(November 1, 2013 at 5:54 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:

(November 1, 2013 at 5:51 pm)Brian37 Wrote: If you don't vote eventually you get to the point of wanting to kill. I'd rather vote than kill.

Slippery Slope. You should know better.

What slippery slope? I never said voting should be the only tool, Iran has ellections too, so does China, but I would not want to live in either.

Protection of dissent is part of any secular system, that includes courts overriding majorities when their votes step on the rights of minorities.

I don't know about the way laws work in other countries, but I do know that our Supreme Court has overturned the voters as well in order to protect that minority from the majority.

It may take a couple more decades, but because of laws being upheld for gay marriage, eventually all the bigoted voters will lose and gay marriage will be in every state.

Voting is one aspect of civil society, but it too needs checks on it as well.

---

(November 1, 2013 at 4:19 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote:

(November 1, 2013 at 4:07 pm)Brian37 Wrote: No shit, if change was impossible because those with money have power above you , nothing in human history would have changed.

As long as you do what you can, and the more like minded people do the same, "small" adds up.

That is exactly what I'm advocating. But starting your own party isn't gonna do shit by itself. It's opinions that you have to change and if you can do that, you don't need a new political party

Sorry, but that is a utopia. People form groups, and those groups advocate all sorts of ideas, that is called politics, it happens in open societies and dictatorships.

Government is the only way we can make laws and without voting(which should not be without oversight itself) without government you simply have a power vacuum which will get filled with something, and it is not a given that if you do this, that what comes about will favor you.

Jefferson learned that the hard way supporting the French Revolution which ended up with Napoleon. I am sure Nappy was kind to his supporters but step out of line, wasn't so fun.

"Anarchy" is a utopia, it will never happen because people have different motives, and combine those motives with money and no government, you are setting up a place for a dictatorship run by one party or one person, or a warlord environment like Somalia. Neither are appealing to me.

Since there are selfish greedy people who lust for power and always will be, be it greed for political power, or greed for money, I will not trust my species to simply do the right thing. We are capable of compassion, but we are also capable of cruelty. Which is why our ideas as a species are never good postulated as simple solutions. We are too complex as a species to make that work.

(November 2, 2013 at 2:36 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Sorry, but that is a utopia. People form groups, and those groups advocate all sorts of ideas, that is called politics, it happens in open societies and dictatorships.

You're losing me here. I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but it doesn't seem to me.

I've previously stated that I don't have any utopian ideals. I'm not trying to create a "perfect" government. I want the one we already have to improve. Voting alone is not gonna bring about that change

(November 2, 2013 at 2:36 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Voting is one aspect of civil society, but it too needs checks on it as well.

Exactly, however the checks that we have in place now for our current political system rob voters of any real ability to make change without being perverted by outside sources.

Quote:Sorry, but that is a utopia. People form groups, and those groups advocate all sorts of ideas, that is called politics, it happens in open societies and dictatorships.

But the problem with political parties is that they do not work in the interest of the people, they work in the interest of keeping their party in power. A true political party should never change its views. For example the Democratic Party was founded in 1828, and was originally pro slavery. If the party had stuck with its core values it should have died out, and a new party should have formed and taken its place (as was common in the early years of this country). But instead now our parties change their stances on topics so that they can remain a viable option to the voting public. So they no longer represent an unchanging political ideology, all our current parties represent are what the party leaders think will give them the best chance to keep their party in power.

(November 2, 2013 at 4:09 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote:

(November 2, 2013 at 2:36 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Sorry, but that is a utopia. People form groups, and those groups advocate all sorts of ideas, that is called politics, it happens in open societies and dictatorships.

You're losing me here. I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but it doesn't seem to me.

I've previously stated that I don't have any utopian ideals. I'm not trying to create a "perfect" government. I want the one we already have to improve. Voting alone is not gonna bring about that change

When you put it that way that sounds reasonable. Voting alone wont do it, no, but getting rid of voting is bat shit insane to me.

---

Quote:But the problem with political parties is that they do not work in the interest of the people

This is short term thinking. You could say currently that may be the case, but that does not mean you cant make them responsive. It took unfortunately a great depression to wake the government up, but for 40 years up till Regan unwittingly started the 30 year decline, government was responsive.

I'd say Obama, while not perfect, has done some really good things. Gays certainly are enjoying more rights now more than ever, although not complete yet. Health care will be available to more people. Our deficit has been cut almost in half. The one Bush caused. I think more and more people are waking up, all be it slowly, to the scam the spin masters on the right have concocted.

Change is slow, and humans in general don't like quick sudden changes. I think your impatience is with pace, not government itself. The only way to influence government is to make the attempt.

(November 2, 2013 at 7:57 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Voting alone wont do it, no, but getting rid of voting is bat shit insane to me.

That much, we certainly agree on. It's important that the populace retains the ability to remove those in power without having to resort to use of force

(November 2, 2013 at 8:19 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote:

(November 2, 2013 at 7:57 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Voting alone wont do it, no, but getting rid of voting is bat shit insane to me.

That much, we certainly agree on. It's important that the populace retains the ability to remove those in power without having to resort to use of force

Which is why Russell pissed me off by suggesting it doesn't work. It doesn't if you don't try. Do nothing, get nothing.

I will offer a counter however, how does one do something if the system does not allow for alternative measures. What good is your vote if you are 1% -5% of the voting population. To the point where your voice is never heard over the partisan loyalists? While I agree 100% that do nothing get nothing is truth. But if the system itself is broken at its core and majority of the population have some kind of Stockholm syndrome to their party, then tell me how to change things? Voting empirically proven NOT to work consistently for it to be a viable option, protests will not work because they either plant people to discredit your cause or just merely have the media do it, or you are arrested. Then there is peaceful resolution, which is met with "conspiracy theorist, communists, insert political ad hominem here. Then there is money, without it you have a flea’s voice compared to millionaires/billionaires. Then there is the lobbyist, which bride our politicians to vote for their interests at the expense of the people.

I am saying this to make this point, the system is broken period, end of story. The computer has a irreparable virus and the only way to really fix it is to reformat. You can remove the virus all day long but it is installed itself in the kernel of the computer and thus the effort to fix it out weights the effort to just rebuild. I have tried to rally people, they do not care. As long as they have their food, TV, and “slav…I mean job”, they will remain passive. With that said, that is exactly what the corrupt politicians will maintain. They give the illusion of freedom, just enough freedom to keep the people passive, and enough tyranny to keep them in line. I know this rant might make little sense, but I honestly believe there is little we can do. All the power is in the hands of the wrong people, and they are armed with history to correct the mistakes of past tyrants. This issues is not a simple one at all, it is not just a few things and the solution is not something that can be voted in, or caused by a revolution. It is a total paradigm that needs to be changed and honestly humans are not that far evolved to accept different paradigm that has been seared into our memories for 1000s of years. The sooner we can accept we are intelligent beings and we DO not have to assign arbitrary classes or create/maintain monetary feudalism that alone will be a step in the right direction. However, my hopes are low at least in my life time that any real humanists ideals will be adopted. I mean we still believe in ancient books for Christ’s sakes.

(November 1, 2013 at 3:05 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Robert Webbs answer to Russell Brand.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/201...sell-brand

Quote:I read your thing on revolution in these pages with great interest and some concern. My first reaction was to re-join the Labour Party. The Jiffy bag containing the plastic membership card and the Tristram Hunt action figure is, I am assured, in the post. I just wanted to tell you why I did that because I thought you might want to hear from someone who a) really likes your work, b) takes you seriously as a thoughtful person and c) thinks you’re wilfully talking through your arse about something very important.

Quote:The last Labour government didn’t do enough and bitterly disappointed many voters. But, at the risk of losing your attention, on the whole they helped. Opening Sure Start centres, introducing and raising the minimum wage, making museums free, guaranteeing nursery places, blah blah blah: nobody is going to write a folk song about this stuff and I’m aware of the basic absurdity of what I’m trying to achieve here, like getting Liberace to give a shit about the Working Tax Credit, but these policies among many others changed the real lives of millions of real people for the better.

This is exactly what the present coalition is in the business of tearing to pieces. They are not interested in helping unlucky people – they want to scapegoat and punish them. You specifically object to George Osborne’s challenge to the EU’s proposed cap on bankers’ bonuses. Labour simply wouldn’t be doing that right now. They are not all the same. 'They’re all the same' is what reactionaries love to hear. It leaves the status quo serenely untroubled, it cedes the floor to the easy answers of Ukip and the Daily Mail. No, if you want to be a nuisance to the people whom you most detest in public life, vote. And vote Labour.

*bump

...in case anyone missed this!

This is, by & large, the reason I voted for Labour in previous elections but I didn't vote in the last election. The problem is that I have no confidence in the current Labour leadership and their proposed policies don't seem to stack up when compared to either what needs doing or their predicted impacts. Consequently, I find myself in a position where I'm not likely to vote next time. It's a moral conundrum for me:

1. do I vote for someone with whom I disagree in order to prevent someone with whom I disagree more from gaining power
2. do I withold my vote until someone 'worthy' is available

I voted in the last election, and I witness first-hand the suppression and total black out of any other parties. I do vote, but that is out of principle this time around though I might not vote at all just protest or raise awareness.

@/Ben Davis
Well I'm gonna go for option 2, obviously
To be honest, there are good reasons/arguments for both options.

But here's the thing: Yes, labour did some good things whilst in power and it looks to me like Cameron has hired the labour campaign organisers to be his cabinet ministers. But the way things are, I will never vote for labour, simply because I remember why they were voted out of power. Likewise, I could never vote tory for much the same reason.

To be perfectly honest, I've seen what they're like in the house of commons. It's like watching a class of bickering 5 year olds when the teacher has left the room. They make the worst net troll look like a thoughtful, seasoned debater in comparison.