Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-02-2013, 02:36 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(12-02-2013 02:03 PM)Zat Wrote:  When you are young, you think you have all the time in the world for "slow, systematic", but you don't really.

Two eye-blinks and you will be my age, as I used to be your age a long time ago.

However, I understand and respect your attitude and hope for the best for all of you young people facing the future. Smile

You take yourself as being too important. The entire point is to realize that you're not that important.

You never want to say "fuck it" in the wrong direction, either. I don't care if progress is a 100, 300 or 1000 year process. I don't have to live to see less idiots, doing less idiotic shit, but I am going to make sure that while I'm living, I call bullshit when I see it. At least, some of the time.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2013, 02:43 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(12-02-2013 01:35 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I am sorry, but as a 19 year old, I see no justification for #1 at all. I see no sense and no progress, but rather extremists and useful idiots. Both cynics and idealists need to come to compromise for anything to work.

Compromise doesn't work. Agreement, truth and objectivity work.

You can't compromise on stupid and fucking stupid, if the middle is stupid as hell; or even stupid and genius, if the middle is still shit.

There isn't some huge grey area, in between correct and incorrect, with some sort of magical wave pool that every person can stick their toes in. It would be more like an ocean, during hurricane season. And just when you thought the hurricane season was over....

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2013, 02:43 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(12-02-2013 02:36 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  You take yourself as being too important.
...
I am important enough for myself, but don't expect it from others.

Live and let live is a very good advice to follow. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2013, 06:56 PM (This post was last modified: 12-02-2013 07:01 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(12-02-2013 01:11 PM)Zat Wrote:  Another way to look at options:

1. You can be a hero/martyr and bleed on the barricades, trying to change things and, even if you managed at great cost to yourself, see the change undone again by the next guy who gets the power (and desire) to undo it.

2. Ignore the system, live your own life without hurting anyone, helping anyone next to you, as much as you can, and hope for the best.

3. Anything in between 1. and 2.

PS. If I were a lot younger, I would probably do Option #1, even with all my knowledge and experience in my head. When I was a lot younger (and a lot more innocent), that is exactly what I was doing. However, those of us who grew old and have seen most of it are resigned to the inevitable currents of history, sweeping us ahead of it or rolling over us. I am dreadfully sorry for most young people today, especially those with young children.
Both options 1 and 2 mean acting (or not acting) alone, which is a mistake. We live in the age of mass communication and easy networking. If we do not make use of them, we fail.

This is historically a completely new thing, a game-changing technology. Suddenly people can be united over vague ideas and ideals. Before, a revolution was 1 % time planning the ideals and 99 % time stuffing the envelopes with orders for various branches. It was all dependent on de facto military style chain of command. Now the computers stuff the envelopes for us and we common people can focus on quick, fluid mobilization and perfecting our goals.

We face a change of the very idea of organization. The top-down hierarchy to get things done is a thing of the past. The new organization is a network, a level playing field, which organizes volunteers not based on parties or sections, but on their interest in a given topic or action.

This is a new situation - politicians look at the Occupy Wall Street, Pirate Parties, Anonymous, and ask themselves, "Who are these people, what do they want? What can we pay them or do about them?" The answer is, "these people" are the people. They are simply citizens, empowered by the technology. Their agenda is the pure, undiluted public opinion, the thing that never gets into politics, because it has no corporate backing. It's the poor man's power.
(Source: mostly Cory Doctorow's speeches on Youtube)


And I'd like to ask you Zat, why do you make such topics? Why do you ask these questions? Do you try to get to some answers, or to make people think? I'd guess the second, because you don't make a secret out of your age. However, you curiously mention little about the digital possibilities of today. Today's youth will rather bring down the government computers through flinging DDOS attacks, rather than pavement stones.
And I for example just have written a letter to my senator about the vote about grand treason accusation against my former president, Vaclav Klaus. (read Vatslav, not Vaklav!) I did so through a web application that sends messages to all the politicians and it allows the public to read their replies. I must say, they get A LOT of mail about the president's grand treason. I encouraged my senator to support the accusation, I renounced dividing people on leftists and rightists and I advised him to work with two other senators who already supported transparent government, one of which was supported by the Pirate Party. The other is independent and ran for president under the transparency and anti-corruption agenda, but was excluded by some extremely suspicious vote counting practices.
Needless to say, so far I paid taxes only for 6 months of my life.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2013, 07:16 PM (This post was last modified: 12-02-2013 07:32 PM by Zat.)
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
Luminon, you put me in a difficult position.

The last thing I want to do is discourage you guys from your youthful hope, energy, optimism, sincere desire to make the world a better place.

I used to be like that, I understand and I admire it a great deal.

And, if I want to be honest, I have to admit that without your efforts the world would be a lot darker place. You slow down the march of darkness and thus I directly benefit from your efforts and I am grateful.

As recently as 5-10 years ago I was also actively involved in protest marches and petitions (we were called the "Peace Mongers") and we even had a political anti-war website.

As I have said: I was there.

Even before that, a long time before that, I was an Ayn Rand 'disciple', because her social justice philosophy was based on a fundamental principle that appealed to me. I have, since then, seen the holes in her philosophy and I outgrew the naivety required to consider her approach practical, even logical.

I did not expect to change the world, or have even the slightest effect, but I did these things because I believed it was the right thing to do.

Then, I just got tired of it all, realizing how futile my efforts were and how hopeless it was to change things. I decided that I have done my part and it was time for me to retire and spend the last years of my life putting my affairs (material, personal and mental) into order.

All the reading, thinking, discussions, debates, analysis that I had had, convinced me that history has a way of going with an inertia that not one man can affect, and right now we are on the downslope that very well may end with our extinction.

I hope you guys can turn it around, but I won't be here to see it.

It is your world now and I wish you the best.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2013, 11:35 PM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(12-02-2013 06:56 PM)Luminon Wrote:  We live in the age of mass communication and easy networking. If we do not make use of them, we fail.

This is historically a completely new thing, a game-changing technology. Suddenly people can be united over vague ideas and ideals. Before, a revolution was 1 % time planning the ideals and 99 % time stuffing the envelopes with orders for various branches. It was all dependent on de facto military style chain of command. Now the computers stuff the envelopes for us and we common people can focus on quick, fluid mobilization and perfecting our goals.

We face a change of the very idea of organization. The top-down hierarchy to get things done is a thing of the past. The new organization is a network, a level playing field, which organizes volunteers not based on parties or sections, but on their interest in a given topic or action.

This is a new situation - politicians look at the Occupy Wall Street, Pirate Parties, Anonymous, and ask themselves, "Who are these people, what do they want? What can we pay them or do about them?" The answer is, "these people" are the people. They are simply citizens, empowered by the technology. Their agenda is the pure, undiluted public opinion, the thing that never gets into politics, because it has no corporate backing. It's the poor man's power.
(Source: mostly Cory Doctorow's speeches on Youtube)


And I'd like to ask you Zat, why do you make such topics? Why do you ask these questions? Do you try to get to some answers, or to make people think? I'd guess the second, because you don't make a secret out of your age. However, you curiously mention little about the digital possibilities of today. Today's youth will rather bring down the government computers through flinging DDOS attacks, rather than pavement stones.
And I for example just have written a letter to my senator about the vote about grand treason accusation against my former president, Vaclav Klaus. (read Vatslav, not Vaklav!) I did so through a web application that sends messages to all the politicians and it allows the public to read their replies. I must say, they get A LOT of mail about the president's grand treason. I encouraged my senator to support the accusation, I renounced dividing people on leftists and rightists and I advised him to work with two other senators who already supported transparent government, one of which was supported by the Pirate Party. The other is independent and ran for president under the transparency and anti-corruption agenda, but was excluded by some extremely suspicious vote counting practices.
Needless to say, so far I paid taxes only for 6 months of my life.

I fucking hate technology and the internet. It hurts in so many more ways than it makes things better.

And you have to look at organization. That's number 1, 101. If you can't properly organize, give up. The biggest problem, when it comes to a lot of positive efforts, is that they are done sporadically, without organization, based on individual topics, one at a time.

Listen to George Carlin. People on the other side, they don't need an elaborate, organized, hidden conspiracy. They are the same types of people, they have the exact same interest, work for the same types of companies, go to the same types of schools, are part of the same political parties and country clubs, and have the same views, on most issues across the board. The even read the same book, so even when they aren't on the same page, they are still in the same book.

If you think a lot of unorganized, idiots doing stupid, rebellious shit, will work out, this has been attempted. It's called the 60s, and you can check the 80s, if you want to see how it ended.

You might think things are all G double O.D, good, because you found an issue that you an other people agree on, see atheism, see this site, but if you have anarchists running around on one side, with Marxists running around on the other, I don't care if you are saying, "yeah, black rights", "yeah, feminism", "yeah, freedom", "no, war", "yeah, peace", at the end of the day, what good is having some middle ground issues, when you fundamentally disagree and will fall apart?

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 12:03 AM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(12-02-2013 07:16 PM)Zat Wrote:  Luminon, you put me in a difficult position.

The last thing I want to do is discourage you guys from your youthful hope, energy, optimism, sincere desire to make the world a better place.

I used to be like that, I understand and I admire it a great deal.

And, if I want to be honest, I have to admit that without your efforts the world would be a lot darker place. You slow down the march of darkness and thus I directly benefit from your efforts and I am grateful.

As recently as 5-10 years ago I was also actively involved in protest marches and petitions (we were called the "Peace Mongers") and we even had a political anti-war website.

As I have said: I was there.

Even before that, a long time before that, I was an Ayn Rand 'disciple', because her social justice philosophy was based on a fundamental principle that appealed to me. I have, since then, seen the holes in her philosophy and I outgrew the naivety required to consider her approach practical, even logical.

I did not expect to change the world, or have even the slightest effect, but I did these things because I believed it was the right thing to do.

Then, I just got tired of it all, realizing how futile my efforts were and how hopeless it was to change things. I decided that I have done my part and it was time for me to retire and spend the last years of my life putting my affairs (material, personal and mental) into order.

All the reading, thinking, discussions, debates, analysis that I had had, convinced me that history has a way of going with an inertia that not one man can affect, and right now we are on the downslope that very well may end with our extinction.

I hope you guys can turn it around, but I won't be here to see it.

It is your world now and I wish you the best.

One person can have an impact, and you don't actually have to be there to see the results.

I can just pick an example like J Dilla, in music. I listen to his beats, and see just his, as an individual, impact on people. A guy who made beats, simply with a sampler (MPC) and some old records, changed real, Grammy award winning musicians, who sing, play real instruments, some rap, play in different genres, make real music, etc., directions with their music. Individuals groups, etc., influenced by one guy. Whole movements with bands and shit, off of his drum programming and sampling. Kids to professionals, today, and all over the world, doing shit, because of this dude's work.

So, influence happens, impact happens, change happens over time. It might be 100 years or 1000 years, but bullshit fades over time, and things get better. I guess I'm just optimistic.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 02:30 AM
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(12-02-2013 02:43 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Compromise doesn't work. Agreement, truth and objectivity work.

One has to come to an agreement to compromise.

(12-02-2013 02:43 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  You can't compromise on stupid and fucking stupid, if the middle is stupid as hell; or even stupid and genius, if the middle is still shit.

It is a good thing that both idealism and cynicism are not stupid.

(12-02-2013 02:43 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  There isn't some huge grey area, in between correct and incorrect, with some sort of magical wave pool that every person can stick their toes in. It would be more like an ocean, during hurricane season. And just when you thought the hurricane season was over....

There is a grey area when it comes to the individual personal interpretation about the current state of the world.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 06:05 AM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2013 06:10 AM by Zat.)
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(13-02-2013 12:03 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  One person can have an impact, and you don't actually have to be there to see the results.
............
It might be 100 years or 1000 years, but bullshit fades over time, and things get better. I guess I'm just optimistic.
...
Humanity may not have 100 years left before the appointment with the Titanic (of extinction).

Read:
"X Events" by John Casti or
"Climate Wars" by Gwynne Dyer, or
"The Watchman's Rattle" by Rebecca Costa or
"Collapse" by Jared Diamond
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 10:18 AM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2013 10:30 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Should only taxpayers be allowed to vote?
(12-02-2013 11:35 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  I fucking hate technology and the internet. It hurts in so many more ways than it makes things better.
That's like saying you hate oxygen, because it keeps the bad people alive and it makes things burn. Guess what, some things just exist and if we won't use them for our good, someone will, for theirs. Without the technology and internet you'd be working your ass off on some feudal lord's estate, because you don't have a genetic relation to a hierarchy of nobles. Or worse, because you have a black skin, big nose, or epicantic folds. Or because you don't have some of these.
Now it's certainly simplier, now it depends only whether you have money or not. But it can be still improved.

(12-02-2013 11:35 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  And you have to look at organization. That's number 1, 101. If you can't properly organize, give up. The biggest problem, when it comes to a lot of positive efforts, is that they are done sporadically, without organization, based on individual topics, one at a time.
Yes, leadership is necessary. But now, anyone can be a leader. Anyone can put up a cause with a few clicks, have people join in, discuss what to do and when and they don't even have to get together for that. They don't have to stuff a single envelope. Of course not many people will join in, but if the message reaches millions, then any topic can gather a significant following. And this activist audience can be capable of action and maybe it can join other such audiences and arrange a cooperative action. I think the free movements are just discovering this possibility. I'd love to see a "new Socialism" movement made of Pirates, OWS, Anonymous and whoever the hell wants to join in. But it would be a movement based on people's independent willingness to join in, not on obedience, ideologies and rigidly set goals.
By definition, that will require the organizers to choose broadest topics with broadest appeal, it will by definition will be impossible to create any privileged group that way.
Isn't that awesome?

(12-02-2013 11:35 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Listen to George Carlin. People on the other side, they don't need an elaborate, organized, hidden conspiracy. They are the same types of people, they have the exact same interest, work for the same types of companies, go to the same types of schools, are part of the same political parties and country clubs, and have the same views, on most issues across the board. The even read the same book, so even when they aren't on the same page, they are still in the same book.

If you think a lot of unorganized, idiots doing stupid, rebellious shit, will work out, this has been attempted. It's called the 60s, and you can check the 80s, if you want to see how it ended.
You mean the free fuckers who used to drop out of college for a protest? Who used to damage their mind with drugs? Who had no computer skills whatsoever? To say they were not thinking straight would be an understatement.

(12-02-2013 11:35 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  You might think things are all G double O.D, good, because you found an issue that you an other people agree on, see atheism, see this site, but if you have anarchists running around on one side, with Marxists running around on the other, I don't care if you are saying, "yeah, black rights", "yeah, feminism", "yeah, freedom", "no, war", "yeah, peace", at the end of the day, what good is having some middle ground issues, when you fundamentally disagree and will fall apart?
I don't know. We must be always ready to admit ignorance and to learn. What about we say we don't know and ask someone? Let's say, a diplomat, a soldier, an ethnologist who was over there where they have a war, or the people themselves. Then we'll say "yeah war" or "yeah peace". And when we meet someone who says "yeah black rights" we ask him, what rights does he mean. What is the freedom for black people. The same with feminism. These are all buzzwords with no concrete meaning but lots of emotional charge in them. Same as capitalism, communism, economy, freedom, justice, rationality, human nature and so on. Hardly anybody knows what do these words mean, but that didn't stop the top people from fooling the bottom people for years and years. For example, economy meant originally thrift, which meant minimalism. Now the monetary price system so perverted the values, that we get more stuff for less money if we buy in bulk, and suddenly "economic" is the biggest package in the store. A totally opposite thing! If somebody came along let's say from another planet, from another civilization, he'd look at this and thought we're totally crazy.

If we can finally get the words straight and have a straight talk with the top people, we'll ask them, "Is this really what we agreed to let you make us, we're supposed to get born, work our ass off, consume, throw out things, retire, die and consider ourselves lucky we're not in Uganda or somewhere?" And they'll have to say, "Yeah, that's about it." And this is when we say, "Well, fuck off!" We can't tell them to fuck off, until we get our thinking straight. Getting our thinking straight on the matters of faith and religion is just one small area of telling someone to fuck off. We wouldn't have to go through this ordeal if we weren't really in deep shit, but it seems that nothing less will do. Of course I hope we can invent the lite version crash course of that process for the poor and uneducated billions of the world, so they'll understand their situation and what can they really do about it. They don't need our lofty economy of ideal models plus minor corrections, they need Manfred MaxNeef's Barefoot Economics. Back to the roots, man! Only this time not to edible roots and tree branches, but to roots of the words and concepts.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: