Holly crap, I am used to dealing with delusions from theists, but I really hate it when atheists do it. Russell is well intended in wanting to help the average Joe and the poor and sees like many the disparity between the top and the bottom. Sees the abuse of money and power and the over pollution of the planet.



But doesn't vote himself, says he won't vote because it does not work. My question to this moron is, what would you replace it with? And what does he think would happen to his own personal wealth if voting were scrapped? I'll tell him what would happen. It would create a power vacuum, and that vacuum would be filled with someone with even more money than him, enough to create a monopoly on political power, like Gaddaffi, or the anarchy warlord country of Somalia. Removing voting would not guarantee the end of disparity, it would simply shift power.



Secular systems of government are no different that dictatorships, they are both run by humans and thus subject to abuse of power, because humans have always been capable of cruelty and compassion. Voting happens in Iran too but I doubt Russell would like living there nor could he make a living making fun of religion like he does. Libya thought Gaddaffi overthrowing the prior democracy would cure their social ills, and all it did was allow him to become a dictator, BECAUSE OF HIS WEALTH.

The problem isn't voting, the problem is humans. At least in the west, people have MORE of an opportunity than a dictatorship, to have a voice. I'd say to Russell Brand, vote and or run for office, but don't bitch, and do not speak for me.

http://gawker.com/russell-brand-may-have...1451318185

I do not vote for the same reason that he does not vote.

Voting honestly does not change a thing, because there has been no apparent difference between Republicans and Democrats for many elections. Both parties cater more to the corporations who support them than the people.

I'd like to point out that Russel Brand isn't actually an atheist. Turns out we don't have to take credit for his idiocy ( not that we would have to, as you seem to think we would ).

(November 1, 2013 at 7:00 am)Maelstrom Wrote: I do not vote for the same reason that he does not vote.

Again, what would you replace voting with? It is easy to bitch, it is harder to formulate a solution that wont become a monopoly for one person or one party.

Governments will happen because we are social creatures. China has one, Iran has one Cuba has one. Banana republics like Somalia look even worse. And I would not want to live in any of those countries.

Deal with reality the way it is and stop seeking stupid utopias that wont exist. If you don't like the way things are going, JUMP IN, be a part of it, but don't bitch.

(November 1, 2013 at 6:55 am)Brian37 Wrote: But doesn't vote himself, says he won't vote because it does not work. My question to this moron is, what would you replace it with?

Not quite: RB doesn't vote because none of the people he can vote for represent his most important values. He's apathetic because UK democracy (and Party Politics, generally) doesn't provide for those who don't align with the views of the largest parties; it marginalises those with alternative views and let's face facts, RB's views are pretty marginal. The South Park 'Douche vs Turd Sandwich' analogy is applicable here.

He's said before that he'd simply widen the choices available by ending party alignment.

(November 1, 2013 at 7:04 am)Sejanus Wrote: I'd like to point out that Russel Brand isn't actually an atheist. Turns out we don't have to take credit for his idiocy ( not that we would have to, as you seem to think we would ).

He could have fooled me the way he trashes religion.

---

(November 1, 2013 at 7:00 am)Maelstrom Wrote: I do not vote for the same reason that he does not vote.

Voting honestly does not change a thing, because there has been no apparent difference between Republicans and Democrats for many elections. Both parties cater more to the corporations who support them than the people.

How is a corporate monopoly any less a dictatorship than one person or one party having the majority of wealth and power?

You think ending the open market will end abuse? Anarchy is as much a utopia as any other simplistic ideology thrust on a complex species. One word ideologys don't fucking work.

I don't want the west to become China, India, Cuba or Somalia just because I don't like the disparity.

A POWER will be set up in lew of voting, and unless you have the money and the wealth to be that power, you are most likely the one to be fucked by that attitude.

---

(November 1, 2013 at 7:09 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(November 1, 2013 at 6:55 am)Brian37 Wrote: But doesn't vote himself, says he won't vote because it does not work. My question to this moron is, what would you replace it with?

Not quite: RB doesn't vote because none of the people he can vote for represent his most important values. He's apathetic because UK democracy (and Party Politics, generally) doesn't provide for those who don't align with the views of the largest parties; it marginalises those with alternative views and let's face facts, RB's views are pretty marginal. The South Park 'Douche vs Turd Sandwich' analogy is applicable here.

He's said before that he'd simply widen the choices available by ending party alignment.

If he is for more choices, then how does he think ending voting would accomplish that? It wont, it will do just the opposite. If he wants more choices then he needs to form his own party and compete.

(November 1, 2013 at 7:09 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(November 1, 2013 at 7:04 am)Sejanus Wrote: I'd like to point out that Russel Brand isn't actually an atheist. Turns out we don't have to take credit for his idiocy ( not that we would have to, as you seem to think we would ).

He could have fooled me the way he trashes religion.

I think he's a deist or something.

(November 1, 2013 at 7:08 am)Brian37 Wrote: Again, what would you replace voting with?

Do not know, do not care.

(November 1, 2013 at 7:08 am)Brian37 Wrote: Deal with reality the way it is and stop seeking stupid utopias that wont exist. If you don't like the way things are going, JUMP IN, be a part of it, but don't bitch.

No, I am not going to support something that does not work.

(November 1, 2013 at 7:09 am)Brian37 Wrote: If he is for more choices, then how does he think ending voting would accomplish that? It wont, it will do just the opposite. If he wants more choices then he needs to form his own party and compete.

He doesn't want to end voting, he's all for democracy. He just wants all politicians to be 'independent'. By removing party politics and forcing elections to be based on policies rather than personalities, he believes that there would be a greater range of people to vote for with a greater range of policies thus more likely to include the 'non-mainstream' views which never get a look in from party politics. He's said before that 2 of the major side effects would be reducing corporate meddling in political affairs (it's far more expensive to buy up lots of 'independents' than it is to buy a Party) and he thinks that voters would become more informed about who & what they're voting for.

The upshot would be that politics would be more inclusive therefore combating voter apathy and making democracy more effective & representative.

*Edit: he's been asked about starting his own political party before. His response? He's a comedian not a politician.

I won't vote. There's just no point. A bunch of assholes who agree with me on almost nothing? Fuck that. I don't have to come up with an alternative just because I say no to a thing either. Also fuck those people who say if you don't vote you can't complain. That's retarded.