USA Bashing

Post Reply New Topic

Thomas Paine once asked a question concerning kings. What, he asked, if the Lion begets and Ass? There it is.

ruveyn

This is exactly my point. It's not merely a numbers game. Each vote is an important part of a collection. If blacks had not been given the right to vote, we would not have black candidates and the same goes for women. All are free to excercise their right not to vote as well. I have no problem with someone choosing not to participate, however, if you don't vote - don't b*tch.

Orwell, if you feel that we should instill a monarchy in this country, then by all means gather your petitions and start your movement (a democracy encourages such actions). Just please do not sit at your desk and do nothing other than complain. That sort of non-action is guaranteed not to change a thing.

Last edited by number5 on 15 Sep 2009, 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Silvervarg, you amuse me.

Stop referencing the "laws of nature" without describing what you're invoking. 1/x is counted as 0 for large values of x. You know the word "negligible," right?


Actually, my initial point was that democracy doesn't work because one person's effect is negligible, and yet the cost to them of making that effect is non-negligible. This is clearly an inefficient system, and the rational (utility-maximizing) decision for an individual is almost always to opt out of it. The debate later went into whether one person's effect really is negligible. I have demonstrated rather unassailably that it is.


And yet proponents of democracy like to emphasize the individualism that they claim comes with democracy. You sound more and more like a fascist with such talk of the "collective" over the individual. See, this is one of the contradictions of democracy. It claims to be individualistic when in reality it is collectivist. And what if I take issue with the fundamental assumption of democracy, that what the majority of people want must be right? I see no reason to believe this is true.


You're the one who brought math into the debate, not me. Don't jump in the lake if you can't swim.


Your analogy has absolutely nothing to do with democracy. Gandhi did not achieve Indian independence through the ballot box, but by nonviolent direct action. This is just as possible in a monarchy as it is in a democracy. It's just a feature of living in a civilized society, not unique to any particular system of government.


I was using an analogy to demonstrate the concept of something being negligible. You didn't understand the previous one (about air resistance) so I tried a different one. Evidently physics is not your forte either.


Rather, you keep bringing in delusional assumptions and sloppy reasoning which I repeatedly refute.

Seriously, I'm disappointed here. Arguments can certainly be made for democracy, but I haven't seen very cogent ones presented here. Sand has come closest, #5 has been hit or miss in places, but you've just been so far off the mark that I actually find it comical.

I have already stated that voters only matter when they aggregate into blocs. In America, for instance, Blacks and Jews vote Democrat, Cubans and evangelical Protestants vote Republican. (There are other voting blocs, of course, but those are some of the more reliable groups) But talking of collective action is meaningless to me. I am not a collective. I am me, one person. I can control only one vote- my own. This vote is worthless. The only way that changes is if I choose to give my vote up to be part of an aggregate. At this point, I am no longer a participant in some democratic process. I am a cog in a party machine. That is what advocates of democracy fail to realize.


Empty rhetoric.

I ignore such comments because they indicate the writer is falling back on generic, pre-readied one-liners and has given up on original thought. If you want to convince me, you need an original point.


I have already recognized that the age of monarchy is over. It would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to move from our current system to a monarchy. It is like the dozenal base system- yes, it is arguably a better system than we have now, but the difficulty of switching to it almost certainly outweighs the benefits. Same goes for Qwerty vs Dvorak, or UNIX vs Plan 9. A "good enough" solution has enough momentum that it is not going to be dislodged. So in practice I would work for whatever cause I favor within the existing pseudo-democratic system we have, rather than trying to scrap the system entirely and start afresh. In theory, I still like the idea of monarchy.

Ehh... hello...? No people = no goverment? Something is always more than nothing it does not matter who much you want to count it as zero, it's still something, otherwise you can just say that democracy don't work because all they get is a lot of "nothing" and no result can be produced.


Non-neligible = eligible? And to continue... what? It's too expencive for the government to let people vote?


Ok, you don't see the point.


They lived in a monarchy, you know that right? That was the major reason they didn't vote. Then the entire people "voted" for a democracy. And now they're there. Not my point however.
The point was that one person can make a difference. If his/her actions reflect the peoples wish. Mayby I should have called it Steve Biko instead.


How was it different from my tree or the hail? (Exept for the fact that it was used against you.)


Is he completly missing what I'm saying, or am I translating my arguments incorrectly?

Except the bulk of the difference comes from 'the peoples wish'.

one person = negligible
the people wish = the most of the energy.

In your words, stop denying physics.

By your argument a man sitting on a raft in the ocean, attempting to paddle, has more effect on his direction than the action of the waves. Wrong.

Or, perhaps, you are saying that the man should take the credit for his excellent velocity.. even though he is paddling in the same direction that the waves are pushing him. The leader gets all the credit for everyones hard work? Dont you believe in Janteloven?

A quick study of "Le Terror" in France's revolutionary time will illustrate this point. Robespierre thought he was guiding society but when the 'tide' shifted, he was helpless to even save his own life. In fact, he tried to shoot himself, but only managed to blow his jaw off and died in agony days later.

But they would have chopped his head off in any case.

Nobody, absolutely nobody, is in total control. No Queen, no Dictator, and certainly not The Leader Of The Free World. The mob rules always, and our various forms of government are all about social constraint.

What in the world do they teach you in those Swedish schools? Can't you even keep track of the variables you've declared? 1/x is referring to an individual's power, x would be the number of people. If x is big (a lot of people) then 1/x is effectively 0 (each person has basically no power).

This is why democracy is a bad idea. Why would I trust you and legions more like you to participate in governmental decisions when you lack such basic numerical comprehension?


Non-negligible = not negligible = significant. As to the rest of your comment, :facepalm:. You haven't studied economics either, have you?


You haven't made a point.


They were a colony of a parliamentary democracy.


It's different in the sense that it actually relates to the point I was making. Your analogies do not.


Honestly, I don't think it's either issue. I think it's more likely that your beliefs are just outright foolish and uninformed. It would be difficult for you to mistranslate basic math, along with your other claims, so badly (and repeatedly) and I am more than capable of understanding what is put in front of me, so the most likely conclusion is that you simply don't know what you're talking about.

I don't believe that I've got my larger point across just yet. The benefit of democracy is not specifically in the idea of "one man - one vote," but rather the power an individual has on bringing forth change. For example, if Orwell wanted to create a monarchy representation in our current system, he would be free to start his own agenda by creating a party for which he would find x amount of members. If enough people were interested, they would gain recogition and have potential to make significant changes to our system. Of course there would need to be a large enough (or loud enough, wealthy enough, etc.) group to get it done. We all recognize that voting power exists only with great numbers, but the power of the people does not lie solely within the vote. We each have the right to start our own party and agenda if we like. Obviously in practice, it's not easy. The mob may rule, but that same mob was started by an individual.

I still don't see any sense or purpose in complaining about something in which you have no intent on changing, or no belief that it can be changed. Either change what you cannot accept, or accept what you cannot change. No whining allowed.

Although I disagree with Orwell on hs choice of government basically on the concept that a monarchy provides leadership by random selection and his choice indicates he feels it really doesn't matter who is in charge. I feel it does matter and our present system of plutocracy masquerading as a republic still provides a bit of response to current problems in the choice of leaders. Ideally there would be some form or government by competent people and the fundamental problem is that the citizenry as a whole is required to be well informed and sensible in their choice of leaders. Orwell has a good point in that the bulk of citizens are not minimally well informed nor aware of how to judge competence. I think these things can be remedied. He thinks they cannot. He is not whining when he presents his viewpoint, merely convinced an authoritarian system is worthwhile. I disagree.

I see your point, but I disagree with you still. Direct action, forming large groups of people to petition the government, etc is still possible outside of a democracy. Democracy's main distinctive characteristic is the system of elections or referendums. The examples you have cited of working to directly make a positive difference in your community are possible (and worthwhile) endeavors under almost any governmental system. But that's not what I was talking about. People tend to falsely conflate democracy with any number of other things, such as civil liberties. The two do not necessarily go together, nor is one required for the other.


Out of curiosity, how do you think this can be done? Purely through education? I have seen people go through some of the best schools available and still come out as complete morons, so I am pessimistic about the potential of education to remedy such issues.

[b]Orwell wrote

I understand and am sympathetic with your pessimism. It's not a matter of how as I am no expert in the matter. But you are insisting that is is impossible and I am saying it is not as it is vital in a democratic form of government and it must be done and regressing to an authoritative government form is to accept failure. It seems to me it is more a matter of culture than just policy. Over a period of time things like slavery, mistreatment of women and animals (please, do not imply the two are the same) and brutality towards children have gradually changed in western culture for the better. The middle east and Africa, amongst other cultures, are still primitive in these areas but advance is not just possible, it is necessary. I don't see it as easy but technological advances in communication are helping. It must be seen, and grasped as a goal.

Thank you for finaly understanding:

But power non the less.


Let me just say that I'm glad you're not anyones king.


Non-negligible = not negligible = significant. As to the rest of your comment, :facepalm:. You haven't studied economics either, have you?[/quote]
Ahh, thank you, my translator made a "smart" translation by automaticly change word to what it though I meant.
Please enlighten me why it's too expencive to let people vote.


Ruled by the vice king of India.


"Of course not."


I wasn't asking you, I was asking the readers. (If we have any. ^^)

*facepalm*

OK, so you didn't understand either of my physics analogies. I'm not sure how else to describe the concept to you. Fuzzy gave it a shot as well a few posts back. When a value is so small as to not matter, it is just counted as 0. We say that this value is negligible. The value of 1/x is negligible for large values of x. Honestly, a vote is more negligible than air resistance or time dilation at low speeds, because an individual vote has absolutely 0 effect. The result of an election is discrete (either this candidate or that candidate) rather than continuous (faster- or slower-moving car after accounting for air resistance). Air resistance and time dilation do make a difference... just not one that's big enough to matter or even be measured. A single vote simply does not make a difference.


I'm not interested in the job.


I never said that. If you don't have at least a basic background in economics, then a good explanation of my argument would take way too long.

Let's see if I can make it concise: 1/x is the power of the vote. When x is big, 1/x is small. Very small. Small enough that the outcome is not affected by 1/x, and never will be. But people have to invest a lot of time reading up on political issues if they are going to make an informed decision (which most do not) not to mention all the time and hassle on election day to cast a vote. So from the individual perspective: the cost of voting is high (you have to get informed about the issues and candidates, deal with the bureaucracy in charge of elections, and wait in line to vote) and the payoff is basically 0 (you will not affect the outcome of the election). Thus, the rational (utility-maximizing) decision for an individual is to choose not to vote.

That's the gist of it, at least.


Well, it's true. Your hail and seed have nothing to do with the vote, which is the defining feature of democracy. At the ballot box, the power of one vote is more or less static. It doesn't grow from something unimpressive to something substantial. It just is always worthless.

Ohh, I do understand them, but they are not used correctly, there for I ignore them.
No, a single vote don't make the difference, and it shouldn't unless it's exactly 50-50. But it still contributes. And that was not what you said either, you said that one person can't effect the government:

I (and history) have proved you wrong. Several individuals has forced governments to change. In a true democracy, (much) less violence is needed. Less violence = less suffering = better system.


I think I can handle it. (If my translator is up for the job. ^^)


Yes! You will affect it, but you won't settle it. No matter who you are and what you do, you won't have any more voting-power than anyone els, that's the good part.


That would depend on your view.

But I'm not speaking about large groups petetioning the government. I'm talking about the ability to form large groups, or a political party, within the democracy, for which citizens may cast their vote. This is not possible in a monarchy, and probably not possible in most, if not all, other governmental systems (I cannot speak with complete certainty on this one, but I'm pretty sure that this is true).

Please don't mistake my defense of democracy for an affinity for democracy. There are absolutly many faults within it, particularly in our own country, but I do believe that it provides the best basis for government. To say that only the best and the brightest should be able to have a say is both arrogant and ignorant. There's no way that some urban Harvard grad has any idea what is best for a farmer in Oklahoma. Besides, stupidity is a very subjective term. Who's to say which voters are making their vote for the wrong reason. I'm pretty sure that most voters feel that they are making the right choice. We all vary in opinions, and what may seem smart to one person may seem stupid to another. I do think we should be doing a better job at educating our youth, but that does not address the radical differences in opinion we all have. We should all be free to vote with our own best interests in mind.

They are used correctly.


Um... that's what I've been saying the whole time. One voter has no power in an election. It "contributing" is meaningless because then you are viewing people as aggregates, not as individuals.


No, neither you nor history have done any such thing. The means you and number5 have listed as ways for people to change government do not involve voting and are thus available to people even without a democratic system being in place. If you are acting outside of politics, then the political system is irrelevant.


No, I will not affect it. The last time I voted, not only did my vote not affect the outcome in my state, my state did not affect the outcome of the election. You are right only in that no one has more voting-power than anyone else (in theory at least, in practice this is false at least in the US). So everyone is equally impotent. I don't see how this is a good thing.


No, it is objectively true. One vote is one vote is one vote. It does not change. It is always one vote. The seed and hail analogies could work to describe community action, like starting a grass-roots organization where your initial small contribution could snowball into something significant, but they certainly do not apply to voting.