NationStates Jolt Archive

Noting that, as of today at 4:38 AM GMT, "Other" is the second most favored option in the first poll on the topic (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499390), I thought it necessary to create a new poll for measuring current public opinion concerning the political parties running in the Fourth NS General Elections (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499225).

(My intention is not to cause spam on the forum, however, if this thread constitutes such, then please dispose of it as necessary. It is not my intention to violate any rules, but rather to give those parties currently jammed under "other" a chance to be fully represented on their own, based on their individual merit.)

So, which NS General Political Party do you support? (options are listed alphabetically, as on the main Fourth NS General Election (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499225) thread)

I'll say it once and I'll say it all the days of my life...

Free Republic Forever!

Oh look, a poll!

You better Choose Wisely, or you'll regret it.

H is for Honesty
R is for Respectability
and P is for Protective of your liberties

Vote for the HRP
Because the other options are not free

I probably will vote UDCP, though I have considerable reservations regarding their curtailment of free association and voluntary labor.

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/9784/freedompwnsas4.png

VOTE MOBRA!!!

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/9784/freedompwnsas4.png

I think I just threw up a lil..

I think I just threw up a lil..
Good.

Autonomist Party...the only one worth a damn this time around, IMO.

VOTE MOBRA!
Freedom will only make you throw up.

VOTE MOBRA!
Freedom will only make you throw up.

"But I like the inconveniences."

"We don't," said the Controller. "We perfer to do things comfortably."

"But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin."

"In fact," said Mustapha Mond, "you're claiming the right to be unhappy."

"All right then," said the Savage defiantly, "I'm claiming the right to be unhappy."

"Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen tomorrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of very kind."

There was a long silence.

"I claim them all," said the Savage at last.

--- Brave New World by Aldous Huxley




Claim the right to throw up.

Vote for The Autonomist Party. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288) :D

The alcohol party!

http://www.hlj.me.uk/ns/OFMP/OFMP%20small.jpg


booya.

There is only one right choice, so choose wisely!

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/2629/cwp04si6.jpg

:D

Where's the Alcohol Party on that poll? :(

http://www.hlj.me.uk/ns/OFMP/OFMP%20small.jpg


booya.
OFMP
Oppression Fascism Mediocrity Pathetic!

Vote MOBRA!

<singing, to the tune of "Respect">
Vote for the UDCP!
The best party in NSG
Vote for the UDCP!

Where's the Alcohol Party on that poll? :(
good question, maybe it will be up in the next poll:)

Human Rights Party all the way!

Human
Rights
Party

Because economic extremism is never free.

Free Republic! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499170)

For the ultimate freedom of all individuals!

Free Republic! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499170)

For the ultimate freedom of all individuals!

* So long as freedom constitutes 2 years of slavery in exchange for the right to voice an opinion that you will have to abandon if it doesn't match national politics.

Human Rights Party all the way!*

*Note: Name subject to change should a sentient alien species join the NS country. The Human Rights Party is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

Damn! The National Socialists have been cut out again!

Damn! The National Socialists have been cut out again!

Only officially listed parties are being added to the poll...

We need the "Anti-Joke Party Alliance*" back again.

*Or whatever it was called

* So long as freedom constitutes 2 years of slavery in exchange for the right to voice an opinion that you will have to abandon if it doesn't match national politics.

Yet again, we can count on dumbed-down, hyperbole, fearmongering lies from the opposition. The only thing that is required of a government is to protect individual rights. How we come to the proper enforcement of these rights is utterly, and totally, irrelevant- there is nothing nobler about a democracy that mass-murders than a dictatorship that mass-murders. Voting is not an individual right, because its effects force people to do things. The rather dubious hope of democracy is that the 51 will be kind to the 49- how is this any kind of "freedom"?

What the Free Republic party aims to do is make it so that the government, a monopoly of force, uses its capabilities to protect the people's individual rights instead of denying them to the people. There are two fundamental problems with democracy- rational ignorance of the public at large and powerful statist groups that are able to manipulate the public into serving their own ends at the expense of individual liberty. Our service is not slavery- slavery is not voluntary, as the choice to do service is. The service does two things- A.) It makes people show that they value the right to vote, and one who values something will not waste it, thus eliminating rational ignorance. B.) The service is to the great benefit of other people who are not in service, with the only certain outcome of the one performing service being one vote among a sea of millions. Few people would do good unto others just to get the privilege to punch holes in some paper every year- most every iindividual would act for of the greater good of all individuals, as this is the only logical conclusion.

Don't listen to the vacuous falsehoods of naysayers and pawns of powerful statists. Vote Free Republic.

MOBRA, bitches

Paid for by DynamiCorp

Noting that, as of today at 4:38 AM GMT, "Other" is the second most favored option in the first poll on the topic (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499390), I thought it necessary to create a new poll for measuring current public opinion concerning the political parties running in the Fourth NS General Elections (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499225).

(My intention is not to cause spam on the forum, however, if this thread constitutes such, then please dispose of it as necessary. It is not my intention to violate any rules, but rather to give those parties currently jammed under "other" a chance to be fully represented on their own, based on their individual merit.)

So, which NS General Political Party do you support? (options are listed alphabetically, as on the main Fourth NS General Election (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499225) thread)

Teh AWSL (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499711
) will beat you all when we get off the ground.

Currently, we have no means of getting up. :(

Yet again, we can count on dumbed-down, hyperbole, fearmongering lies from the opposition. The only thing that is required of a government is to protect individual rights. How we come to the proper enforcement of these rights is utterly, and totally, irrelevant- there is nothing nobler about a democracy that mass-murders than a dictatorship that mass-murders. Voting is not an individual right, because its effects force people to do things. The rather dubious hope of democracy is that the 51 will be kind to the 49- how is this any kind of "freedom"?

What the Free Republic party aims to do is make it so that the government, a monopoly of force, uses its capabilities to protect the people's individual rights instead of denying them to the people. There are two fundamental problems with democracy- rational ignorance of the public at large and powerful statist groups that are able to manipulate the public into serving their own ends at the expense of individual liberty. Our service is not slavery- slavery is not voluntary, as the choice to do service is. The service does two things- A.) It makes people show that they value the right to vote, and one who values something will not waste it, thus eliminating rational ignorance. B.) The service is to the great benefit of other people who are not in service, with the only certain outcome of the one performing service being one vote among a sea of millions. Few people would do good unto others just to get the privilege to punch holes in some paper every year- most every iindividual would act for of the greater good of all individuals, as this is the only logical conclusion.

Don't listen to the vacuous falsehoods of naysayers and pawns of powerful statists. Vote Free Republic.

Wow... The Moderate/Rational-Libertarian party is being labeled as statists, while the party that enslaves people if they want a say in their own lives is the opposition of statism. I read your manifesto and what struck me most was that you demand that your citizens emerge from service with an understanding of everyone's self ownership.

So, not only are you advocating that to gain a right to control of one's life, one must take part in "service" to the state, you are requiring that people exit service agreeing with the state. I don't know about you, but that sounds more like Fascism to me.

Wow... The Moderate/Rational-Libertarian party is being labeled as statists, while the party that enslaves people if they want a say in their own lives is the opposition of statism. I read your manifesto and what struck me most was that you demand that your citizens emerge from service with an understanding of everyone's self ownership.

So, not only are you advocating that to gain a right to control of one's life, one must take part in "service" to the state, you are requiring that people exit service agreeing with the state. I don't know about you, but that sounds more like Fascism to me.

Despite your creative interpretation, our manifesto does not say that one must "agree" with the state about any philosophy, it says that the purpose of the service is to help other's individual rights. No one would want to help individual rights unless they understood self-ownership. And voting has absolutely nothing to do with "having a say in one's life"- why do such a large number of people not vote in elections? Is this because they don't have anything to say about their lives? No- it's because they don't care about how the government applies its monopoly of force.

No matter what any party says, if it does not change or eliminate the institutions that allow for greater and greater encroachement on individual rights, it is statist, whether intentionally or not. Any movement for individual rights is doomed to failure if it does not eliminate the greatest push against individual rights, and becomes little more than a speed bump for the increasing power of totalitarians.

*sigh* I miss running a Bolshevik party.

*sigh* I miss running a Bolshevik party.

I miss making propaganda for it.

I miss making propaganda for it.

I think we engaged more in agitation and less in propaganda.

we were too lazy for propaganda.

I think we engaged more in agitation and less in propaganda.

we were too lazy for propaganda.
But we sure showed those petty socialists.

But we sure showed those petty socialists.

social fascists more like

social fascists more like

Those were the days.

social fascists more like

Yeah, we know how well that line worked.

Yeah, we know how well that line worked.IHey, the RTP won a seat in parliament.

IHey, the RTP won a seat in parliament.

And the Nazis came to power in Germany.

Weird that a Trotskyist would use the term.

Yeah, we know how well that line worked.

joke?

And the Nazis came to power in Germany.

Weird that a Trotskyist would use the term.

But we have full beards, not a gay square of hair under the nose.

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1592/hrpesll4.jpg

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1592/hrpesll4.jpg

http://www.hlj.me.uk/pics/UDCP.jpg
Human rights... and more!

Vote UDCP!

And voting has absolutely nothing to do with "having a say in one's life"- why do such a large number of people not vote in elections? Is this because they don't have anything to say about their lives? No- it's because they don't care about how the government applies its monopoly of force.


Actually, there are any number of reasons why voter turn out could be so low. For instance, the way in which an electoral system is constructed plays a significant role. Taking the United States as an example, the plurality voting system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_past_the_post) (also known as "first past the post") helps create and maintain a two party system (according to Duverger's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law)), one of Republicans and Democrats. In turn, the two party system causes each major party to drive toward the center in order to maximize potential votes gained. The result is a lack of parties that actually stand a chance of winning a given election, with a high degree of similarity between each; essentially one's electoral system consists of two parties that are more or less identical to a very high degree.

Limiting an electoral system to the participation of only two parties leaves a potentially large segment of the given population unrepresented. Those inclined toward libertarianism, green politics, socialism, communism, various religious ideologies, or those who simply oppose the politics of the two major parties for whatever reason must resort to the frustrating and demoralizing practice of voting for "the lesser of two evils." Many will refuse to participate in such a way, out of principle. Many may simply see no point in voting because the two major parties are so similar, and only one of those two parties stands any chance of winning anyway.

So you see, people can very well care a great deal about how their government operates and what it does. But the construction of the electoral system may leave those same people feeling disenfranchised to a great degree, thus discouraging participation. People care very much how the government applies its monopoly of force against them, but they cannot express their concern if the electoral system does not give them a chance.

Additionally, people often cite increasingly busy lives as playing a role in discouraging electoral participation. Of course, some of the proposed solutions for this include being able to register at the polls on election day, so all the necessary preparation can be dealt with at the same time as the actual vote, saving the voter time and effort which might have otherwise discouraged participation. At any rate, a system that will increase the burden on the voting public, by requiring "service" in order to exercise what is a basic political right, isn't going to help much in that respect. (edit: but maybe this is the intended purpose of such a system of national "service"...)

----------

Your Liberty awaits you. Take it.

Vote for The Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288).

-snip-

Unfortunately, poll after poll by Gallup and other polling agencies have shown that the American public is largely ignorant of politics, and do not have any particular things they like or dislike about the two parties. If this 50% portion of people who don't vote were actually in the marginal parties, they would obviously have something to say about either party... but they never do. So, obviously, there's quite a few people who actually don't really care about how government uses its monopoly of force, or have invested so little time into finding out what they do that they operate basically off of hyperbole and falsehoods. Hence, rational ignorance.

Also, various other measures to amend the electoral system, such as direct election of senators and open primaries, have passed through. If it has been shown that so many people can and change the electoral system, why haven't they changed the first-past-the-post system to be more inclusive of other parties? Likely because marginal parties aren't that large a factor in low voter turnout.

At any rate, a system that will increase the burden on the voting public, by requiring "service" in order to exercise what is a basic political right, isn't going to help much in that respect. (edit: but maybe this is the intended purpose of such a system of national "service"...)

Ooh, scary! But no, conspiracies aside, the national service is intended to eliminate rational ignorance through the self-evident principle that that which one values, one will not waste. If you spend two years working for that one vote, you will not just throw it away- you will put it to its best use.

Despite your creative interpretation, our manifesto does not say that one must "agree" with the state about any philosophy, it says that the purpose of the service is to help other's individual rights. No one would want to help individual rights unless they understood self-ownership. And voting has absolutely nothing to do with "having a say in one's life"- why do such a large number of people not vote in elections? Is this because they don't have anything to say about their lives? No- it's because they don't care about how the government applies its monopoly of force.

No matter what any party says, if it does not change or eliminate the institutions that allow for greater and greater encroachement on individual rights, it is statist, whether intentionally or not. Any movement for individual rights is doomed to failure if it does not eliminate the greatest push against individual rights, and becomes little more than a speed bump for the increasing power of totalitarians.

This from a fascist in his own right? Forgive me if I don't take you seriously:

• Through this term of service, the new voters will have provided a reasonable amount of proof that A.) They respect the self-ownership of others, and B.) That they believe that it is worth a sacrifice of their time to have the ability to vote. This will cancel out both tyranny of government as well as rational ignorance of the voting body.

Seems like government sponsored brainwashing to me. How statist of you.

Unfortunately, poll after poll by Gallup and other polling agencies have shown that the American public is largely ignorant of politics, and do not have any particular things they like or dislike about the two parties.


Cite these polls; I want to see actual data. Destroying the validity and conclusions of public opinion polls is basic Political Science 101. We do it in our sleep. :D


If this 50% portion of people who don't vote were actually in the marginal parties, they would obviously have something to say about either party... but they never do.


Of they can't because the electoral system is specifically designed to prevent it.


Also, various other measures to amend the electoral system, such as direct election of senators and open primaries, have passed through.


Direct election doesn't mean much where there are only two highly similar parties that stand any chance of winning.

Of course, the purpose of the open primary is to allow anyone to select a candidate under any party, regardless of whether that individual is registered under or a member of that party. For small "third" parties, this serves to destroy party unity as well as allowing strategic infiltration from opposition parties; for example, a large group of Party A members voting for Party B's weakest candidate, in hopes of undermining Party B's overall campaign.

Again, the major parties, because they already enjoy far greater publicity, voter support, and entrenchment in the political system, need not fear open primaries nearly as much as minor "third" parties, for whom the open primary is a direct and real threat.


If it has been shown that so many people can and change the electoral system, why haven't they changed the first-past-the-post system to be more inclusive of other parties?


All your example shows is that the electoral system can be changed to further entrench the two major parties at the expense of all others.


...the national service is intended to eliminate rational ignorance...


Of course it is. By eliminating voters.

This from a fascist in his own right? Forgive me if I don't take you seriously:

Seems like government sponsored brainwashing to me. How statist of you.

It seems like government sponsored brainwashing to you because you're twisting things to try and win the debate. If I were to see an old lady accidentally drop a large amount of money out of her purse, and I could take it but decide to give it back to her, would you say that that's proof that I'm a nice person? Same thing with the service- people who protect others from force and fraud prove they respect self-ownership of other people. There's no "indoctrination" needed. You can call us fascist and statist all you want, but we're still the most committed and most capable of protecting individual rights.

Cite these polls; I want to see actual data. Destroying the validity and conclusions of public opinion polls is basic Political Science 101. We do it in our sleep. :D

Sure thing. In the 1996 National Election Study, 30% of respondents responded as follows:

Is there anything in particular that you like about the Democratic Party?
No.

Is there anything in particular that you don't like about the Democratic Party?
No.

Is there anything in particular you like about the Republican Party?
No.

Is there anything in particular you don't like about the Republican Party?
No.

Obviously, this is the face of rational ignorance, and not of unwilling marginal voters. And if you say that public opinion polls are meaningless, then that means that you can't really determine either what makes voter turnout so low. We would basically be reduced to intuiting what we think is wrong with the system, which would be very weak evidence.

Of they can't because the electoral system is specifically designed to prevent it.

And the selection of political candidates in closed doors and the election of Senate members by legislatures was not equally protected by the existing electoral system of the time?

Of course, the purpose of the open primary is to allow anyone to select a candidate under any party, regardless of whether that individual is registered under or a member of that party. For small "third" parties, this serves to destroy party unity as well as allowing strategic infiltration from opposition parties; for example, a large group of Party A members voting for Party B's weakest candidate, in hopes of undermining Party B's overall campaign.

Open primaries weaken the party unity of big parties too- take the bitter 1968 Democratic primary, for example. Also, it's not that difficult for people to infiltrate the other big parties and try to bring them down as well- you just need to register and that's that. In fact, I remember in Michigan I believe, where anyone can vote for any candidate in a primary, Democratic voters gave John McCain the win in that primary.

Again, the major parties, because they already enjoy far greater publicity, voter support, and entrenchment in the political system, need not fear open primaries nearly as much as minor "third" parties, for whom the open primary is a direct and real threat.

Even so, if there are so many marginalized voters, enough to make up for massively low voter turnout, why do they not vote for primary candidates that reflect their views? Certainly if around half of the populace is not voting because they feel marginalized, they'd make a pretty large base with which one could ride to victory.

Of course it is. By eliminating voters.

If everyone did the service, rational ignorance would be almost completely wiped out, and we would have the same number of voters as before. Elimination of rational ignorance and the elimination of voters do not necessarily go hand in hand- what does go hand-in-hand is the elimination of rational ignorance by making people earn the vote.

It seems like government sponsored brainwashing to you because you're twisting things to try and win the debate. If I were to see an old lady accidentally drop a large amount of money out of her purse, and I could take it but decide to give it back to her, would you say that that's proof that I'm a nice person? Same thing with the service- people who protect others from force and fraud prove they respect self-ownership of other people. There's no "indoctrination" needed. You can call us fascist and statist all you want, but we're still the most committed and most capable of protecting individual rights.


I don't see how a statist, who supports forcing people to submit to the government to gain control of themselves can even hope to be opposed to a large state.

Worse yet, who are you to judge what traits are possitive in voters? It sounds like you might be interested in... hmm... influencing the vote by eliminating voters who won't agree with government service. Who needs democracy anyway :rolleyes:?

Plato was wrong, and Heinlein was wrong as well.

VOTE MOBRA!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v630/harlesburg/GerbilPanzerLehr.jpg

Sure thing. In the 1996 National Election Study, 30% of respondents responded as follows:


I would prefer direct access to the data myself, rather than a carefully selected intrepretation thereof. And besides, a single study on a single election (or a single anything) doesn't really demonstrate anything. At best, one has provided a description of a specific event. One has not demonstrated a trend or tendency regarding the voting population of any kind.

Quoting a single line out of context does not a convincing argument make. :)

(edit: This is why public opinion polls are dubious sources of information at best. Not only can they be highly manipulative in terms of participation, wording of questions, and presentation of results, but then people like to claim that a description of such dubious information at a single point of time and from a very small segment of the population somehow represents long term trends or universal conclusions about an entire population.)


And the selection of political candidates in closed doors and the election of Senate members by legislatures was not equally protected by the existing electoral system of the time?


This would be relevant if I had actually advocated closed primaries or indirect elections, which I have not. I simply pointed out how open primaries/direct elections can be used to manipulate elections, counter to the idea that they represent empowerment of voters. Doing so does not imply automatic advocacy of the opposite.


Open primaries weaken the party unity of big parties too


This point has already been acknowledged. However, open primaries will harm minor parties to a far greater extent, as they already start of a far weaker position than do major parties.


Certainly if around half of the populace is not voting because they feel marginalized, they'd make a pretty large base with which one could ride to victory.


This would matter if the major parties did not already have a death grip of the electoral process to an extent large enough to ensure success even without all those potential voters.


Elimination of rational ignorance and the elimination of voters do not necessarily go hand in hand- what does go hand-in-hand is the elimination of rational ignorance by making people earn the vote.

Of course, the key word being necessarily. Unless one addresses the plethora of other factors involved in preventing electoral participation other than "rational ignorance," this is exactly the effect that one's "national service" plan will have: further discouragement of participation. One may not intend for such to happen, but it is what will happen regardless.

Direct election doesn't mean much where there are only two highly similar parties that stand any chance of winning.

If there were ten, what difference would it make? Policy would still be "highly similar."

If there were ten, what difference would it make? Policy would still be "highly similar."

Our discussion involves examination of the situation as exists in the United States, where this isn't the case. Thus, considering the situation in the presense of more than two major parties is irrevelant. Such is not the situation as it actually exists in the domain being studied. (edit: as such, I am not entirely sure how to intrepret such a response.)

Our discussion involves examination of the situation as exists in the United States, where this isn't the case. Thus, considering the situation in the presense of more than two major parties is irrevelant. Such is not the situation as it actually exists in the domain being studied. (edit: as such, I am not entirely sure how to intrepret such a response.)

Sure it's relevant.

You have been arguing that the high abstention rates in the US are a consequence of the two-party system, because it doesn't offer much in the way of choice. I am arguing that a multiparty system would not change this feature much, and that thus your explanation is insufficient.

Sure it's relevant.

You have been arguing that the high abstention rates in the US are a consequence of the two-party system, because it doesn't offer much in the way of choice. I am arguing that a multiparty system would not change this feature much, and that thus your explanation is insufficient.

What is your empirical evidence? What is a real world example?

What is your empirical evidence? What is a real world example?

You made the contention that the reason was the two-party system; you should be the one supporting it empirically.

I don't see any obvious reason why it would be much different; government by coalition is more democratic than government by one of two parties, but not immensely so, and not enough to make its decisions relevant enough to greatly alter the apathy level.

Holy God, we're in the lead! Go Human Rights Party!

Holy God, we're in the lead! Go Human Rights Party!

Your platform is vague enough that I'm not surprised.

Your platform is vague enough that I'm not surprised.

Not exactly true. Our platform is a moderate platform which gives broad outlines of concepts, but leaves individual descisions up to interpretation on their own merits. Being a moderate means that pragmatism, and not ideology, drives descision making. We aren't extremists (Apparently, we're basically unique in that regard).

Not exactly true. Our platform is a moderate platform which gives broad outlines of concepts, but leaves individual descisions up to interpretation on their own merits.

That is, it uses meaningless, unsubstantive rhetoric instead of actually explaining what decisions it would make.

Being a moderate means that pragmatism, and not ideology, drives descision making.

No, it doesn't. As far as political parties go, it means you pick a fairly arbitrary "center" and you craft meaningless rhetoric around it to attract voters.

That is, it uses meaningless, unsubstantive rhetoric instead of actually explaining what decisions it would make.

Right. You see, the planks are broader ideological guidelines. They aren't specific, down to the minute instructions. Those belong in laws, not in platforms.

No, it doesn't. As far as political parties go, it means you pick a fairly arbitrary "center" and you craft meaningless rhetoric around it to attract voters.

No, it means picking and choosing aspects of the right and left for those policies that they hold which are correct, and ignoring the absurd, unrealistic extremes.

Right. You see, the planks are broader ideological guidelines. They aren't specific, down to the minute instructions. Those belong in laws, not in platforms.

No, they belong in platforms. Not "minute instructions," but yes specific policies.

Your platform contains statements like the following:

2. The HRP beleives that a social safety net is just that, a net, not a bed. It beleives in helping people get to their feet, but not holding them because they are unwilling to try again.

4. The HRP beleives that a competitive market is good, as long as it is actually competitive, and as such supports regulation of industry to insure fairness and sustained competition.

Either one of those could be used to justify a dizzying array of different policies; the first is compatible with everything from communism to moderate neoliberalism, and the second with everything from left-wing social democracy to moderate neoliberalism. Why not be clearer? Because it might keep voters away from your party? Because you do not know yourself what you intend to do if you gain power?

No, it means picking and choosing aspects of the right and left for those policies that they hold which are correct, and ignoring the absurd, unrealistic extremes.

Um, that's what everyone does. How many people do you see advancing opinions that they don't think are correct? Moderates claim to believe in "pragmatism," but in actuality a good deal of them are just as irrationally attracted to the center as some radical leftists and radical rights are attracted to their respective extremes.

Their general failure to understand that "moderation" is a relative term, and thus cannot constitute policy positions in and of itself (unlike, say, coherent political ideologies), is indicative of this irrationality. How many people who exclaim about the superiority of "moderation" to "extremism" think that a "moderate" position on slavery, genocide, or totalitarianism would be legitimate?

The rather dubious hope of democracy is that the 51 will be kind to the 49- how is this any kind of "freedom"?

What the Free Republic party aims to do is make it so that the government, a monopoly of force, uses its capabilities to protect the people's individual rights instead of denying them to the people. The idea that the 51 will be kind to the 49 is exponentially less dubious than the idea that the 2 or 3 will be kind to the 97 or 98.

Unfortunately, poll after poll by Gallup and other polling agencies have shown that the American public is largely ignorant of politics, and do not have any particular things they like or dislike about the two parties. Well, yeah. If Dissonant Cognition's assessment of the two parties is correct in that they both move toward the center, then a centrist wouldn't have any galvanizing motivation to go to the polls to make their voice heard (as their position is probably advocated by the other party, as well) and an extremist can only feel apathy towards a centrist position, as it isn't likable, but not bad enough to dislike, either.

It seems like government sponsored brainwashing to you because you're twisting things to try and win the debate. If I were to see an old lady accidentally drop a large amount of money out of her purse, and I could take it but decide to give it back to her, would you say that that's proof that I'm a nice person? Same thing with the service- people who protect others from force and fraud prove they respect self-ownership of other people.If you were to give back the money knowing that you would get a reward from it, then that wouldn't necessarily make you a nice person; in this instance people are joining the military in order to receive the reward of suffrage.
Additionally, this ignores the segment of the populace who joins the military because they like killing people. Do we want these people (however many there are) to have a portion of the power? The power that they would have is greater than it would be in a system of universal suffrage.

VOTE MOBRA!
MOLES OF THE WORLD!

It is time to wake up to the horrors of a MOBRA Government!

MOBRA has SECRET PLANS to EXTERMINATE the entire mole population of the world, wot!

They need you OUT to let the people IN!

Stand up for what is right. Stand up for YOUR rights!

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e283/Slippery__Jim/britflsmall.jpg

Vote NBIP!
Moles for the Emparh! Huzzah!

I would prefer direct access to the data myself...
-snippage-
The key thing to remember is that i would prefer you to VOTE MOBRA!

MOLES OF THE WORLD!
BLATANT LIES!
That is hardly true!
3 Elections and not one Mole death!
DEATH TO ALL SURFACERS!

None of the above.

*resists urge to quote from Rage Against The Machine's "Guerilla Radio".*

I don't see how a statist, who supports forcing people to submit to the government to gain control of themselves can even hope to be opposed to a large state.

Worse yet, who are you to judge what traits are possitive in voters? It sounds like you might be interested in... hmm... influencing the vote by eliminating voters who won't agree with government service. Who needs democracy anyway :rolleyes: ?

Why not just drop all pretenses and call me Hitler or Nazi already? You don't seem to be very interested in debating anything or introducing new material, but rather in shrieking and incessant name-calling. That would be a lot less time-consuming for you, and you wouldn't need to repeat the same alarmist, disproven positions over and over again.

Plato was wrong, and Heinlein was wrong as well.

Plato was a proto-communist, and was indeed wrong. However, I do not draw inspiration from him, and neither does Heinlein (Heinlein criticizes Plato's Republic in one passage of Starship Troopers, and I vehemently agree). I agree with Heinlein in that a system without rational ignorance and the elimination of shadowy statist manipulation of the system would be the most conducive to individual liberties, which is the only justified position for government. If government fails to do this, it should be overthrown immediately.

I would prefer direct access to the data myself, rather than a carefully selected intrepretation thereof. And besides, a single study on a single election (or a single anything) doesn't really demonstrate anything. At best, one has provided a description of a specific event. One has not demonstrated a trend or tendency regarding the voting population of any kind.

Quoting a single line out of context does not a convincing argument make.

(edit: This is why public opinion polls are dubious sources of information at best. Not only can they be highly manipulative in terms of participation, wording of questions, and presentation of results, but then people like to claim that a description of such dubious information at a single point of time and from a very small segment of the population somehow represents long term trends or universal conclusions about an entire population.)

I had it on a loose piece of paper, so I'm not aware of any links to the study. Sorry. But I don't think you can really misinterpret what it says, as it's a direct quote with little ambiguity. If you have information to the contrary, I would like to see it, please. I'm quite curious too, ya know. ;)

This would be relevant if I had actually advocated closed primaries or indirect elections, which I have not. I simply pointed out how open primaries/direct elections can be used to manipulate elections, counter to the idea that they represent empowerment of voters. Doing so does not imply automatic advocacy of the opposite.

But the point still stands that an integral part of the election cycle to which powerful people would try to oppose, was still changed. I am not saying whether or not they empower voters- I am saying that they are something that certain powerful people would resist and change if they objected to it, much like with a two-party system.

This point has already been acknowledged. However, open primaries will harm minor parties to a far greater extent, as they already start of a far weaker position than do major parties.

I would not dispute this. But they are still a great detriment to major parties, so any gains are probably canceled out. The only reason that such a situation would come about would be because a large number of people wanted open primaries, to change the political system despite the wishes of the more powerful.

This would matter if the major parties did not already have a death grip of the electoral process to an extent large enough to ensure success even without all those potential voters.

But I've seen no evidence that there is such a large amount of people that have opposing viewpoints. One of the members of the House of Representatives is even a Socialist, which proves that those with marginalized viewpoints have some political clout. Why are there not more of them, and why do the statistics show that so many people are so utterly ignorant?

Of course, the key word being necessarily. Unless one addresses the plethora of other factors involved in preventing electoral participation other than "rational ignorance," this is exactly the effect that one's "national service" plan will have: further discouragement of participation. One may not intend for such to happen, but it is what will happen regardless.

Rational ignorance is the most deadly problem, and it has to be ended. I would not be opposed to other electoral participation reforms, but I don't think they would be necessary if people have given so much to get their vote- they'd likely register early and vote early, since they would not want what they got with their sweat and blood to go to waste. Those eligible to vote would have a massively higher turnout than before.

The idea that the 51 will be kind to the 49 is exponentially less dubious than the idea that the 2 or 3 will be kind to the 97 or 98.

Would you rather trust 2 or 3 rocket scientists to solve a complex mathematical equation, or 97 or 98 people off the street who are having the wrong answers shouted at them to do it?

Well, yeah. If Dissonant Cognition's assessment of the two parties is correct in that they both move toward the center, then a centrist wouldn't have any galvanizing motivation to go to the polls to make their voice heard (as their position is probably advocated by the other party, as well) and an extremist can only feel apathy towards a centrist position, as it isn't likable, but not bad enough to dislike, either.

But the polls show that so many people don't know anything about politics. Also, the once large Socialist party was able to overcome said possible apathy and integrate into the two major parties, with the result being a great pull to the political left in America almost immediately and today's policies almost completely resembling the old Socialists now. They managed to push the system to their advantage through using the electoral system- why do the extremists of today, if there are so many of them, not do so as well?

If you were to give back the money knowing that you would get a reward from it, then that wouldn't necessarily make you a nice person; in this instance people are joining the military in order to receive the reward of suffrage.
Additionally, this ignores the segment of the populace who joins the military because they like killing people. Do we want these people (however many there are) to have a portion of the power? The power that they would have is greater than it would be in a system of universal suffrage.

So you are saying that I am not a nice person because I give up $1000 to greedily get $100 dollars? If all I wanted was the money, I'd keep the greater sum, no? I doubt most people would be opposed to the $100, but it is still showing of integrity that they give up the much greater sum.

Unfortunately, I am aware of those people who would join the military for the chance to murder people. If they did their service, we would not deny them of the reward for it. This is because, while they are a bit off their rocker, they did not channel this inclination into randomly murdering people for the fun of it but rather that they chose to do so in a way that does not conflict with society. Additionally, the only certain outcome of their service is one vote in a sea of millions, which they may or may not be interested in at the end. If they were to try to run for public office including their psychotic tendencies, the more knowledgeable voting public would be much more able to detect signs of danger to individual liberties from these candidates (i.e. "I propose to kill group X" etc.)

Why not just drop all pretenses and call me Hitler or Nazi already? You don't seem to be very interested in debating anything or introducing new material, but rather in shrieking and incessant name-calling. That would be a lot less time-consuming for you, and you wouldn't need to repeat the same alarmist, disproven positions over and over again.

Why don't you actually disproove them, rather than insisting that they must have been disprooved previously? Yeah, that's what I thought.



Plato was a proto-communist, and was indeed wrong. However, I do not draw inspiration from him, and neither does Heinlein (Heinlein criticizes Plato's Republic in one passage of Starship Troopers, and I vehemently agree). I agree with Heinlein in that a system without rational ignorance and the elimination of shadowy statist manipulation of the system would be the most conducive to individual liberties, which is the only justified position for government. If government fails to do this, it should be overthrown immediately.


The thing that Heinlein and Plato share is blatant classism which opposes the rise of those best suited to be successful, and a system that means dissent agaisnt the system is impossible.

hmm. . . .
http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/8409/dsp1b0bp.gif

The thing that Heinlein and Plato share is blatant classism which opposes the rise of those best suited to be successful, and a system that means dissent agaisnt the system is impossible.

I would stop and wonder if Heinlein actually advocated the system described in Starship Troopers, or if said system was nothing more than a convienient literary vehicle for discussing more abstract ideas concerning the struggle between liberty and responsibility. At any rate, even the most cursory review of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, another Heinlein work, will destroy the notion that Heinlein necessarily supported any such situation where "dissent against the system is impossible." If that work is about anything, it is about dissenting against the system. If libertarianism has holy scriptures, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is it.

This, of course, is the danger of basing one's political beliefs or platforms on literary works of fiction: the author can explore any idea or system he or she wants, whether he or she actually advocates it, because advocacy isn't the point. The only person who knows what Heinlein believed in is Heinlein, and, unfortunately, he is no longer available for comment. Let us not put words into his mouth.

(edit: its a similar situation as those people who dress up at Trek conventions, learn Klingon, and argue over warp drive physics, or how many episodes there really are. **hears sound made by the purpose of science fiction zooming over all their heads**)

Would you rather trust 2 or 3 rocket scientists to solve a complex mathematical equation, or 97 or 98 people off the street who are having the wrong answers shouted at them to do it?I wouldn't trust rocket scientists to solve the problem of poverty, the equivalent of which you do when you put military experts in charge of doing so.

But the polls show that so many people don't know anything about politics. Also, the once large Socialist party was able to overcome said possible apathy and integrate into the two major parties, with the result being a great pull to the political left in America almost immediately and today's policies almost completely resembling the old Socialists now. They managed to push the system to their advantage through using the electoral system- why do the extremists of today, if there are so many of them, not do so as well?Power is more centralized in the hands of the two major parties than it was nearly a hundred years ago.
The two parties also have better propaganda in convincing people that they are better off than they used to.
Additionally, the proponderance of credit and credit cards provide the false appearance, both to the people themselves, and to observers, that they are better off than they really are.
Lastly, there are things such as felony disenfranchisement, which effectively causes the people who were failed by the system to be nearly unable to participate in it.
I'll not comment on your fallacious comment that America's policies are anything near socialist.

So you are saying that I am not a nice person because I give up $1000 to greedily get $100 dollars? If all I wanted was the money, I'd keep the greater sum, no? I doubt most people would be opposed to the $100, but it is still showing of integrity that they give up the much greater sum.You could be paranoid that someone was watching you pick up the money and run off with it, or you might think it's a test by an eccentric old woman to see who's honest, and she may reward honesty with more than $1000.

Unfortunately, I am aware of those people who would join the military for the chance to murder people. If they did their service, we would not deny them of the reward for it. This is because, while they are a bit off their rocker, they did not channel this inclination into randomly murdering people for the fun of it but rather that they chose to do so in a way that does not conflict with society. Additionally, the only certain outcome of their service is one vote in a sea of millions, which they may or may not be interested in at the end. If they were to try to run for public office including their psychotic tendencies, the more knowledgeable voting public would be much more able to detect signs of danger to individual liberties from these candidates (i.e. "I propose to kill group X" etc.)What makes you think that there would be millions of voters? What makes you think the voting public would be knowledgeable in psychology, and thus better able to detect mental instability?

None of the above.

*resists urge to quote from Rage Against The Machine's "Guerilla Radio".*
Waste your vote wisely, Don't Choose Wisely!;)

Waste your vote wisely, Don't Choose Wisely!;)
Vote NBIP
You might not like our policies, but at least you get a nice cuppa.

The Defenderist Party (formerly AWSL) is now formed! Your poll is out of date.

Join The Defenderists at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499711
.

The Defenderist Party: We protect our people.

And another new party:

The Not Particularly Vicious Black Friday Afternoon Non-Marxist Revolutionary Party for the Reunification of Gondwanaland. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499310)

Join the only party supporting the quixotic unaccountable rule of continental reunificationists!

And another new party:

The Not Particularly Vicious Black Friday Afternoon Non-Marxist Revolutionary Party for the Reunification of Gondwanaland. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499310)

Join the only party supporting the quixotic unaccountable rule of continental reunificationists!

And (partial) ally to TDP!

Visit the TDP at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11705166#post11705166
.

Disregard the old thread. AWSL was never a party anyway.

And another new party:

The Not Particularly Vicious Black Friday Afternoon Non-Marxist Revolutionary Party for the Reunification of Gondwanaland. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499310)

Join the only party supporting the quixotic unaccountable rule of continental reunificationists!

And (partial) ally to TDP!

Visit the TDP at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11705166#post11705166
.

Disregard the old thread. AWSL was never a party anyway.