|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 13715
Location: Room 101
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:18 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| twoshots wrote: | | Orwell wrote: | | twoshots wrote: | | Individually rational, stable but globally sub-optimal strategy? Does anyone smell a Prisoner's Dilemma coming on? |
You have yet to demonstrate that higher voter turnout leads to optimal results. You just assumed it to be true. |
More people voting would lead to higher legitimacy of the regime and consequently a net gain in the justice value of the institution of government. And governments ought to be just. |
But if you disapprove of the regime, do you want it to be considered legitimate? I don't know what you mean by "justice value." And if governments ought to be "just," we need a clear understanding of what "just" entails.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
twoshots
Boltzmann Brain
Joined: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 4229
Location: Boötes void
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | twoshots wrote: | | Orwell wrote: | | twoshots wrote: | | Individually rational, stable but globally sub-optimal strategy? Does anyone smell a Prisoner's Dilemma coming on? |
You have yet to demonstrate that higher voter turnout leads to optimal results. You just assumed it to be true. |
More people voting would lead to higher legitimacy of the regime and consequently a net gain in the justice value of the institution of government. And governments ought to be just. |
But if you disapprove of the regime, do you want it to be considered legitimate? I don't know what you mean by "justice value." And if governments ought to be "just," we need a clear understanding of what "just" entails. |
It could hardly be just for a government to exercise laws on people which they did not approve of. By voting, they are voluntarily submitting themselves to that law. Any exercise of the law on them is therefore just because they have agreed to it. If you like, assume that the government is designed in such a way that there is high accountability so all people really are voting for what they want (and that, by some convoluted Rousseauian logic by participating in the government they are submitting themselves to the common good via some social contract type argument). Your initial argument would still hold: each individual has a marginal gain of 0 versus a positive marginal cost. But, in a society in which everyone votes (and which is otherwise constitutionally just), any current action could still only derive its legitimacy from the electorate. Hence, although the individual is rationally not compelled to vote due to their insignificance, everyone voting would still contribute to government being just (inasmuch as the further justice of the government that is constitutionally just is a function of the legitimacy with which it exercises power).
_________________
* here for the nachos. |
|
| Back to top |
|
LTP
Raven
Joined: Jun 14, 2008
Age: 21
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Can you explain why you believe voting has no impact. Is it because of voting manipulations? Higher voter turn out makes it harder to completely defraud an election due to the numbers involved. Can we at least agree that whatever entity is fixing these elections does not yet have the power to manipulate 100% of the votes. Altering say 10 votes would be easy. Would it be possible to completely thwart the entire voting public(assuming 100% voter turnout).
A functioning government is in essence a entity created by it's citizens to enact their will. It is required to change when enough of it's citizens say enough is enough and demand change. How do you explain all the radical social change various societies have gone through if the people were in truth powerless. Explain India gaining independence. Explain blacks gaining civil liberties. How did gays defeat sodomy laws. How has anything changed? Presumably the ruling body seeks to maintain it's power. Why have we had social change then if the masses were truly powerless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Speckles
Velociraptor
Joined: May 03, 2008
Posts: 448
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm, Orwell, do you realize the irony of complaining about the lack of progress towards your political ideals in one thread, and then going on about refusing to vote in a different one? What incentive does a politician have to accomodate you viewpoint unless you vote? In fact, because you are arguing for like minded people not to vote, because the effect of the individual is disproportionate to the effort it takes, you are all but actively encouraging politicians to ignore you.
Thing is, those with socialist tendancies are more likely to vote, even if only for a lesser evil, due to a feeling of duty towards society. So politicians who adopt a socialist attitude are more likely to get elected then those with libertarian views, since socialist are going to be more willing to sacrafice an afternoon to advance their viewpoint by voting, if even only a little bit.
Libertarianism is always going to lose if its members only think of their own individual benefit. You are shooting your movement in the foot by not voting from what I see. No offence.
_________________
I have seen the truth and it makes no sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 13715
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| twoshots wrote: | | It could hardly be just for a government to exercise laws on people which they did not approve of. |
That's the premise of government. If people always approved of every law enacted, there would be no need for a government. By your definition, government is inherently unjust.
| Quote: | | By voting, they are voluntarily submitting themselves to that law. Any exercise of the law on them is therefore just because they have agreed to it. |
And if one does not wish to voluntarily submit oneself to that law? Is the exercise of that law then unjust? If so, it must be very difficult for government to do anything.
| Quote: | | (and that, by some convoluted Rousseauian logic by participating in the government they are submitting themselves to the common good via some social contract type argument). |
The problem I see with Rousseau's social contract theory is that, to be valid, a contract has to be consensual. What happens when someone chooses not to be a party to this contract? How does any government deal with that?
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
LTP
Raven
Joined: Jun 14, 2008
Age: 21
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | twoshots wrote: | | It could hardly be just for a government to exercise laws on people which they did not approve of. |
That's the premise of government. If people always approved of every law enacted, there would be no need for a government. By your definition, government is inherently unjust.
| Quote: | | By voting, they are voluntarily submitting themselves to that law. Any exercise of the law on them is therefore just because they have agreed to it. |
And if one does not wish to voluntarily submit oneself to that law? Is the exercise of that law then unjust? If so, it must be very difficult for government to do anything.
| Quote: | | (and that, by some convoluted Rousseauian logic by participating in the government they are submitting themselves to the common good via some social contract type argument). |
The problem I see with Rousseau's social contract theory is that, to be valid, a contract has to be consensual. What happens when someone chooses not to be a party to this contract? How does any government deal with that? |
When a citizen violates the contract he is punished. It could be a fine or imprisonment or execution. If a government violates the contract the citizens punish the government. This punishment could as simple as taking your support from a politician or if the violation is particularly heinous a revolt and the abolishment of the current system and the creation of a new government.
The downside to this is the fact that both sides are the judge and the judged. Right now the government has violated its end of the deal and we are not doing our duty as citizens and punishing the governments.
A citizen has personal responsibility in a democracy when the need arises you need to fight for your rights or you will lose them. Voting is as far as I can tell the simplest and safest way to exercise your authority as a citizen. Giving up this authority breaks down the system.
Again I would like you to explain how radical social change like has happened in our history could take place if the citizens were incapable of changing anything.
Last edited by LTP on Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:33 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 13715
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LTP wrote: | | Can you explain why you believe voting has no impact. Is it because of voting manipulations? Higher voter turn out makes it harder to completely defraud an election due to the numbers involved. Can we at least agree that whatever entity is fixing these elections does not yet have the power to manipulate 100% of the votes. Altering say 10 votes would be easy. Would it be possible to completely thwart the entire voting public(assuming 100% voter turnout). |
Voter fraud is quite rampant, but that's certainly not the only possible objection to voting. I believe voting has no impact because it is true. Again, you are referring to aggregate decisions. I am incapable of making aggregate decisions, I make only individual decisions for myself. If you want to argue that my individual choices comprise part of the aggregate, that would be one thing, but my one vote in itself is indisputably worthless. In any case, I find the premise of democracy troubling. Why is it that 50.01% of the vote translates to 100% of the power in a representative democracy? Why is it right for the majority to oppress the minority? This seems like a simple viewpoint of "might makes right" where whoever is able to impose their will on others should be able to do so.
| Quote: | | A functioning government is in essence a entity created by it's citizens to enact their will. |
Hypothetically, this is how a democratic government operates.
| Quote: | | How do you explain all the radical social change various societies have gone through if the people were in truth powerless. Explain India gaining independence. Explain blacks gaining civil liberties. |
Off-topic and irrelevant, unless you are attempting a strawman argument. These people did not effect change through the ballot box. My argument that voting is an ineffective means of working for social change still holds.
| Quote: | | Why have we had social change then if the masses were truly powerless. |
The masses are powerless? I'm sorry, but you'll have to quote me if you want to attribute such a claim to me. I am powerless, you are powerless. The masses are very powerful. But I am not the masses. I am me. I can not become the masses, nor can I realistically seek to control the masses.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
LTP
Raven
Joined: Jun 14, 2008
Age: 21
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | LTP wrote: | | Can you explain why you believe voting has no impact. Is it because of voting manipulations? Higher voter turn out makes it harder to completely defraud an election due to the numbers involved. Can we at least agree that whatever entity is fixing these elections does not yet have the power to manipulate 100% of the votes. Altering say 10 votes would be easy. Would it be possible to completely thwart the entire voting public(assuming 100% voter turnout). |
Voter fraud is quite rampant, but that's certainly not the only possible objection to voting. I believe voting has no impact because it is true. Again, you are referring to aggregate decisions. I am incapable of making aggregate decisions, I make only individual decisions for myself. If you want to argue that my individual choices comprise part of the aggregate, that would be one thing, but my one vote in itself is indisputably worthless. In any case, I find the premise of democracy troubling. Why is it that 50.01% of the vote translates to 100% of the power in a representative democracy? Why is it right for the majority to oppress the minority? This seems like a simple viewpoint of "might makes right" where whoever is able to impose their will on others should be able to do so.
| Quote: | | A functioning government is in essence a entity created by it's citizens to enact their will. |
Hypothetically, this is how a democratic government operates.
| Quote: | | How do you explain all the radical social change various societies have gone through if the people were in truth powerless. Explain India gaining independence. Explain blacks gaining civil liberties. |
Off-topic and irrelevant, unless you are attempting a strawman argument. These people did not effect change through the ballot box. My argument that voting is an ineffective means of working for social change still holds.
| Quote: | | Why have we had social change then if the masses were truly powerless. |
The masses are powerless? I'm sorry, but you'll have to quote me if you want to attribute such a claim to me. I am powerless, you are powerless. The masses are very powerful. But I am not the masses. I am me. I can not become the masses, nor can I realistically seek to control the masses. |
So what your saying is that your vote is worthless because it can not change anything without the support of other votes. So because of this you refuse to vote? We have been arguing that your individual vote is part of the aggregate decision. Refusing to vote eliminates any chance that your
individual vote will strengthen the support for your ideas.
I would also like you to explain just why it is impossible to influence the collective. Our history is full of examples of small amounts of people inspiring and influencing millions of people who then pressure the government. Writing letters, writing books, volunteering at campaign offices, having discussions like these can have real impact on what people think and do.
Lets say 10 million people read this thread are convinced their vote does not matter and then refuse to vote during the next election. That weakens the collectives power by 10 million votes. White and black civil rights leaders convinced a large portion of the people to support black rights. They then pressured the government and real changes were produced. If all of this amounts to nothing then what in the world causes social change. You admit that the masses have power but then seem to suggest that it is impossible to mobilize this power. What then is the answer. Why have these changes taken place?
Last edited by LTP on Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:48 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 13715
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Speckles wrote: | | Hmm, Orwell, do you realize the irony of complaining about the lack of progress towards your political ideals in one thread, and then going on about refusing to vote in a different one? |
Would voting promote progress toward my political ideals? That's the question at stake here. I posit that my decision of whether or not to vote is inconsequential to the progress of any political ideology or other. I did vote in this year's primaries, incidentally. My ideals are no closer to being realized than they were before I voted.
| Quote: | | What incentive does a politician have to accomodate you viewpoint unless you vote? In fact, because you are arguing for like minded people not to vote, because the effect of the individual is disproportionate to the effort it takes, you are all but actively encouraging politicians to ignore you. |
Meh, politicians will ignore me regardless. My ideas frankly are probably not popular enough that myself and like-minded people are going to be a significant factor.
| Quote: | | Libertarianism is always going to lose if its members only think of their own individual benefit. You are shooting your movement in the foot by not voting from what I see. No offence. |
Libertarians seek their goals in non-violent ways that may or may not include voting. I don't see how voting would advance a libertarian agenda, unless I was able to convince a sufficiently large group of people to vote with me as a bloc. But this is an unlikely scenario.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 13715
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LTP wrote: | | A citizen has personal responsibility in a democracy when the need arises you need to fight for your rights or you will lose them. Voting is as far as I can tell the simplest and safest way to exercise your authority as a citizen. Giving up this authority breaks down the system. |
See, part of the problem here is that so many claim that it is a citizen's responsibility to vote, and then let that be the end of working toward their ideals. Voting is rarely, if ever, a real force for change. Protests, lobbying, and other actions, perhaps can influence the system. But voting on its own is vastly insufficient. People who just vote, and aside from that keep their political opinions to themselves, are disenfranchising and marginalizing themselves.
| Quote: | | Again I would like you to explain how radical social change like has happened in our history could take place if the citizens were incapable of changing anything. |
Again, I would like you to quote where I have ever made such a claim. Voting is not the only way of making one's will apparent, and is probably the least effective way. Voting has not produced radical social change. Other things have.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
LTP
Raven
Joined: Jun 14, 2008
Age: 21
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | LTP wrote: | | A citizen has personal responsibility in a democracy when the need arises you need to fight for your rights or you will lose them. Voting is as far as I can tell the simplest and safest way to exercise your authority as a citizen. Giving up this authority breaks down the system. |
See, part of the problem here is that so many claim that it is a citizen's responsibility to vote, and then let that be the end of working toward their ideals. Voting is rarely, if ever, a real force for change. Protests, lobbying, and other actions, perhaps can influence the system. But voting on its own is vastly insufficient. People who just vote, and aside from that keep their political opinions to themselves, are disenfranchising and marginalizing themselves.
| Quote: | | Again I would like you to explain how radical social change like has happened in our history could take place if the citizens were incapable of changing anything. |
Again, I would like you to quote where I have ever made such a claim. Voting is not the only way of making one's will apparent, and is probably the least effective way. Voting has not produced radical social change. Other things have. |
I was referring to your reply to a post of mine. I suggested that people can send letters, vote, lobby etc to try to influence the government and you then stated that these things usually fail. Doing nothing is certainly not going to get us anywhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 13715
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LTP wrote: | | So what your saying is that your vote is worthless because it can not change anything without the support of other votes. So because of this you refuse to vote? |
I also outlined some possible moral objections to voting that I have seen raised. My vote is worthless regardless of other votes. I have been trying to explain this. If I had some method of getting others to vote as I vote, then perhaps your claims that I should vote would have some basis. But I do not. The only plausible argument available for your side in this debate is some stretch involving aggregate decisions and claiming me to be a component of the aggregate, and that argument has yet to really be developed on this thread. I instead have seen some re-hashing of tired platitudes and what seem to be instinctive murmurs that my comments are "crimethink."
And I do not refuse to vote. I merely fail to see any compelling reason why voting is so vitally important.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 13715
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LTP wrote: | | I was referring to your reply to a post of mine. I suggested that people can send letters, vote, lobby etc to try to influence the government and you then stated that these things usually fail. Doing nothing is certainly not going to get us anywhere. |
It actually was Awesomelyglorious who made that observation, and he backed it up with quite solid reasoning. I also object to your last comment—I believe "doing nothing" was largely the basis of Thoreau's political activism, which later inspired Gandhi and, through him, MLK. Activism works sometimes, but very infrequently, and AG argued that given the tendency of activists to fail and the effort necessary, it makes more sense for most individuals to come to terms with the status quo and move on with life. Whether that is good reasoning could be debated, but it stands pretty strongly on utilitarian grounds at least. That these actions usually fail is indisputable—they do—but you could conceivably put forward a case that you should still attempt them nonetheless on deontological grounds. But voting is still an ineffective method. It seems to give people the illusion that they have power, and once they get their little sticker from the polling place, they can walk away with a self-satisfied smile and neglect to be actively involved in working for change. "Be the change you want to see in the world." Not "Vote for the change you want to see in the world."
Also, another issue with voting is that limited choices are represented, and mroe often than not a significant portion of the potential electorate will be unable to find a candidate they approve of. Why vote for the lesser of two evils? How can it possibly advanvce one's ideals to lend support to someone you oppose? To give the impression that you do in fact support the policies enacted, when you truly do not? It seems counterproductive at best.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
LTP
Raven
Joined: Jun 14, 2008
Age: 21
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | LTP wrote: | | So what your saying is that your vote is worthless because it can not change anything without the support of other votes. So because of this you refuse to vote? |
I also outlined some possible moral objections to voting that I have seen raised. My vote is worthless regardless of other votes. I have been trying to explain this. If I had some method of getting others to vote as I vote, then perhaps your claims that I should vote would have some basis. But I do not. The only plausible argument available for your side in this debate is some stretch involving aggregate decisions and claiming me to be a component of the aggregate, and that argument has yet to really be developed on this thread. I instead have seen some re-hashing of tired platitudes and what seem to be instinctive murmurs that my comments are "crimethink."
And I do not refuse to vote. I merely fail to see any compelling reason why voting is so vitally important. |
Your assuming that people will not vote the way you do on their own. Besides voting and attempts to influence the publics opinion go hand in hand. People who instigate social change in a democracy do so by trying to convince a majority of the people to subscribe to viewpoint X. The voting majority would then presumably vote for view point X and view point X would become the status quo as long as the majority supports it.
It's impossible to go anywhere with this discussion if you are also suggesting its impossible for a individual to influence the thinking of the majority.
If voting relies on the ability of individuals to alter the majorities support or lack of it and we assume individuals can not influence the majority then yes you are right. Voting is pointless and furthermore so is democracy as a whole since the status quo would never change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 13715
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LTP wrote: | Your assuming that people will not vote the way you do on their own. Besides voting and attempts to influence the publics opinion go hand in hand. People who instigate social change in a democracy do so by trying to convince a majority of the people to subscribe to viewpoint X. The voting majority would then presumably vote for view point X and view point X would become the status quo as long as the majority supports it.
It's impossible to go anywhere with this discussion if you are also suggesting its impossible for a individual to influence the thinking of the majority.
If voting relies on the ability of individuals to alter the majorities support or lack of it and we assume individuals can not influence the majority then yes you are right. Voting is pointless and furthermore so is democracy as a whole since the status quo would never change. |
I suppose the issue we've reached is what individual. Clearly, not every individual has the power to influence public opinion. Some have more power than others, and I, at least at present and into the foreseeable future, do not happen to be among those with greater influence, and I would presume that you are in a similar situation. And you still have ignored the potential moral issues in democracy. Why is democracy superior to any other from of government? Is it more legitimate simply because it justifies its authority with populist rhetoric?
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
