[Pollyticks] Voting against major parties

[cryptophreak]

None of that addresses his point.

If you want trivial concessions, America and the UK are great places to get them. In that sense, yes, change happens all the time. The problem is that it’s meaningless change. Our entire social system is still engineered from the bottom up in favor of concentrated private capital above people.

You’re also grossly misrepresenting Russell when you suggest that not voting is his idea of effecting change. Nowhere has he said anything like that. He only suggests that voting accomplishes nothing worthwhile, and perpetuates the illusion of popular consent.

the ONLY way to get things done is to participate instead of claiming that apathy is action

This is a regurgitation of Paxton’s argument, which Brand famously dismissed here:

[m]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk[/m]

 

[ambershee]

The change wasn't meaningless in the UK.

People voted for the third candidate in record numbers in our last election - the result was a split that caused a coalition that wasn't voted for to get into power. The changes that coalition have made are irreversible and we'll be feeling the effects of that for decades to come - by selling off absolutely anything and everything they can to the highest bidder, even if that bidder comes in way under value of whatever is being sold.

They're even trying to sell our private medical and tax records, as well as debts to government held loans (e.g. student loans) - all of which is criminal under EU and UK law. Of course, law doesn't apply to the lawmakers now though, does it?

 

[dragonfliet]

None of that addresses his point.

If you want trivial concessions, America and the UK are great places to get them. In that sense, yes, change happens all the time. The problem is that it’s meaningless change. Our entire social system is still engineered from the bottom up in favor of concentrated private capital above people.

You’re also grossly misrepresenting Russell when you suggest that not voting is his idea of effecting change. Nowhere has he said anything like that. He only suggests that voting accomplishes nothing worthwhile, and perpetuates the illusion of popular consent.



This is a regurgitation of Paxton’s argument, which Brand famously dismissed here:

[m]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk[/m]

He literally says that not voting is action, and that they need to deliberately not participate in order for someone to listen to them.

As far as meaningless change goes, the US has seen in the last 50 years massive civil rights reforms, equal pay laws, complete overhauls in the healthcare and insurance systems, continued changes to mortgage laws that have made it easier and easier for people to own homes, massive revamps to the educational system, huge consumer protection services, etc. You may like or not like any of the ways in which these things have changed, but they have significantly changed the landscape of the country, and while I'm less familiar with other countries, specifically, there has been similar, large changes in them as well.

In other words, we have demonstrable proof that Brand is an idiot, that he doesn't know what he's talking about and that he's spewing witty sounding nuggets of garbage, things that don't really connect to reality, because he doesn't know very much about the subject, he doesn't care to learn about it, and he has this conception that if things aren't changing RIGHT NOW then they aren't changing. They are, and significantly, but some people just want to close their eyes, not act, and pretend that everything is a global conspiracy. That's your choice, but you're a fucking moron if you do so.

 

[Al]

In other words, we have demonstrable proof that Brand is an idiot, that he doesn't know what he's talking about and that he's spewing witty sounding nuggets of garbage, things that don't really connect to reality, because he doesn't know very much about the subject, he doesn't care to learn about it, and he has this conception that if things aren't changing RIGHT NOW then they aren't changing. They are, and significantly, but some people just want to close their eyes, not act, and pretend that everything is a global conspiracy. That's your choice, but you're a fucking moron if you do so.

Word.

 

[Crotale]

Much respect to dragonfliet.

 

[Balton]

I think it's the English accent that gets most Americans.

 

[cryptophreak]

As far as meaningless change goes, the US has seen in the last 50 years massive civil rights reforms, equal pay laws, complete overhauls in the healthcare and insurance systems, continued changes to mortgage laws that have made it easier and easier for people to own homes, massive revamps to the educational system, huge consumer protection services, etc. You may like or not like any of the ways in which these things have changed, but they have significantly changed the landscape of the country, and while I'm less familiar with other countries, specifically, there has been similar, large changes in them as well.

If this sort of change impresses you then I believe you are easily impressed.

“Civil rights reforms” are welcome but entirely insufficient measures in a country made up mostly of wage slaves. “Equal pay laws” are an adorable diversion in a country with massive income inequality—as though the difference between male and female pay even registered on the scale of the real problem. “Complete overhauls in healthcare” still leave us woefully behind the majority of the civilized world. “Massive revamps to the educational system”... hahahahahahahahahaha. Fucking hell, man. Can you even believe this stuff as you’re typing it?

All of the changes you describe fit within a very narrow set of parameters which limit our potential. There’s a common thread winding through all of these utter failures to value people or offer them anything real, and it’s our absolute ownership by the “the 1%”. I’ve alluded to it before but let me say it more explicitly: there is no such thing as a vote against Goldman Sachs. It does not exist on the ballot. Why is that, do you think?

“Democracy” is relative. You are perfectly free to register your voice for or against gay marriage or cannabis, but whether you wish to go on living out your life subservient to a ruling class is non-negotiable. It’s nowhere in the national conversation, partly because the news media is owned by the very ruling class I mentioned before.

And while that is true, while one’s voting options are between one representative of our indifferent overlords or another, why bother to vote? Why pretend that our vote means anything, really? Why should we take part in demeaning ourselves?

If you don’t address this very real problem and instead go on about our incredible victories, having demanded real reform and instead received metaphorical recycling bins, I don’t know that I’ll be very interested in replying.

 

[Crotale]

crypto, what "real" changes or reform is it that YOU would like to see that are not happening? How would you balance the input of 300 million plus individuals needs and desires with those of several thousand who actually collectively legislate and govern this nation? I ask of you to bear in mind the people can express whatever they desire with no regard to the Constitution, while our complete government must work within the confines of the Constitution, to include the facilitation of amending it.

 

[dragonfliet]

Crypto, I have to say, your desire to change the world in a real, meaningful way is absolutely adorable. What's even more adorable is your belief that changing people's lives in meaningful ways is missing the point, and that the real point should be "a vote against Goldman Sachs." What puts the absolute kicker on this, though, is that you don't seem to have any concept of what that would look like. Are we going to ban money? Should people not be able to invest in companies that they believe are doing a good job?

I'm especially tickled by your non-ironic use of the term "wage slave." Other than sounding ominous, what does that really mean? Oh, you mean people who don't start their own businesses and work their fingers to the bone can instead choose to take a job working for someone else, for less hours, with less risk and investment, but at the cost of less potential for monetary compensation? THE HORROR.

You see, there are some real, actual issues with our system, and super-important problems as to the way money is allocated, and this needs to change (and there, by the way have been numerous changes over the last few decades which reduced income inequality and then raised it again, as those laws continued to be altered, based upon the people voted into office), but it isn't some silly little thing like voting "against Goldman Sachs," but rather the adults need to have adult conversations about what the ACTUAL problem is and how people can ACTUALLY solve it.

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

And I'm saying it's not a particularly valid point at all. It certainly feels like there is little you can do, but that is not only untrue, it's the easy way out, to claim that inaction is your only action. And it's not like democracy "has become" like this, it has always been like this, this is how anything happens, this is the only way in which you can broadly get things done.

People seem to think that because change is typically slow and difficult that it doesn't happen, but it does, and often, but it is the process of many people and a lot of time, and this simply doesn't sit well with people with no real intelligence and no patience, and so they say I want x problem solved (giving no thought as to why things are even like that), and then, six months later, when that problem isn't solved, they throw their hands up and say the process doesn't work. There are massive problems with the political system, and the US is certainly one with lots of problems, but to claim that only the rich get anything, and that not participating is any way to respond is to ignore all of history. Not only are things not as bad as this would imply (not to say they're rosy), but the ONLY way to get things done is to participate instead of claiming that apathy is action. Like I said: he makes some cute jokes, but as far as a point goes, it's worthless.

....like I said.
I think you're reading way too far into his spiel.

he's a standup comedian.
not a philosopher.

but ok.

 

[TWD]

In my general experience third parties are for the politically naive. That's not to say that supporting a third party is stupid, but you have to do it with your eyes open. Far too often the disillusioned will walk into it without any understanding of how party structures operate or why the political system is in its current state. This only leads to further disillusionment.

I would urge every individual in the United States to get involved with one of the two major parties for a time. Volunteer with a local campaign. Something like a race for the state legislature. Attend your party's state convention as a delegate, and help elect party officers.

The biggest issue in our political system today is the public's insistence on making all choices based on ideology. Often third party supporters reach this conclusion after realizing that neither party completely fits their views. They want their politics like they get their netflix. They want it a la cart where you can pick and choose from a menu.

But that's just not how groups of people work. Everyone has to find a middle ground. You won't get exactly what you want, and you have to make it work with what is already in place. That means giving up ideology and giving in to practicality. If I found a politician that matched me exactly, I would only be suspicious. No ideology is perfect, and complete devotion to an ideology will only lead to bad decisions. It is more important to have good capable individuals in government. Those that are willing to put aside their ideology to reach common goals.

That is what I have learned working for multiple campaigns, attending conventions as a delegate, and serving as precinct chairman. Can a third party work? Yes, if their underlying principles make them capable to lead even where half the country disagrees with them. Unfortunately, this is never the reason why someone runs as a third party candidate. They join a third party for ideology's sake. That is why a third party in the US will never be viable.

 

[das_ben]

Dragonfliet, I wish to kiss you on the mouth. I can't believe life's so complex when I just want to sit here and watch you undress. This is love, this is love that I'm feeling.

 

[cryptophreak]

dragonfliet, I read your post and thought it perfectly dispicable, and wondered what would motivate you to write something in such a spiteful tone. Then I read my own comment, to which you were replying, and found the answer. I apologize for being demeaning and obnoxious. It seems old BuF habits die hard.

What puts the absolute kicker on this, though, is that you don't seem to have any concept of what that would look like.

If you didn’t think much of my offhand suggestion above, how about some slightly lengthier and more detailed treatments? Perhaps The Soul of Man Under Socialism by Oscar Wilde or Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein.

 

[Benfica]

I'd like to know what the ones that support dragonfliet's "middle-of-the-road" views, think of this article? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/u...le-class-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest.html

Edit: ... and this video:
[M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP7L8bw5QF4[/M]

 

[Balton]

I'd like to know what the ones that support dragonfliet's "middle-of-the-road" views, think of this article? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/u...le-class-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest.html

404 page not found

 

[Benfica]

404 page not found

Sorry. Fixed
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/u...ass-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest.html?_r=0

Also, I honestly don't see an issue with the failure of the Occupy Wallstreet movement, neither cryptophreak incomplete views. People are still too young to grasp the absurd brainfuck modern life is, let alone offer solutions for it.

 

[N1ghtmare]

I'd like to know what the ones that support dragonfliet's "middle-of-the-road" views, think of this article?

Sorry. Fixed
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/up...hest.html?_r=0

Completely expected and predictable. Our education system was the best when it first made...50 years ago. People demanded it to be upgraded to get our space program going and it happened. Not much has happened since. Everyone else looked at our model and copied it with improvements. Europe's structured college acceptance process makes a lot more sense. Basically our system in the US has pretty much been unchanged, which isn't how you compete with other 1st world nations.

Americans also have this terrible anti-science attitude, which only hurts our education and achievement prospects even more. Basic math and science are also barely required. In the high school I went to, to graduate all you needed were three years (Algrebra 1 & 2 and Geometry). Not even precalculus/trigonometry were required (though most did take it). The basic standard are pathetic; most students have to take college courses to be even eligible to get into college (I ended up taking 8 AP's over my high school). Basically kids get overstressed with content that isn't taught in a format that has any purpose other than to get a good grade like a box in a checklist. Standards need to be better with a more systematic way of teaching relevant content to those who need it.

Fix education and things will get better...not instantly, of course. It takes time for kids to grow up and get through it all. Any effects probably would not be realized for ~10 years. It would be worth it though. The US has a huge amount of potential due to its size and an abundant amount of resources. Harvesting it just requires a strong base of a well educated middle class.

 

[Benfica]

Just one remark ... I don't actually "agree" with a good part of what I linked to, neither I'm the ungrateful imbecile that brainlessly bashes the avg American. I'm also responsible. Living on a system where Portugal's welfare ultimately started with slave trading and ending up sucking Uncle Sam's petrodollar cock, I don't have moral high ground whatsoever. It can be entertaining to wash some dirty laundry between Europe and U.S., but if SHTF, I know very well I'd have to fight for the redneck's team, regardless of how irrelevant that would be.

But part of that is actually true. This is not sustainable. There isn't a genius out there that can provide a "smooth" transition to other economic model like Kissinger did, or at least I don't see him. Ron Paul actually advocates abandoning the Fed and the petrodollar and it's imperialism, he just failed to explain HOW would he do it, and still keeping the welfare of the population and preventing the system from imploding.

So, regarding the topic, voting changes the small and medium things. For the big things, the general population can't really vote. Who actually knows those issues and think can solve them, should step forward with solutions.

 

[hal]

I'm thinking of maybe voting against anyone currently in office. And then making it an annual tradition.