TheBigDog Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 It places me all the way in the top corner as a solid Libertarian :rolleyes:It has me as a centrist, on the line of conservative. Each one of those questions could be its own thread/survey. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFaithfulStone Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Ah yes, the worlds shortest political quiz designed to make everyone a Libertarian. Let me rewrite it to make sure everyone's a Fascist... I'm not going to do the whole thing, but this should give an idea. Instead of:Government should not censor speech, press, media or InternetLet's try:Government should be able to prevent dangerous or seditious speech. Instead of:Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draftLet's try:Service to your country is important. Citizens have an obligation to defend their country in certain times. Instead of:End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to businessLet's try:End government grants for R&D. Cancel the SBA. Increase the taxes on your company. Instead of:Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or moreLet's try:Cut out half of all government programs, loosen enforcement of federal laws. See - now I'm a Fascist/Anarachist/Something Else Real Bad. A Libretarian once told me I was in the same camp as Hitler because I supported farm subsidies and crop insurance for small farms. Uh... hyperbole aside, it's a false dilemma and an example of the Association Fallacy (among others.) Loaded questions make for loaded answers. "The Worlds Shortest Political Quiz" should be "The Shortest Way to Trick everyone into believing they are a Libretarian." or "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." Not that I doubt that it's true, mind you - I do believe that MOST of the country is in fact Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative, I just think the test is a sham. TFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted February 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 Well, elections tomorrow! Am I happy with the system? No. Am I gonna vote? Hell yes! Change the system from within... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 Ah yes, the worlds shortest political quiz designed to make everyone a Libertarian. Let me rewrite it to make sure everyone's a Fascist... I'm not going to do the whole thing, but this should give an idea.Government should be able to prevent dangerous or seditious speech.NoService to your country is important. Citizens have an obligation to defend their country in certain times.NoEnd government grants for R&D. Cancel the SBA. Increase the taxes on your company.NoCut out half of all government programs, loosen enforcement of federal laws.No"The Worlds Shortest Political Quiz" should be "The Shortest Way to Trick everyone into believing they are a Libretarian." or "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics."No, anyone can answer the questions the way they think. No one is tricking them in to saying yes on any of them. You should give people more credit than that instead of acting like everyone is too stupid to answer these questions honestly for themselves. You might find the average Joe more capable than you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFaithfulStone Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 Whoops, I just realized you posted the thing in the first place. You don't need to hear my lecture about how polling works.... so I've deleted it. Plus it goes against my sense of professional courtesy to call people out on PR. Sorry about that. My bad. TFS ... I just realized that sounds really sarcastic, but I REALLY mean it. [sincerity]You know the score, and I'm a jerk for doing a drive by on it like that. I should have read the whole thread, and I apologize. [/sincerity] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldsoftwaresteve Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 Ah yes, the most 'insidious form of tyranny'.We can argue about the mentality of the people who are voting until hell freezes over but anyone who thinks voting is the answer is a fool. We brought democracy to Iraq but failed to make the people owners of the land. Instead we set up a power group, the same as we did in Afghanistan.Who owns the land? Nobody. Everybody? That was the single biggest mistake we made.Democracy enabled our states to steal all of the land from all of the people and anyone that doesn't think so, well, is a fool. What idiot believes that having to pay someone else to live in ones bought and paid for home and land constitutes 'owning' it?So we traded our property rights for the 'right' to vote. I'll tell ya what. I'll trade my right to vote for ownership of my property any day but unfortunately that'll never happen because now I am forced to join some power group to attempt to hold on to what I have left. I have to make sure some other power group isn't going to steal the rest of it.We had a political system once. We don't any longer. A system presupposes a set of guiding principles based upon correct identifications. Today, we have gang warfare.So those of you who enjoy belonging to a gang, revel in this wonderful democracy of ours.What was the big mistake? Thinking that voting is a right. That just shows the complete lack of understanding of what a right is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted March 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2006 Soooo... we voted today. And I am PISSED OFF. Why, you ask? Because I've run into 30 people I know in this town in the last two days, and GUESS WHAT... I am one of two people out of 30 (that I know of) who went to the effort of voting. So where the heck will the guv'ment get its mandate from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chacmool Posted March 1, 2006 Report Share Posted March 1, 2006 Soooo... we voted today. And I am PISSED OFF. Why, you ask? Because I've run into 30 people I know in this town in the last two days, and GUESS WHAT... I am one of two people out of 30 (that I know of) who went to the effort of voting. So where the heck will the guv'ment get its mandate from?Exactly! My immediate family members are the only other people I know about who actually voted. Even I eventually got off my lazy butt (after all, it was a public holiday) and drove 70km to the polling station to cast my vote. So until the next election, I don't want to hear a single complaint from those slackers who didn't vote today. I've earned my right to whine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted March 1, 2006 Report Share Posted March 1, 2006 Soooo... we voted today. And I am PISSED OFF. Why, you ask? Because I've run into 30 people I know in this town in the last two days, and GUESS WHAT... I am one of two people out of 30 (that I know of) who went to the effort of voting. So where the heck will the guv'ment get its mandate from?This may not apply exactly to your situation, but would you rather have 2 relatively informed individuals doing the voting or a mass of people being manipulated by false issues doing the voting? If you had to choose... Chacmool 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chacmool Posted March 1, 2006 Report Share Posted March 1, 2006 This may not apply exactly to your situation, but would you rather have 2 relatively informed individuals doing the voting or a mass of people being manipulated by false issues doing the voting? If you had to choose...Good question! In an ideal world, people living in a democracy would appreciate the rights and freedom they enjoy enough to get educated about the people they are voting for. One would think that would apply especially in a country such as South Africa where hundreds (thousands?) of people died in the struggle to ensure voting rights for everyone. But, as I said, that would be an ideal world... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted March 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2006 This may not apply exactly to your situation, but would you rather have 2 relatively informed individuals doing the voting or a mass of people being manipulated by false issues doing the voting? If you had to choose...I dunno... I seems tempting to let a few select informed individuals do the voting and general government management for us, but the basic problem is that what we might see as 'informed', is totally subjective. As far as I see it, get as many people as possible - bright, stupid, brainwashed, brainless, intelligent, dumb, blind, deaf, seeing, mute, whatever - to vote, and you might just get an agreeable alternative. But if nobody bothers to vote, what right has a government to govern? They don't have a mandate, do they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted March 1, 2006 Report Share Posted March 1, 2006 But if nobody bothers to vote, what right has a government to govern? They don't have a mandate, do they?Good questions. I'd say that if truly zero people voted, it'd be none, but that's never really the case. I get frustrated that so often people are led to the polls for nonsense issues. Case in point, gay marriage... "I like dat George Bush fella. I like da kut of hiz jig. He sez ever ting I wishes ta hear... No gay marriage. Yeah. He falls off his bike a lot too. Makes me feel like he's one a da boyz. As fer all dat economics and war and such, well, that's just beyond me, and I'm sure those fellers in the govment will handle all dat..." This came up a bit in the "Do you vote?" thread... http://hypography.com/forums/community-polls/2518-do-you-vote-7.html?#post80809 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldsoftwaresteve Posted March 1, 2006 Report Share Posted March 1, 2006 Beorseun:But if nobody bothers to vote, what right has a government to govern? They don't have a mandate, do they?Good God. Be careful what you wish for dude. The system is supposed to limit the affect of stupidity. In other words, if a majority go insane we should be protected by the principles inherent in the system. We shouldn't have to vote to protect ourselves. The bullshit line is that whatever goes bad is the fault of those who don't vote. And whenever I hear that or anything close to it I start looking for the cheshire cat. The truth is that our government should govern not by people and whatever whim the majority choose to believe at any given split second in time but by correct identifications and limits imposed upon our actions that reflect those identifications. Further, the system should be based upon our identities as human beings. Voting should have very little impact upon anyone if the system is set up properly. My idea of a solid government is one in which the governors take two year vacations at my expense. The more active they are the stronger the indication that they've got things screwed up again. The strong stench emanating from the hallowed halls of government is caused by the fact that what they do has far too big an impact on our day to day lives. And anyone that wishes to enter that particular arena is after power over others and almost certainly is psychologically flawed. Show me a candidate that wants to eliminate their job and they'll have my vote. I go back to my previous question: "Why aren't they done yet?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFaithfulStone Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 I like dat George Bush fella. I like da kut of hiz jig. He sez ever ting I wishes ta hear What? The cut of his jig? What? It's funny that's a post about gay marriage, since it sounds kinda vaugely homoerotic. Quit looking at the Presidental Jig! Cheeky monkey. TFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted March 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Saying that elections don't matter because the government is doing a good job as it is, is dangerous. The form of government you have is determined in the first place by your constitution, which could, of course, be altered by a sufficient majority of your elected officials. But if only 30% of voters go to the trouble of voting, then a 75% majority to change your constitution isn't 75% op the populace's will. It would be 75% of 30%, i.e. 22% of your population could very well change your constitution for you. Imagine: In South Africa, we need a 67% majority vote in parliament in order to make any changes to our constitution. In the last general election, 46% of the population bothered to vote. The ANC won again, and for the first time got its two thirds majority, so that it can tinker with the constitution to its heart's content. In other words, 31% of our population now dictates what should happen to our constitution. Political analysts have speculated why, after having fought and shed blood for universal franchise in SA, there should be such a huge level of voter apathy, and in a big way it simply turns out that it's not voter apathy, but a huge protest vote because the ANC government doesn't deliver, and there's no alternative parties with the right approach to capture the people's votes. So we, in effect, had a 54% protest vote (give or take the apathy vote). In my mind, there should be an extra box on the ballot paper, where you could make your tick, saying "I've looked at all the alternatives, and they all suck" - so that the protest vote could at least be recorded, and it could serve as an indication to the winning party that they indeed do not have a mandate from the citizens. It would also serve as a check in parliament for any constitutional changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 In my mind, there should be an extra box on the ballot paper, where you could make your tick, saying "I've looked at all the alternatives, and they all suck" - so that the protest vote could at least be recorded, and it could serve as an indication to the winning party that they indeed do not have a mandate from the citizens.I love it. Then, if the majority voted "I've looked at all the alternatives, and they all suck," they would be forced to bring forth new candidates. I am so tired of "choosing between the lesser of two evils." I want to choose the one who's bright and capable of doing the job well. 'nuff said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boerseun Posted March 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 I love it. Then, if the majority voted "I've looked at all the alternatives, and they all suck," they would be forced to bring forth new candidates. I am so tired of "choosing between the lesser of two evils." I want to choose the one who's bright and capable of doing the job well. 'nuff said.Definitely! And, if the majority turnout would be the "they all suck" vote, then the election should be termed a 'failed election', and they should start again. <My idealistic side speaking, again...> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.