he's the lesser of two evils.

[Nullifier]

I'm an anarchist. Basically, I believe that any form of government is just an organized crime syndicate under another name, and that trying to impose an unnatural order to solve problems imposed by the basic nature of humanity will only exacerbate those problems and cause them to reappear in different places.

Well said, my young friend. I consider myself a social anarchist. To explain: I believe in pure democracy. Everyone gets a vote on everything. And by everyone, I don't just mean adults, or 'citizens', I mean everybody capable of rational thought. Unfortunately, to implement such a radical form of government would require the overthrow of current governmental, social, and cultural systems. The reasons such a system hasn't been used in the past are many, and complex, yet they boil down to one basic factor which, even if all the other factors were accounted for, would have stymied any chance of such a system working: communication. There simply was no way for the average person to communicate his or her opinion and/or vote on every single issue that arose. Fortunately, we now have the technology, and the infrastructure to facilitate the necessary communication for such a system to work. At any rate, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. Just remember, though: it's a lot easier to bribe a couple hundred people than it is to bribe a couple hundred million people.

[Bahamut810]

re Anarchy:

Not to be an ass...but I thought you should hear this quote:

"Anarchy is your 8th grade gym class for the rest of your life..." -Devon, Something Positive. Quite true...for an example of Anarchy...see water world, The Postman, Mad Max or most other post apoctalyptic movies. At least with the US government you get a choise in who screws with you and can actually have good things happen.

Re: true democracy

I would like one...but there are limits. Quite frankly it cant work without a unified world government. Without age requirement? I dont trust an 8 yr old to vote. Heck, most 18 yr olds vote the way their parents to because their parents voted that way...not a good way to vote. Without citizenship? Yea...I wanna bunch a Canadians coming to the states to tell me what to do...(no knock on canadians, just substitute Canadians with any other countries people for this example if you want). If it didnt require citisenship...someone could cart a bunch of people from China over here...their payment? Voting for (person).

but I do agree about the true democracy...there is just not enough intrest in politics to institute it htough...its still representative. Look at the above "my parents" example.

[Nullifier]

would like one...but there are limits. Quite frankly it cant work without a unified world government. Without age requirement? I dont trust an 8 yr old to vote. Heck, most 18 yr olds vote the way their parents to because their parents voted that way...not a good way to vote. Without citizenship? Yea...I wanna bunch a Canadians coming to the states to tell me what to do...(no knock on canadians, just substitute Canadians with any other countries people for this example if you want). If it didnt require citisenship...someone could cart a bunch of people from China over here...their payment? Voting for (person).

but I do agree about the true democracy...there is just not enough intrest in politics to institute it htough...its still representative. Look at the above \"my parents\" example

I'd like to take your obections one at a time, so here we go:

1. Why don't you trust an 8 year old to vote? Yes, it's true, most 18 year olds do vote the way their parents do, but that's because they're voting for people, not individual laws. Besides, I've met several 8 year olds who were much more rational than most of the adults I know.

2. First, in a pure democracy your general geographic region would determine the laws that affect you, and therefore the laws you were elegible to vote on. Second, again, in a pure democracy, you're voting for individual laws, not people. Third, there'd definately have to be a system of registration which would preclude incidents such as the one you stated.

3. The reason there's little interest in politics in this country is because people don't believe that their vote counts for much, which they're right about, seeing as how they can only vote for a person who surely cannot and will not ever be able to truly represent all their individual opinions and agendas. Also, they're aware that their so-called representative are really the tools of corporations and special interest groups, and that basically, whomever bribes them, gets their vote. Finally, the fact that there are only, with a very few exceptions, two candidates from two very similar parties that have any real chance of getting elected makes it so their choice of who represents them is so limited as to be almost non-existent. In conclusion, I believe that by instituting pure democracy, where everyone gets to vote on and make the laws, we could reinvest the people in their own governing.

[ProfPotts]

Hmmm ::confused ...

... 'Pure democracy'? If everyone gets to vote on everything (presuming we have the technology & time on our hands to impliment such a thing) we end up with a social order dictated by the media - what's popular, & the best lies, are what people vote for. People aren't stupid, naturally, but few of us have the sort of time on our hands to correctly research, weigh-up, & consider all the issues that politics deals with - which is why we pay a bunch of people to do that for us. We can then get on with our lives in (relative) peace.

I'm an anarchist. Basically, I believe that any form of government is just an organized crime syndicate under another name, and that trying to impose an unnatural order to solve problems imposed by the basic nature of humanity will only exacerbate those problems and cause them to reappear in different places.

Ah, so social order isn't a part of the 'basic nature of humanity'? If that were the case we'd be the only primates for whom that was true, & never would have swung down from the trees. Society is a basic element of human nature - we are social animals (otherwise none of us would be posting on this forum ::wink ). The issues you bring up are related to scale - the larger the society the harder it is for political descisions to please everyone. E.g. living in a small village is pretty easy - the choices the village society has to make effect the members of that society directly, & chances are they'll all have a reasonable idea of the details of those issues. Take that to a larger group, where you don't know everyone, & don't know everything that goes on, & it gets a lot harder.

It's easy to say that politics & politians are evil ::devil , but that statement should go hand in hand with the realisation that they are a necessary evil ::devilangel .

There's a concept called 'structural evil' that applies here. This states that only an individual can have purely good motives; once any level of social structure is applied to those motives, they are subject to being twisted, misinterpreted, & evil starts to seep in. For example - you may want to stop people from drowning kittens. Ok, that's a good thing, right ::halo ? But, now you have to go about achieving that aim - how do you make everyone in your society follow your ideas? You could legislate that kitten drowning is an offense, with some punishment attatched - but is the punishment enough to stop those who still want to drown kittens, or is it too severe & generating a greater evil than kitten-drowning itself does? Where do motivations come in? Is all kitten-drowning banned? What if a starving family only has dead kitten to eat? What if there's a deadly new disease that's carried by kittens? What if the feline population explodes & overruns the local ecology? If there are a group of you dedicated to stopping the drowning of kittens, do you all agree on all the issues? Who wins when there are disputes? Are the original pure motives dilluted by the dreaded compromise?

Yes, it's tough to live in society - but I wouldn't live anywhere else ::biggrin .

[Bahamut810]

1. Why don't you trust an 8 year old to vote? Yes, it's true, most 18 year olds do vote the way their parents do, but that's because they're voting for people, not individual laws. Besides, I've met several 8 year olds who were much more rational than most of the adults I know.

Yes....they may be rational. Im sure we have all seen something to the effect of \"A childs simplicity is the most peaceful\" type deal...but he cant possibly know the issues. And for a case like that, again, children (the little monkies they are) will simulate their parents...that is just a fact of life. If they dont simulate their parents there is the possibility of, \"You need to vote for \"....simple enough there.

3. The reason there's little interest in politics in this country is because people don't believe that their vote counts for much, which they're right about, seeing as how they can only vote for a person who surely cannot and will not ever be able to truly represent all their individual opinions and agendas. Also, they're aware that their so-called representative are really the tools of corporations and special interest groups, and that basically, whomever bribes them, gets their vote. Finally, the fact that there are only, with a very few exceptions, two candidates from two very similar parties that have any real chance of getting elected makes it so their choice of who represents them is so limited as to be almost non-existent. In conclusion, I believe that by instituting pure democracy, where everyone gets to vote on and make the laws, we could reinvest the people in their own governing.

Yea...thats where it started. Now...most people just dont care as long as it dosent effect them. As a matter of fact, I started getting into it myself when I turned 20...it really didnt matter to me till then. Its something that does need to change...most of the system is... Hopefully one day we can have a total democracy...untill then we have to cope with representatives. Thats why we have to vote responcably.

(steps off his soapbox he didnt know he stood on...untill it was too late)

--EDIT--

Ouch...Prof has a good point...hmmmm....

[phoenix]

Ah, so social order isn't a part of the 'basic nature of humanity'? If that were the case we'd be the only primates for whom that was true, & never would have swung down from the trees. Society is a basic element of human nature - we are social animals (otherwise none of us would be posting on this forum  ).

Don't expect me to believe there are no alternatives. I have no problem with any system of laws at all, as long as the penalties never exceed exile in magnitude, actually (I realize this contradicts what I said earlier to some degree). That way, people have a choice of whether or not to take part in the society. As you said:

Yes, it's tough to live in society - but I wouldn't live anywhere else.

Fine, it's all the same to me where you live, but you can only make that decision for yourself. Regardless of how stupid you may think it not to, you (or rather, the gov't) have to respect other people's \"right to self-determination\", as the Teragen put it.

It's easy to say that politics & politians are evil  , but that statement should go hand in hand with the realisation that they are a necessary evil  .

Once more, just because you're willing to invoke that evil to solve your problems, don't assume that others are.

There's a concept called 'structural evil' that applies here. This states that only an individual can have purely good motives; once any level of social structure is applied to those motives, they are subject to being twisted, misinterpreted, & evil starts to seep in. For example - you may want to stop people from drowning kittens. Ok, that's a good thing, right  ? But, now you have to go about achieving that aim - how do you make everyone in your society follow your ideas? You could legislate that kitten drowning is an offense, with some punishment attatched - but is the punishment enough to stop those who still want to drown kittens, or is it too severe & generating a greater evil than kitten-drowning itself does? Where do motivations come in? Is all kitten-drowning banned? What if a starving family only has dead kitten to eat? What if there's a deadly new disease that's carried by kittens? What if the feline population explodes & overruns the local ecology? If there are a group of you dedicated to stopping the drowning of kittens, do you all agree on all the issues? Who wins when there are disputes? Are the original pure motives dilluted by the dreaded compromise?

All those questions have a very simple solution: their basis is fundamentally flawed. There's no good reason for people to want to stop other people from drowning kittens. They should just try to stop themselves from drowning kittens, and be prepared for retribution against anyone who drowns their particular kitten (nice example, by the way ::wink ), but they should have faith in the capacity of others to make their own decisions. Yes, I realize that in many cases, the kittens will have a rough time of it, but I suspect that it would be far fewer than many people would think.

Re: The total democracy issue..

That does seem insanely complicated, but I agree with Nulli that it doesn't make sense to bar kids from doing it when adults can be so much stupider. Fortunately for my sanity, I don't feel the need to figure out ameliorations for our form of government because if I had my way, we'd just do away with it all together.

[operations]

How about we forget this?

These kind of topics usually don't end well. And I come to game site to get away from the politics.

However, Twain... my favorite Twain quote. "Suppose you were a member of Congress. Now, suppose you were an idiot, but I repeat myelf..."

::shocked

[Nullifier]

Alright, I agree with Ops on this one, let's end this.

Just one thing: Prof, I've heard that particular objection many times before, and I agree that it presents a challenge. However, after much consideration, I believe I have come up with a number of viable solutions. In fact, in response to the many objections I've heard over the years, I've come up with an outline of a system which I believe would deal with most of those objections in a satisfactory manner. If you, or anyone else is truly interested, I'd be more than willing to discuss it in private. I'm always looking for new prespectives and input, and I'd be glad for the opportunity to present my case. ::bigsmile ::thumbsup

That's it. Let's game. ::cool

[Bahamut810]

Pass that my way.

[phoenix]

Here ya go ::bananagrenade

[ProfPotts]

I take it from the recent posts that no-one actually wants a response to this topic? ::huh

Dang - & there I was all ready with a multitude of historical examples to prove my points beyond a shadow of a doubt. ::wink

Oh well... back to gaming topics instead ::sly :

Structural evil is a good model with which to examine Project: Utopia. A bunch of people who mostly have pretty positive aims, but who breed negative results as their differences in agenda, lack of communication, & the sheer size of the organization work against them.

[Bahamut810]

I dont mind a good rousing political debate. Some people think it would cause some bad blood between people.

How about we just put a large disclaimer here and let who wants to debate and who dosent can not read?

[SnakeEyes]

I say yay politics. How else can you confuse millions of people in a few words?

Seriously though, I was going to post but it's finished. So I'll post anyway. (just be gentle ::unsure )

I don't see another way, as law and politics make it so difficult to peacefully make another way. So, I'm gonna move to London, and vote for the "Monster Raving Loony Party" (who's co-leader is now a cat, since screaming lord such died.). Oh yes, and the Green Party (for national elections). It's the least I can do (without doing nothing that is).

But frankly, I don't believe true anarchy, or true democracy will ever be attained. Simply because history tells us that politicians do not learn from others' mistakes. And they have little chance to learn from their own.

"Isn't it funny how the developed nations make peace through war? And why are we led to believe war is a necessary evil if we wish to see peace?" - Michael Barlow

And since we're on Twain-

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain

"Whenever you find that you are a member of the majority, It's time to

reform." -Mark Twain

[Bahamut810]

Ok...time for disclaimer

__ POLITICAL DISCUSSION BELOW__

Stop reading if you dont like to discuss politics..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

YOU WERE WARNED!

[SnakeEyes]

How 'bout instead of "You were warned"-

Welcome To My Parlour, Said The Spider To The Fly

[Bahamut810]

To Green Party:

I voted green party last election. ::biggrin

I think that a True democracy *could* have a *slim chanse* at working. But people would have to me more responsable then they are now...or want to become.

[SnakeEyes]

and how likely is that? people as a whole (not groups, I mean the entire population of a country) do not work well together, nor are they responsible. I'm sorry, but if there's a chance, it's less than slim. unless by slim you mean a mere nanofraction.

[Bahamut810]

I mean in in the post-apoctalyptic there-are-only-50-people-left-to-repopulate-the earth sorta way.

[Nullifier]

Unfortunately, you've hit on the most likely scenario I've come up with for the formation of a ture democracy. Although I anticipate at least several million left, though widely scattered.

[ProfPotts]

Yeah - generally speaking the 'fairer' a political system is, the weaker it is & less well it works. Proportional representation (fpr example) sounds like it's fair & just - & maybe it is - but it creates weak governments who can't get anything done (rule by a commitee is a terrible thing to behold - kinda' like Temporal Manipulation gone horribly wrong... ::biggrin ).

The strongest & most successful systems (historically speaking), are benevolent dictatorships - that is to say one guy gets to make all the important descisions, but is doing so for the good of all, & listens to good advice. Such a system depends, naturally, on having a nice guy in charge, but that problem often gets solved via the age-old solution of assassination ::ninja .

Freedom & the chance to participate in the important choices that effect your society feels nice, but it's probably not the best way for the most people to have a good life. I guess that's the sacrifice we have to make for living in democratic societies?

[Nullifier]

I wish people wouldn't refer to current world governments or societies as 'democratic'... They're oligarchies, plain and simple. Just because the people that are part of the oligarchy are 'elected', does not make the system democratic.

[Bahamut810]

I wish we didnt. I would be nice to have a good 'ol Dictatorship that value's a persons invidual freedoms. Then it would be nice to have universal health care...*sigh* Mabey we should just go to a total anarchy and let someone take over the world that way. I would make a good ruler i think ::biggrin .

[SnakeEyes]

I wish people wouldn't refer to current world governments or societies as 'democratic'... They're oligarchies, plain and simple. Just because the people that are part of the oligarchy are 'elected', does not make the system democratic.

It makes it partially democratic. The people elect the person who represents their beliefs and wishes best. This person then makes decisions for the masses, much to the disgust of those who didn't vote for the person. Unfortunately, it is mathematicaly improbable to please everyone. Thus, although democracy does exist, it does not exist fully, similar to water, only some can exist as a liquid at a time, while the rest has to wait its turn, floating as a vapour. This is why I say true democracy cannot exist (although nothing is impossible).

Sorry, am I blathering again? ::lookaround

[Ayre el KaBeer]

Ok guys, move to Aus! Free health care (for now), mandatory voting for those 18 years and over... Though I'm not a fan of the current Aus government, especially the all mighty worm PM (ring? earth? tape?) at it's head, I know they couldn't have done a much worse job than anyone else elected. Let's face it all polititions are gonna p!ss us off at some stage, and some do a royal job of it! ::angry But in the end, the majority of the people aren't gonna give a crap for the governments wrongdoings for long, so long as they get to move on with their lives and get the promised tax cuts of $2(or whatever) per annum, cheap fuel (yeah cheap compared to wartime, but always more expensive than prewar), and the constant "We're #1" that the polly's all spout out. The majority of people are just not going to put the effort in to reaserch, and see if a Gov't can deliver on it's promises and trust wholy what they see and hear in the media.

I think "Polly" is a great term for them, because they're mostly all doing the job of a parrot in repeating what's been forced down their throat to pass on to the people... So Polly want a cracker? No? How 'bout a pretzel?.

[SnakeEyes]

k. I have to agree with you there. apart from the "the majority of the people aren't gonna give a crap for the governments wrongdoings for long" thing, as the mistakes the tories made crippled their votes for years (unfortunately they're on the way back up, along with the Lib Dems which never had much in the first place). And the way Blair handled the war (and NHS funding, AND school funding, and almost [i say almost] every other promise he made, hehe... the party rebellions are increasing) has put the labour popularity way down, and the way things are looking, it ain't gonna go back up for a long while.

If a government makes a mistake, it takes a while for people to trust 'em again (I say trust). But otherwise, yes, you're right. All politicians **** us off at some stage (apart from charles kennedy [Lib Dems] so far it seems.. anyone to comment on that?). And yes, they do seem to regurgitate the same old promises made by their predecessors.

But for tax cuts... the Lib Dems actually gained popularity by promising to increase taxes! The big crowd puller was that they'd use the income from taxes to fund schools and the NHS better... oh and better public transport (Who's ever ridden on a RoadCar? *puts hand up* How 'bout one with it's wheels falling off? bad electrics in the middle of winter? Oil Leakage?)

[phoenix]

But for tax cuts... the Lib Dems actually gained popularity by promising to increase taxes! The big crowd puller was that they'd use the income from taxes to fund schools and the NHS better... oh and better public transport (Who's ever ridden on a RoadCar? *puts hand up* How 'bout one with it's wheels falling off? bad electrics in the middle of winter? Oil Leakage?)

Man, I wish New Hampshire politicians would take a leaf out of their book, but then this is the "Live free or die" state.. most of the locals think "free" means you don't have to pay for it. (The rest mock them with slogans such as "Live, freeze, and die" and such, for those who have never been here.. this has been a New Hampshire Moment ).

[Bahamut810]

Ah! Here we go!!

The Quote to End all arguments that support total anarchy!!

Ahh...Liberal democrats...what *cant* they do...besides get in office I mean...*sigh*...

I need to move to canada...

[SnakeEyes]

Hehe. Yeah, the strong would rule the weak. Would that mean I would finally be the supreme lord of the universe? any challangers? No? I'll take the crown then. *Places crown on head.*

[Archer21]

Whooo boy. Not sure I should jump in on this one...I can get a bit carried away. Not emotionally necessarily, but quite verbose at times. For the record, I knew there was something about ProfPotts that I liked. Seems we share some viewpoints. ::smile

[SnakeEyes]

Were you referring to my last post? Cos what I meant was if the strong ruled the weak, then I would be supreme lord (I have to feed my ego sometime... I mean, it was starving to death! You wouldn't let a poor weak ego die in such a horrible, horrible way, would you? ::smiley4 Oh great, now my floor's flooded.)

[Joseph]

Large egos are floating around again... Why do I suddenly dread Senior Mal showing his face again? ::crazy

[phoenix]

::huh Very funny, but it has nothing to do with anarchy. All it does is make the point that even if you do establish a government and take away people's rights, people are still going to get angry and break the laws whenever they really want to.

I have to feed my ego sometime... I mean, it was starving to death! You wouldn't let a poor weak ego die in such a horrible, horrible way, would you?

::mellow ::blink It's coming back to life! GET IT!!!

[Ayre el KaBeer]

Already on it Phoenix! Eat bannana you evil thing you! ::bananagrenade Hope it's name isn't Eric, because as we all know (Brits and Aussies at least) "ERIC IS BANANNAMAN!!!" ::biggrin

[SnakeEyes]

Run Ego! Run! *Ego called Bob Runs its little psychological legs off...*

[Bahamut810]

No...that comic demonstrates the point that if you have an anarchy...someone will come along and *force* you to live like they want somehow. In the comics case...a cruel **** slapping. I know that if everything went to hell I would join up with a lot of people and make a living however I had to...its human nature.

[Defender]

Hehe. One of the many times I'm proud to be Canadian. Our politics are far too boring to be corrupt, and with multiple parties there's always fun. I tend to vote New Democrat Party myself, I like their pie-in-the-sky idealism. ::biggrin

-Defender.