(March 26, 2015 at 12:21 pm)Dystopia Wrote: I don't see the relevance, if you overthrow the regime you automatically overthrow corporations as well.

That doesn't follow. Corporations don't go out of business when revolutions occur, unless the new regime stamps them out of existence. Such a step is not automatic.

(March 26, 2015 at 12:21 pm)Dystopia Wrote: If voting is useless then you don't live in a democracy, and therefore making voting mandatory is ok even if it is anti-democratic.

I don't think voting is useless. I think many votes are cancelled out by the votes of idiots who cotton to talking points rather than actually thinking about their vote.

(March 26, 2015 at 7:04 am)Aractus Wrote: An equitable democracy means that everyone has an equal voice, and that all socioeconomic classes and all other sub-groups of society (for example, women) have an equal say and an equal opportunity in voting.

Without that you do not have a real democracy.

(emphasis is mine)

Why is silence not an acceptable way of using my equal voice?!?

(March 26, 2015 at 7:04 am)Aractus Wrote: An equitable democracy means that everyone has an equal voice, and that all socioeconomic classes and all other sub-groups of society (for example, women) have an equal say and an equal opportunity in voting. Without that you do not have a real democracy.

There is no issue with people having an equal opportunity to vote, this is established. The fact that some people choose not to exercise their right to vote is not sufficient reason for the state to dictate my behavior.

(March 26, 2015 at 7:04 am)Aractus Wrote: Um, perhaps you don't understand. Let's say Joe is a member of the working class, and Joe exercises his right to vote at every election, as does all of his friends. Joe is frustrated though that his group is under-represented because other members of his socioeconomic class don't see the same value in voting that he does. Is that [i/]his fault[/i]? "Fuck him"? I don't think so. It's a population benefit.

Um, perhaps you don't understand the definition of apathy. This is the only reasonable explanation for you targeting an engaged voter as the object of my disdain.

(March 26, 2015 at 7:04 am)Aractus Wrote: Well now I've given you a new example. Not wearing your seatbelt does not put another person at risk.

After what I have already shared, do you honestly think I would find this argument compelling? Seat belt laws for adults should be repealed; the same for states with motorcycle helmet laws. You aren't advocating for a free society, you are pushing a form of paternalism.

It also seems as if you are arguing that since there are already liberty eroding laws on the books then I should just accept more.

---

(March 26, 2015 at 12:18 pm)Dystopia Wrote:

Quote:"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ..." - Thomas Jefferson (original draft of the Declaration of Independence).

Not to mention that the quote is full of complete utter bullshit that remains to be proven, I see no reason to hold it as being the truth because it's based merely on classic liberalism and its principles.

So you support a society where a fellow citizen or the state can arbitrarily and without reasonable cause or justification deprive you of your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?

(March 26, 2015 at 11:02 am)AFTT47 Wrote: You are ignoring the practical aspect.

You CANNOT compel a person to make anything but a totally uninformed, random or deliberately stupid vote. How is it helping democracy to drag someone kicking and screaming into a voting booth only to have him/her randomly pull a lever and counter the vote of someone who actually does give a shit and just spent the last six months following the issues and the candidates and make an informed decision?

Incorrect, all you're compelling them to do is show up to the ballot place and place a ballot in the ballot box. Jurors are required to cast their vote in the jury room, they can't make a blank vote. All you're asking of citizens is that they attend a polling booth and place a ballot paper in the box.

---

(March 26, 2015 at 1:35 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: (emphasis is mine)

Why is silence not an acceptable way of using my equal voice?!?

Because it's not an equal voice to that of someone who cast a vote.

---

(March 26, 2015 at 5:39 pm)Cato Wrote: After what I have already shared, do you honestly think I would find this argument compelling? Seat belt laws for adults should be repealed; the same for states with motorcycle helmet laws. You aren't advocating for a free society, you are pushing a form of paternalism.

(emphasis added).

(March 19, 2015 at 1:29 pm)abaris Wrote: Because an open society shouldn't enforce a right.

Voting is not a right, it is a privilege.

What did I say that was incorrect?

What is the point of compelling them to show up at a ballot place and vote when the quality of their vote is likely to be shit? The only thing you will accomplish is to pollute the vote. You'll get blank ballots, ballots marked at random and ballots marked for fringe candidates the voter selected out of spite for being forced to vote. Oh, you'll probably get a few legitimate votes too but they will be far outweighed by the bogus ones. Why would you want to deliberately fuck up the vote like this?

(March 26, 2015 at 12:18 pm)Dystopia Wrote: If the system is so corrupt that voting is completely useless (like some are saying) then why not start a revolution, overthrow the current regime and implement a new system?

The system is too large to fight. The system is also too large to maintain itself much longer. It is falling apart at the seams.

---

(March 26, 2015 at 6:45 pm)Aractus Wrote:

(March 26, 2015 at 1:35 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: Why is silence not an acceptable way of using my equal voice?!?

Because it's not an equal voice to that of someone who cast a vote.

Would not silence be the same as showing up and voting for 'none of the above'?

Quote:So you support a society where a fellow citizen or the state can arbitrarily and without reasonable cause or justification deprive you of your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?

- Why are those truths sacred and undeniable? And why are they even truths? Who appointed it?
- No one is created equal - We are all different and with different privileges. It's a terrible myth to say all men are created equal
- Your rights are not inalienable and inherent, that's another myth - Your rights only exist when the state allows you to exercise them, and even if you think that in liberal countries it's not like that there's a handful of States where society might disagree with you
- Life? The US has the death penalty. Tell me about it.
- Liberty? You only have it when it's convenient. Apparently since members are saying voting is so useless you don't have that much liberty
- Pursuit of happiness is a goal and prerogative, but not a right, you don't have a right to be happy and the main reason is that happiness means different things for everyone.

And no, I don't support such society, I'm just saying it's the quote is inaccurate and unrealistic. You may fancy about the classic liberalism principles that all men have liberty and are created equal but in practice it's not how it happens - Not to mention that America has lived according to liberalism it's whole lifespan and has never known another system so it's not reliable to ask America what freedom means

Quote:The system is too large to fight. The system is also too large to maintain itself much longer. It is falling apart at the seams.

Then get ready for a new system in the next decades - Something new may be coming up. You never know what's next. Who would have predicted in 1700 that in 50 years something called liberalism would show up?

(March 26, 2015 at 6:45 pm)Aractus Wrote:

SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:Why is silence not an acceptable way of using my equal voice?!?

Because it's not an equal voice to that of someone who cast a vote.

Bullshit. If I choose not to speak that is just as much my right as it is to speak out.

If I'm using my silence to say "None of the above?" Why should I be forced to a polling place to do that, especially when it's not a choice on the ballot?

(March 26, 2015 at 6:45 pm)Aractus Wrote:

(March 26, 2015 at 5:39 pm)Cato Wrote: After what I have already shared, do you honestly think I would find this argument compelling? Seat belt laws for adults should be repealed; the same for states with motorcycle helmet laws. You aren't advocating for a free society, you are pushing a form of paternalism.

(emphasis added).

Is there a point you're trying to make? Or are you agreeing with me?

Certainly you're not so daft as to drag this conversation down to the level of debating the inability of children to make decisions or the state's compelling interest to protect them from stupid parents are you?

You must realize that you're proving my observation of your sympathies for paternalism. Paternalism gets its name from the fact that in such systems states deprive its citizens of freedoms and responsibilities like a parent does a child.