We want to make it easier for you to be sacked and harder to sack us. Fair’s fair.
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo was an Australian group blog which discussed politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
I suspect they won’t go for voluntary voting because the hard heads (are there machine men in the Liberals?) will know that in the absence of mass parties, getting out the vote will be tremendously expensive and who really knows whether it would advantage the Coalition as common wisdom has it…
The total disgrace is the changes to enrolment and the closing of the rolls when the poll’s called. There’s no justification for this as far as I can see whatever other than partisan advantage by effectively disenfranchising citizens who might not vote Liberal.
I might have a look at the report when it comes out to see how they justify it.
I’m also opposed to 4 year terms – who wants to insulate the bastards from their occasional accountability moments longer than necessary!
Agreed Mark, although I might trade off a 4-year term for fixing the election date. But have they got a nerve bidding for more security for themselves at the moment or what? I mean, how stupid do they think the electorate is? As the High Court might say, there is no need to answer that question.
Chris, I think the High Court’s new response to any challenge to the Commonwealth would be more eloquently expressed in the words of Francis Urquhart:
You may well think that, but I couldn’t possibly comment.
F.U. Now there was a ruthless right wing PM with class.
This whole referendum proposal pisses me off no end. I voted on this once 17 years ago, and it was rejected. So why do we need to be asked again (and, if it gets rejected, probably again in a few more years). We’re told by The Australian today that it was only rejected because it was linked to fixed terms and changes to the Senate. Who says? How the bloody hell would they know? (That certainly wasn’t why I voted against it).
It’s the same with Daylight Saving (and the Republic question) – if we don’t like the answer from the people, we’ll just keep asking until we get the answer we want, and then it’s off the agenda.
GO AWAY – it was REJECTED. We’ve managed for 100 years with 3 year terms, and have one of the strongest & most enduring democracies in the world. Get to work on something that matters.
The move to close rolls is a blatant attempt at disenfranchising those who vote against the conservatives, with an estimated two-party effect of 0.3% I read somewhere. Voluntary voting though, would give a two-party effect of a shift of approximately 5% toward the Coalition, which would be a dramatic realignment of the two-party system propelling the Liberals as the natural party of government for many decades.
The only motivation behind these moves is to cement the Tories in power by electoral manipulation, like what other dictators in a myriad of constituencies throughout the planet have done. They fear the wrath of the demographics of the nation so they try to bend it. Another shining example of the universal and invariable pathetic cowardice and gutlessness of the Right.
Tony I dont think thats a very good attitude. People change their minds, the culture of society shifts – and it can shift a hell of a lot in 17 years.
Suppose a ban on something like gay marriage was built into the constitution back in 1901. A refferendum may have been called 17 years ago, but of course there would not have been enough support to change it. 5 years from now there may well be enough support, but because it was thrown out 22 years ago no refferendum should not be called – the people have spoken already, GO AWAY.
Do you see the utter stupidity of your position now?
Whatever Nic, but what Tony said.
One trial balloon I recently saw being floated by a Government guy was voluntary voting. Is this part of the package under discussion? I think this would go a long way to giving us back some of our freedoms. Why because people ought have the right not to vote. Over the last few years I would not have voted for any party given a choice. However I donÄôt have that choice or I will be fined. Great.
No Joe. Wrong. You only have to go to the booth. Thousands of Australians vote informal. You too can be free. Congratulations. Where would you be without me? Next problem?
If certain Liberal party branches get their way, it’s going to be very hard to get away with even thinking about sacking the Gummint.
CS
How is that free, CS, when I am compelled to go to a booth under threat of a fine or jail if I refuse to pay? This makes me free? What if I don’t like any of the parties? I am still forced to attend the bloody booth.
This makes it easier for the big parties. Freeing up voting means they would have to also think about what they are selling to the voting public that would entice people to attend the booth in the fist place. It also weeds out people who have no interest the poliitical process and would/ should not vote anyway. I don’t see how we are free to vote informal, as you say.
Dear Joe,
Your original complaint was:
Over the last few years I would not have voted for any party given a choice. However I donÄôt have that choice or I will be fined.
I have explained why this is false, for you need not vote for any party. OK, so let’s move the old goal posts, in the great if you’re losing tradition. Your fresh complaint is:
I am still forced to attend the bloody booth.
Sucks, huh? Good. Lazy bludger. Do you have medical insurance? You never know. paper cuts can be deadly.
CS
Ok, CS, let’s agree I moved the goal posts, although it is only a question of semantics.
as you said does not exactly fit the definition of the word, free. does it? Compelling the voting population to attend a booth is more coercion than “free”. No?
So I may have moved the goal post as you say but it does not avoid the complaint. We aren’t free if we have to go and stand in a booth so that we don’t vote. I’d rather stay home. That would be free.
Yeah what a rort, having to go to a polling booth and get your name signed off! Orwell warned about this…
IÄôd rather stay home.
Thanks for acknowledging the change of focus Joe. Are we not merely talking about fulfilling the most rudimentary of the duties of citizenship, the smallest price of enjoying the the most common privilege of living in a democracy? There is no compulsion to vote for a party, but in Australia this must be a positive position. No bludgers. This is not a democracy, take it or leave it mate, notwithstanding how often I also feel like the latter.
For every citizen who votes informal and is so diddums as to resent even fulfilling this most fleeting of physical democratic duties, surely it is of value for the ‘we the people’ show to know this was a considered objection, not because some merely prefer to freeload. More centrally, the booth-attendence obligation creates an onus throughout the nation to ensure everyone who wishes to participate as a citizen can. In contrast to your negative conception, this is a positive (liberal and social democratic) sense of being ‘free’.
On the other hand, perhaps you have a disability to admit, which might allow for special treatment? Or are you sort of complaining like a child might, who doesn’t want to go to bed early?
CS
I actually don’t feel liberated by being forced to go to a booth, social democracy or no. I agree with your example of the child forced to bed early, funnily enough. only thing is unfortunately I am an adult and want to be treated as such. Maybe the political process ought to treat me like a grown up and accept that it is my right whether I choose to attend a booth. I find your child example also quite interesting from the perspective that the process treats me like a child: forcing me to go to bed but disregarding the fact that I am over 18 years of age. Using the term social democracy has no real bearing on the subject, as it does not describe our system of governance.
DonÄôt you think that voluntary voting would add a little more flavour to our political process? Rather than enjoying a “captive audience” at the booth, political parties would also have to consider the need to actually make policy that would attract voters to the booth to vote for them.
I don’t believe coercion is a way of ensuring I participate in the political system. Enticement is: attarcting me to the booth with good policies, not by force. Yes, it is a racket, a racket supportedb y both political parties.
What surprises me is why conservatives would support this law. If the US is anything to by, the lower socio-economic groups are the ones who vote least. No wonder it is sometimes referred to as the stupid party: the Liberals.
Whatever Joe. I can tell the tide’s going out real fast here. The bottom line is that the law puts the onus on the state to clear the way for every citizen to vote who wants to, with an informal option. As a citizen, sir, you are a lemming.
I don’t think citizenship is determined by being forced to attend a political rally.. in a voting booth. It is far more than that. In reality the political process has nothing to do with being a good citizen. Obeying the law, respect for other people’s property as well as their and having a appreciation of the cultural folds of the nation make me a citizen. Not being forced to vote.
Rather than having a postive affect, it pisses me off as the law treats us like kids.
Im for a president for life arrangement; and 5-year preventative detention of anyone who looks funny.
You and yer namby-pamby voting rights. There’s a WAR on!
We should have the right to vote, not the responsibility to vote.
The differentiation between the right to not vote and the right to not go to the polling booth is a pathetic semantics game. Similar to the old anti-VSU argument that it wasn’t compulsory to join the union (just compulsory to pay the union fee!) Every reasonable person understands what is being discussed.
Just because this isn’t an Orwelian disaster doesn’t make it good policy.
Speaking of Orwell — the idea of calling an obligation to stand at a polling booth being “free” shows the absolute bastardisation of that word.
The differentiation between the right to not vote and the right to not go to the polling booth is a pathetic semantics game.
This is a pyramid of piffle. If you know anything about the US, you’ll also know that this is a semantic game alright, being played your way. Register in advance, vote on a Tuesday (a working day), stand in a queue for hours before or after work near your home (try that when you have to commute to a big US metropolis and thus can’t get back near home to vote at lunchtime), etc, etc (I’ve barely started on the hurdles you have to jump over there). The practical beauty of the Australian system is that it switches the onus, with the state having to make it dead easy for everyone to exercise their right to vote (while not making it compulsory to do so with respect to any party). Dismount from phoney high horses, please.
What cs said (in fact, everything in the above that cs said).
…and I can’t believe I’m saying that either, Doc, you old democrat!
And, Nic, yes, you are correct, I was being too extreme in my disgust – there are undoubtably issues that should be retested over time. But does anyone think that 4 year terms is among them? That there’s this massive groundswell of popular opinion, a seismic cutural shift, that demands that governments get longer terms? Hmmm? I must have missed it….
What’s this about being forced to attend a polling booth.
Since when has the option of a postal vote been cancelled?
Considering the number of countries where getting shot or bombed when voting is a possiblity, I don’t mind walking a peaceful suburban street. I also remember 18 year olds who couldn’t vote being sent to another war we were lied about.
Belgium also has compulsory voting, and that’s good enough for me.
CS: You say that there are hassles in voting in America. Fine. So what? That is not an argument to make voting compulsory. It is perfectly reasonable to expect (1) the government to make it easy to vote; and (2) the government not to punish you if you don’t vote. My high horse is quite real.
Peter Kemp: Sure, you can put in a postal vote — but that’s not the point. You all know perfectly well what the complaint is, and the only purspose of these sidetracks is to increase the noise-to-substance ratio.
Naomi: I am not arguing against the right to vote (indeed, strictly speaking I’m the one supporting it… you all support a responsibility to vote). As for cherished traditions… so was the white australia policy until it was changed. Sorry Naomi, but I’m not a conservative so I don’t accept appeals to history as justifications for policy. And finally, are you implying that men or women are disadvantages in nearly every other democracy on earth?
You say: we bloody need to be able to vote
Of course. Nobody is arguing against that. There is a big difference between being able to vote, and being fined or jailed because you made the choice to not be involved in voting.
CS: You say that there are hassles in voting in America. Fine. So what? That is not an argument to make voting compulsory. It is perfectly reasonable to expect (1) the government to make it easy to vote; and (2) the government not to punish you if you donÄôt vote. My high horse is quite real.
This is an inverted pyramid of piffle. You have to focus on the practicalities to understand why. The government doesn’t punish you if you don’t vote, only if you don’t go to the booth or are so slack that you can’t even organise a postal form, and don’t have even a half-baked excuse. The only real serious point here, hopefully for the last time, is that making it compulsory to go through the motions decisively shifts the onus onto the state to make it easy for citizens to vote. The example of the US shows a little of what can happen if this is reversed. Of course, as anyone who has followed the fiascos known as US presidential elections over recent years knows, the reality in the absence of compulsory voting facilitation is far far worse than I’ve suggested. More than all the practical voting benefits, compulsory facilitation embeds the very idea of voting in the democracy. Whereas a myriad subtle pressures are exerted against voting in the US, in Australia one hears the wonderful phrase ‘have you voted yet?’ all voting day long. Objectors to making voting facilitation compulsory have nought but a phoney childish semantic theoretical extremist point to dress themselves with on their side of this argument; supporters have major demonstrable practical democratic effects, adverse in the absence and beneficial in the presence of making it compulsory for the state to make it dead easy for each and every citizen to exercise their right to vote.
CS:
There is no such thing as “a US voting system”. It doesn’t exist. States decide what system they have. The Feds have very little to do with it. Tuesday was the day set by the constitution when everyday other than Sunday was essentially the same as the US was an agrarian society. Anyhow, Tuesday is practically a vaction day anyway. Employers must allow their workers time to vote. It’s the law.
Anyhow problems with a voting system have really nothing to do with whether voting ought to be made “free”.
Yes it does punish you if you don’t attend the booth or arrange a postal vote.
How about if I said I couldn’t vote because I didn’t like any of the parties. What are the chances or not getting slugged with fine? I consider that anwswer to be a very good reason not to vote.
Vapid piffle.
There is no such thing as “a US voting system”.
Well, what if I said “the voting system in the US”? Dere.
Incidentally, you also happen to be wrong on every other technical count. Only some states have legislated to allow workers time off to vote (and in those states the law works poorly). And there is a very specific reason for the date of the US election. I can’t explain everything to you all the time, so suffice to say that, when this was instituted, it specifically aimed at enabling everyone to vote – and now it works in the reverse. Talk about a disfunctional democracy, in desperate need of a law compelling vote facilitation.
Actually, I’m now starting to agree with you that it would be best for everyone concerned if you didn’t vote joe. Perhaps we can propose the ‘cambria amendment’.
CS:
Us constitution only requires that election be held on the same day for the US presidential elections. According to Wiki the rest detailed below. So the Congress enacted the law to enable Catholics to vote, it seems.
Dysfunctional? Really?
When people like you CS are surprised that a “dunce” like Bush is elected President of the US, you may want remember these recent survey results.
Washington Post Columnist EJ Dionne reported on a survey:
T]he partyÄôs problems are structural and can be explained by three numbers: 21, 34 and 45. According to the network exit polls, 21 percent of the voters who cast ballots in 2004 called themselves liberal, 34 percent said they were conservative and 45 percent called themselves moderate.
A Liberal in the US sense is not a leftist as such. If you take these poll results in mind it really means that the vast majority of the American electorate is to the right of the Democratic Party. So I think you will be thinking it is as dysfunctional system for a long time.
cs — you seem to be intentionally obscuring the issue. And stop saying “piffle”.
You ask me to focus on practicalities. Nearly every other democracy has voluntary voting, so it seems practical enough.
You once again go on your irrelevant “you don’t have to vote” side-track. This is pedantic. You either know what we mean, or wouldn’t have the mental resources to turn on your computer… so lets stop the semantics games. Just to clarify, I am referring to having to participate in the voting process. I may occasionally refer to this as “voting” simply because it’s shorter to type and every reasonable person knows what I mean.
You say your serious point is that having compulsory voting puts an onus on the government to make it easy to vote. Well, no. Having democracy puts on the onus on the government to make it easy to vote. It is perfectly possible for the government to make it easy to vote and for voting to be voluntary. Somehow New Zealand (not to mention pretty much the rest of the world) seems to be holding up in the face of the “dangers” of voluntary voting.
Your hollow abuse adds nothing. There is nothing childish or extreme about advocating voluntary voting. My argument is very clear and sensible. That argument is that not voting is a victimless “crime” and should therefore not be a crime. The burden of proof should rest on those wanting to introduce/maintain a non-voting penalty… and so far there is no evidence that compulsory voting leads to any better outcomes. Indeed, there is a reasonable argument that compulsory voting creates safe seats and therefore undermines the effectiveness of democracy in many HoR seats… and it also allows political parties to ignore their own supporters.
You finish by saying that there are benefits of having easy access to democracy. Agreed. But not relevant.
CS
.
You seem to be misunderstanding my point. It is not that I donÄôt want to vote. ItÄôs more along the line that I may choose not to vote and should not be fined if I so decide.
Seeing you bring up the US.
The one big fear that plagueÄôs the two big US parties is that voters may stay home on Tuesday because they simply donÄôt like what is being dished up. We donÄôt have this choice in Australia: sure we can roll up to the booth and vote informal but the vast majority of voters donÄôt this. Consequently the big parties here donÄôt have an incentive to really dish up policies that attract their voting base. Hence the blandness of both parties as both simply drive the ball right down the middle. In a way we canÄôt blame them for behaving this way, after all the compulsory voting system is what forces them to do this.
.
Piffle upon piffle.
Look, at this point gentlemen, it is best to shake hands in the knowledge that liberal and, especially, social democrats appreciate the strengths of making it compulsory for the state to faciliate the exercising of the cherished (thanks Naomi) democratic right to vote, and libertarian extremists and lazy bastards don’t. Fair enough. I think there is always a place for weirdos to challenge the prevailing substantive practical democratic wisdom at the trivial abstract theoretical margins. Pip! Pip!
Ease the squeeze boys!
As an old commo once told me: vote early , and vote often.
To reiterate: piffle piffle and more piffle. Australia has a brilliant, simple and hassle-free (unless you’re so pathetically lazy as to refuse partake of a postal vote) eminently practical and sensible democratic electoral system that is, and bloody well should be the envy of the democratic world: voting on a weekend, no hanging chads or unaccountable voting machines, central non -partisan oversight of all voting booths and a uniform system of voting and ballot marking using that high tech wonder, the lead pencil.
Make all the principled stands for your freedom not to vote you can splurt; you suckaz are spoilt for choice and accessibilty when it comes to voting and you don’t have any goddamn excuse – this pathetic anti-voting stand is an outright insult to everything we’ve established and stood for as a nation. Naomi put in plain simple terms that shoulda shamed the lot of you:
AUSTRALIANS FOUGHT LONG AND HARD SO THAT ALL WOMEN AND MEN, REGARDLESS OF INCOME OR CIRCUMSTANCE, WOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE.
Leinad:
Tell me, if donÄôt you like any of the political parties, what do you do? Just interested in knowing.
Now, now Joe. That’s naughty. We have already covered that question. Circular piffle.
Actually, as well as the informal option, I think there may be a case for optional preferential, but that’s another topic.
CS
I was kinda hoping someone would see the circular reeasoning. It always gets back to he same complaint, which is , “what the hell am I doing in this booth when I don’t like any of them”, or “why am I forced to spend 50c on a stamp”. Funny that, hey.
You’ve already had more than your 50 cents worth complaining about it, joe. Tell me, do you find people avoiding you at parties?
You and your piffles.
cs — you seem to be actively discouraging intellegent debate. Having failed to address my actual argument, you now just call me names: “weirdo”, “extreme” or “lazy”. Most reasonable people would interpret that as an admission that you cannot actually respond to my points.
Once again you argue that the state should facilitate the democratic process. Agreed. And still irrelevant.
Leinard… being lazy shouldn’t be a crime. Simple. If you think it should be a crime, you should come up with a good reason… not just repeat “piffle” and make simple logical errors.
Compulsory voting is not the envy of the world.
I agree that chads are a bad way of running elections. Once again — this is not relevant to voluntary voting. I agree central non-partisan oversight of all voting booths is good. Once again — this is not reelvant to voluntary voting. Same with all your other points. Nothing you said was an argument for making laziness (or not voting for whatever reason) a crime.
But to compensate for your lack of arugment… you call my position “pathetic”. Very mature.
You endorse Naomi’s comments — but ignore the fact that I’ve already responded to them. Naomi said it is good that we are able to vote. I agree. Nobody is suggesting that people shouldn’t be able to vote. I’m just suggesting that it should not be a crime to ignore an election.
I understand your point John. It has been argued periodically since I can ever remember, and I think it’s trivial in its own terms (piffle, if you will), and bunkum when you really think about it. So, yes, this is merely spirited, good humoured, polemical jousting to my settled mind. I will endeavour to refrain from futher heckling.
The truth is, push come to shove, that I actually think Australia’s demonstrably marvellous capacity to organise itself like this, without fuss or bother from anyone bar a few harmless whingers, is something of a social wonder to behold and experience – a part of what it means to be an Australian.
I think Mark said right up in the first comment. The hard heads in both major parties won’t want to spend money on getting people to the polls. Also, it is a whole other thing for them to organise.
But in principle, I think if you want to be a citizen you have an obligation to vote. Naomi said most of what I would want to say, except that the whole business of getting the vote out would create a different dynamic around an election, a dynamic that doesn’t contribute to democratic decision making IMHO.
Yep, the small loss of freedom not to vote is more than compensated for, many times over, by all the benefits ennumerated by my learned friends above.
John Humphreys, your position is logically correct and coherent of course but it places far too much weight upon one aspect of living in society. The right do as you bloody well please. Every day I wake up thinking, to day I’m just gonna please myself. A Me day. It’s never happened yet.
If voting is irksome to you just see it as similar to when you had to dry the dishes as a kid.
Speaking of the chains of living in a tribe, voting will never approach the level of burden upon my liberty that complying with bylaws regarding the disposal of hardwaste in The People’s Watermelon Republik of Yarra! This weekend was shot.
WBB
It’s not the burden so much, as people don’t seem to understand. It’s the capriciousness of lawmakers thinking they know what is best for us (along with people who should know better). There isn’t a party I support that I would be happy to hand over my vote. Rather than fight for it as they ought to, the major parties make me roll up to a booth in the hope I will turn over my vote.
This isn’t democracy in action as some suggest. IT’s a racket run by lawmkers to support their existence with the minimum effort.
Naomi:
I’m beg to disagree. Small parties exist and thrive in countries that maintain optional voting. If a party of any size needs a law to survive that forces people to vote that means they don’t deserve to survive in then market place of ideas, which what politics is really all about.
“Ahem, like it or not, the reason we appoint lawmakers is to decide whatÄôs best for us”.
I am not sure I agree with you on that one. ThatÄôs why I would prefer not to vote as I believe I am best able to choose whatÄôs best for me on nearly all things except defense and the like. Not some quack sitting in Canberra.
It suits all parties to focus election work on the day of the election, rather than on working to get the voters there in the first place.
Sure I suits all parties to maintain the current racket. I agree. IsnÄôt it a little ironic that you donÄôt think they ought to be working hard to get people out to vote? IsnÄôt that what they are supposed to do?
Hmm. How about this for a solution? We set aside a few hundred square miles of the country somewhere for all the people who don’t want to vote and don’t much want law-makers deciding what’s best for them and leave them to get on with things. We’d need to put a bloody high wall around this privileged little spot, of course, to keep whatever they were getting on with safely contained when they get out of hand and the price of fava bean and chianti futures goes through the roof.
There isnÄôt a party I support that I would be happy to hand over my vote.
Do you have any arguments that are based on something more than “I don’t like it”?
Like, how democracy would be improved, or how society would benefit?
Or how voluntary voting would suddenly lead to the creation of a party to whom you would give a vote.
Or how not voting and getting a Government anyway is a good thing.
Because at the moment, your argument is basically that making you do something twice every three or four years is unacceptable, regardless of what it does to benefit society, in all the ways Naomi has spelt out.
Amanda:
To be perfectly honest as a conservative with a libertarian bent, I don’t feel I owe anyone an explanation why I don’t want to vote. In fact, I really don’t understand what you mean that my vote and this law benefits society. Wasn’t it Maggie Thatcher who said the concept of society does not exist? My argument doesn’t just explain that I don’t like the current system. It explains that this law takes away my freedom. And freedom is pretty important, right?
I really don’t care if people don’t think it would be an improvement to the current system. That’s not waht I want to judge. I simply want to right to vote to become an option.
Naomi;
I can’t handle libertarism by itself because to be a libertarian means essentially that you can’t have an opinion in a lot of areas: that’s not human.
Thatcher did not say that in reference to the economy. She was referring to people who mischaracterize the term “society”. Like her, whenever I see that term I always think two things are gunna happen. Either my freedoms will be curtailed in some fashion or my pocket is gunna get picked. I am not often wrong.
People co-operate not because of some pie-in-sky belief they are doing so to help others. We co-operate because in a way we are helping ourselves. I let the baker bake my bread because he is better at it. I let a doctor check me out because he or she spent some time training in a field that requires a very high IQ. We donÄôt co-operate because we love each, we do so because it is very much in our interests.
ThatÄôs exactly what I am saying only you put it better than I could hope to.
I really think you are looking at this backwards. Market Capitalism, which is mischaractorized by the left as the law of the jungle is nonsense quite frankly. Market Capitalism could not exist without the rule of law. It would be impossible.
The term “social contract” is a socialist concept that has nothing to do with market capitalism. In fact it is its enemy.
I keep reading a recurring theme in this thread, which goes something like this: whatÄôs it matter donating a little bit of freedom for the greater good, such as, compulsary voting if it means smaller parties can breathe in the open.
Well, IÄôll tell you what happens. What happens is that we end up with laws Bracks introduced attempting to stamp out racial prejudice: Racial Villification laws.
I recently read a piece in the Melbourne Age defending those laws. And what do you think was the theme: whatÄôs giving up a little freedom speech if we can all live in Utopian freedom of racial harmony.
I only wish Bracks and Co. could leglislate to make uus all billionaires.
Keep a close eye on what’s under your bed, joe. You never know.
CS
I bought a futon to stop them and it did. But they made a life for themselves on the web.
joe, I think that says it all. You are essentially saying that when we appear to cooperate we are really exploiting other people. Some people like cooperating and get satisfaction from seeing others achieve.
I think people who exploit others for there own satisfaction are best left in their own company.
Someone wake Rosseau up and tell him he’s a socialist. And responsible for Victoria’s vilification laws.
Brian:
it’s not exploitation to appreciate that a baker makes better bread than I do. Or that a film maker makes better movies than I could imagine. My point was that we co-operate by offering a service or making goods we do well. This doesn’t exploit anybody, does it?
The problem we have is that most of us don’t understand the level of co-operation because of the veil of money. In a barter type economy the baker co-operates with the candlestick maker by creating a surplus of bread that he can barter with the candlestick maker. These exchange could be explained as exploitation.
I wouldn’t want to live away from others because I value what they do for me in terms of making my life better, which I pay for. Similarly I do the same back.
Uh? Yes you read some Adam Smith, joe. What did that little summary have to do with compulsory voting?
Bad news Joe, as compulsory voting illustrates, we’re evolving so as to distinguish the unselfish co-operators – those who have a sense of justice, or a sense of gratitude, or feel bound by loyalty to their partners, associates and fellow citizens – from calculating co-operators such as yourself, who co-operate only because they see it as in their own selfish interest. The good news for us is that, as more of us form co-operative relationships only with the unselfish co-operators, then unselfish co-operators will do better than the remaining throwbacks to calculating co-operation, and social evolution will naturally lead to the survival of the most co-operative. We’re on your case pal.
Actually, that’s one of the few sensible things Latho said – when he looked at research done post the election it was only Labor voters who cited any reasons for their vote having to do with the community or others. Liberals all cited “keep me safe”, “keep my mortgage down”, etc.
CS
And I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. It’s real neat and shiny too.
You’re just trying to get me back for that town hall clock I stuck you with. Here, take a towel too and dry yourself off – concentrating on those green bits behind your ears.
The old RWDBs were more funny.
And cs and I are seemingly the only Lefties stoushing at the moment. There’s only so much we can do.
Just lamentin…
I donÄôt feel I owe anyone an explanation why I donÄôt want to vote.
Then don’t expect to persuade anyone, joe.
Your style of argument bears a striking similarity to my three year old’s. Really. Sometimes he doesn’t want apple juice, it has to be orange juice.
And Kim – they were funnier, and it was often on purpose. *sighs*
Cough
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1583365,00.html
Cough
I think that Tim Lambert vs. trolls thing has killed the atmosphere of the blog. It injected a nasty note into the stoushes, people on both sides got antsy, EP went away (as I tried to point out before – he actually played a really useful role in spurring people to argue), Mark got pissed off with Rob (largely understandably in my view), the anti-Tim Lambert mob took up residence (but they’re no fun), hesitant commenters stopped commenting, Liam took a break, and now it’s just a few of the regulars saying anything, and some random RWBDs of the second division.
I suppose we’ll have to thank the blogging gods for Jack Strocchi soon.
I hope we can get our mojo back.
Signified by my gravvy turning grey.
*Sob*
CS
Kindly explain to me how your system would work. This co-operative system of yours.
Kim:
Lambert’s view of a troll is anyone who disagrees with his far left, never been outside of a campus ideology, along with samckings of Latham’s neurosis.
Anthony:
If it’s in the Guardian, it’s gtta be true, right?
Hey Joe (good name for a song), knock yourself out here (for starters). If you can show some comprehension, I’ll consider throwing more light your way – socialists believe in education.
I think one has to look at the systemic effects of voluntary vs compulsory voting – Joe’s emotivist arguments won’t do.Let’s take a public choice economics perspective on this. Think of the political market the same way you would a normal market with the basic function of capturing individual preferences and maximising the sum of preference satisfaction. On the one hand it could be argued that compulsory voting is likely to reduce the quality of policies that political parties adopt because by forcing people who have no interest in voting or public policy to vote it must design policies that appeal to people who have not made much of an investment in informing themselves about the packages on offer. It would be a bit like a normal market where the consumer isn’t well informed so you would expect the quality of the product on offer to be low. On the other hand, with voluntary voting there is no guarantee that politicians will have incentives to design better policies either – rather those least interested in politics might be those representing the median of opinion and by definition their preferences are probably represent a high percentage of the populations’ and therefore should be weighted higher than they would in a system of voluntary voting where the most strongly motivated to mobilise themselves wouild be the extremes of opinion – in other words, politicians might not offer packages that weight preference appropriately under a voluntary voting system because the outliers are weighted more heavily.
Nats have come out against it, according to the Fin.
I don’t mind the idea of simplifying bloc voting and preferences for the Senate though.
Strangely, in my reading of Latho’s Diaries, I didn’t notice anything that would correspond to:
Does this refer to an “enemy” named Sam C. King?
A slang term for neural pathways connected with Narcissistic Personality Disorder?
Just stoushin…
“Anthony:
If itÄôs in the Guardian, itÄôs gtta be true, right”
Joe
The George Mason University Economics dept which is responsible for that neuroeconomics research is well known for its explicitly libertarian Austrian economics slant
I miss EP.
Indeed. Those Anti-Lambertists were a most tedious and regrettable interlude.
I can honestly say Ive never enjoyed blogging less than when they issuing their tiresome and repetitive rants.
Jason:
When I grow up I want to be just like you. Smart, able to recite every philosopher during the last 200 years but with the added advantage that I will, unlike you, not just rote learn to recite it. I will try to understand it.
Mark, asked that all refrain from bringing past hatreds over to his blog. I do suggest yopu follow his advice.
Look at the treads I have spoken on at this site. Not one could be even remotely classed as abusive.
So I suggest again, that if you want to attack me, go over to Lambert’s paradise and ask him for a special spot. I’m sure the old dog would be willing to.
what on earth are you on joe? i wrote a long, fairly esoteric response about how to better analyse voluntary vs compulsory voting from a public choice perspective? where have i been abusive aside from calling your argument emotivist and correcting you about George Mason University? you’re the one lacking an argument
Joe, you may not be abusive, but you are boring and repetitive.
At least Evil was entertaining and repetitive.
Naomi:
I commend you on your altruistic efforts. I honestly do. The world is made better by people like you and if there is a God, you ought to be at the head of the line for entry through the pearly gates. Not enough of what you do is recognized. Please accept these commens in the sipirt intended.
My comments in no way implied that efforts like yours should go unoticed or reduced. You seem a good person and there ough to be more like you.
hey nabs
can you hook us up with a snort of what joe’s having?
I have no idea why Joe thought that Jason’s comment was offensive or reflecting past hatreds or something.
Unless it’s a general reflection on public choice theory
Hey, Zoe, there’s a really good sperm theft incident in an early episode of The L Word.
What did Jason do wrong? I’m afraid Joe’s lost it.
“can you hook us up with a snort of what joeÄôs having?”
I think I should hook him up with a snort of what I’m having (Jameson with a teensy dash of soda.)
Once Joe moved on from his Tim Lambert obession he actually settled down to some informed and thoughtful interchanges earlier on this thread, along with an OK futon joke.
I think he just gets a bit excitable when the numbers on the screen are flowing against him, or when the ex emails him about the alimony, and likes to lash out a bit.
Also I think the demographics of LP are getting to him. He’s probably more used to angry white men snapping at eachother over statisitical minutea. I think the combination of fashion conscious socialists, smart and pushy women, clever Asian-Australians, serious young insects with a bit of nous, film loving RWDBs and smartarse old bohos is throwing him a bit.
Have another whiskey Joe. It me for works.
Mark:
Not that I really care as it is like water off a ducks back. I have been accused of being a narcissist with a personality disorder, selfish, boring, I was given a link that described traders as having psychopathic tendencies, a Lambert troll, losing my mind, a three year old not getting fruit juice, having green bits behind my ears, un-cooperative, ought to be left in solitary confinement. The dessert is Soon accusing me of being emotive and associating my view on voting, which (hysterically when put in proper context) he long handedly agreed with but somehow templated to G Mason University; a well known racist university of the recent past.
Either Soon is behaving with malice or he isn’t aware the only countries that practice compulsary voting are totalitarian regimes (such as North Korea) and Australia (which clealy isn’t). As far as I know the world’s major democracies practice voluntarism and last time I looked Germany, Japan or France weren’t on the to study list at G Mason U.
Mark, as I said itÄôs like water off a ducks back. However, you find issue with my comments about Soon?
Well, Joe, I fail to see, as I said, how Jason’s comment is offensive to you. I didn’t even read it as being directed towards you – just a general contribution to the discussion from a public choice theory perspective.
Naomi — my belief in civil liberties is not fake as you imply. I can see no reason for you to imply that other than just being rude. Little wonder you enjoyed debating EP, where victory was determined by insults and not reason.
You provide no evidence for why voluntary voting would further alienate voters. The country with most in common with Australia is NZ… and they manage to have a robust democracy. Indeed, during their last election there was some commentary about how NZ politics had some advantages over Australian politics in terms of involvement and less of the fake stage-managed buzz-word bingo crap.
You complain that under voluntary voting political parties would have to try and get people out to vote. I would say that is a good thing. It means that political parties cannot ignore their supporters. There is some evidence to suggest that compulsory voting contributes to having safe seats, whereas a low voter turnout can over-throw a safe seat under voluntary voting.
But these are arguments. No match for “you’re an evil right-winger” slurs.
If voluntary voting kills minor parties… why are there so many minor parties in most countries with voluntary voting? Your arguments don’t stand up.
You say that it is good for the AEC to get polls to people. I agree, but once again that has nothing to do with compulsory voting. It is unfair to constantly repeat discredited arguments and then accuse other people of being repetitive when they continue to point out your mistakes.
I don’t know whether it is worth responding to the personal stuff… but for the record (1) I don’t own a computer; and (2) I would vote anyway. Not that these points are relevant to the robustness of the argument.
You conclude: Your minor inconvenience is a small price to pay for the ability of all Australians … to be able to vote how they choose.
You can get the benefit of democracy without compulsory voting. You imply otherwise, and in doing so are blatently lying. Your argument is the equivalent of me saying that “having voluntary voting is a small price to pay for the survival of the tasmanian rainforests and independence of east timor”.
cs — the point may be relatively trivial, but I can’t see how it is bunkum. I’m following the simple maxim of “if you can’t justify violence/coercion then don’t do it”. There is no reason for punishing vote-avoiders, so the presumption of leaving people alone should be respected.
Brian — why does somebody have an obligation to cross their name of a list? On what consistent logic are people obliged to show up, but not obliged to vote? Is showing up and watching other people vote the foundation of democracy? Further, on the basis of obligation, it should be compulsory to be an informed voter! As you can see — the obligation argument soon falls apart.
wbb — your “learned friends” have not given any evidence of any benefits of compulsory voting. There seems to be a bit of group-think going on here… but contrary to popular practice (among all political and religious groups), constantly repeating a point does not make it true. I repeat… constantly repeating a point does not make it true.
Further, I haven’t argued that people should just try to please themselves. I’ve argued that you shouldn’t punish people without a good reason. Quite different, and quite frankly I’m amazed that the ideas could be confused!
Joe does have a point there. A lot of shit has been thrown at him here even after he settled down to sensibly chew the fat over IR reform with Mark.
Some here can’t really complain about the lack of quality debate while at the same time taking a lower road than they should (NB: This does not apply to me as I’ve never claimed, let alone reached, high ground of any kind.)
On the other hand though, EP’s had much worse thrown at him and bounced back. Incidentially, where is the little scamp thes days? Not studying Nobel-winning insights into ulcers I hope?
But finally, I can’t resist this piece of snark.
“Germany, Japan or France werenÄôt on the to study list at G Mason U.”
So Joe, you think we should be more like France or Germany?
CS
You are a funny dude.
However, just to diappoint you I have only been married once and still to the same intelligent beautiful woman I met many years ago. The one mark against her is she is a lefty, but I forgive that as her background was teaching at a university and if we can’t forgive we ain’t human. Clearly we never discuss politics at home.
Love smart, pushy women. Think of the opposite!
And no, I don’t miss trading rooms as I too old. (actually yes I do).
Smart dressing socialists? You mean you guys all got rid of the Mao suits. Jeez, And I thought conservatives were the snappy dressors.
See Joe, now you’re getting into the spirit of the thing here. However a few points. I’m not actually cs. Nor a snappy dressor. Nor a socialist. However I am a well-dressed high bohemian with a good share portfolio,some nice first editions and an excellent drug dealer
Fair crack Joe. You boasted of being selfish and unco-operative (hence the solitary suggestion), you have been repetitive (which is boring), childish wilfulness is the most obvious reason for your stance, the link was a fair and polite cop, the green bits was a rejoinder to your own heckle, you seem to have forgotten the great nation of Belgium, and now the response by Jason seems to have unaccountably unhinged you. I mean, it’s been a fun thread, but mainly because you have insisted on being a barnacle asserting (more than arguing) in favour of an extreme position on which the general view round these parts is entirely settled. As the man sung:
Hey Joe, where you gonna run to now
Where you gonna run to
Hey Joe, I said, where you gonna run to now
Where you, where you gonna go?
Now, moving on, and getting back to the actual point of the post, do you reckon it’s fair that the pollies should be bidding for more job security for themselves while intent on lessening it for everyone else?
On Nabs point -
The comments policy is written to allow some latitude for light hearted and affectionate name calling in the interests of a good stoush. Purely abusive comments are out of order. If people feel aggrieved, the practice has always been to raise a point of order on the thread. Generally also a fair amount of latitude is given if things stay good humoured, and the discretion is delegated to the thread’s author.
Having said all that, I return to my night’s mission of detecting plagiarism in first year essays.
Nab
Listen, I running real low on Celebrex 200 mg and Nasonex (NSD). You think you can fill the script without having to go to the doc.
John, well it is bunkum because you seem to have a naive view of how the state works. You say:
…it is good for the AEC to get polls to people. I agree, but once again that has nothing to do with compulsory voting.
Well, it’s not compulsory to vote for any party, but we’ve been over that (if it is mere semantics, how come you keep turning the semantics your way, pray tell?) The beauty of the present system is that it makes the state plan for a total set. The thing is unequivocal. Clear cut. Dead easy. Once you try to make the state plan and make it voluntary to go to the booth, the rope will inevitably start to rot, not just with the state itself but on all fronts (‘look, it’s important to get this job done’ says the employer to the worker; ‘oh, I just haven’t got time today’ says the pressed carer; ‘oh, we didn’t provide a booth because no-one from that area voted last time’ says the bureaucrat to the parliamentary committee, etc, etc, etc, etc …. hey, welcome to Florida). Your idea that you can make the state facilitate and have it voluntary at the same time is, to an experienced bureacratic mind, bunkum – touching, but bunkum.
I object on other grounds too, but just wanted to get that one out of the way.
“detecting plagiarism in first year essays.”
That point came up during one of my first seminars at uni and the tutor said, well if what you say here over the coming year sounds utterly different from what you write in style and content, I’ll be smelling a rat.
So I said as little as possible and popped into his office one lunchtime while he was out (pre-internet days), fossicked through his filing cabinets and bookshelf, worked out where his head was, found much of who he criticised in his work in the uni library and just wrote rebuttal essays against them. High distinction and not a whiff of plagarism.
The internet has taken all the fun out of gaming the system.
Back to Naomi — I don’t appoint lawmakers to decide what’s best for me. And I am involved with a micro-party that stands for voluntary voting on principle.
Gummo — you seem to be confusing voluntary voting with libertarianism. These are not the same issue. As for providing a place somewhere on the world free of excessive government, when you find it let me know.
Amanda — You ask for reason instead of emotion. I have provided argument based on reason, but you didn’t respond to me. I have showed how the burden of proof is on the person wanting to criminalise peaceful behaviour, I have argued that many voluntary voting regimes are perfectly robust (evidence: ROW), I have argued that compulsory voting allows parties to ignore their supporters and creates safe seats. You ignored me — but amazingly go on to ask joe to provide arguments?!
And you (like many others) offer your support to Naomi’s arguments, ignoring the fact that I have shown Naomi’s arguments to be bunk.
Naomi again — On Maggie Thatcher… the underlying reason for the comment “there is no society, only people” is that society is nothing more than the people in it and their relationships with each other. In other words, there are no “society goals or values” that are removed from the people in that society. I agree it is badly worded because obviously there is a society and it is important — but the point holds.
For some reason, the left have chosen to ignore the point and instead attack the semantics. Fair enough for the purpose of rhetoric — as long as deep down you are actually aware of the real argument and aren’t just hiding behind word confusion.
And Naomi implies that free-markets are inconsistent with cooperation and compassion. That is blatently a lie, and I suggest lying is a bad way to progress a debate.
The “social contract” is a metaphor. It doesn’t really exist.
Naomi: “ThereÄôs a little word called altruism … that will always undermine rampant market ideology”
There is nothing inconsistent between altruism and market ideology. To imply otherwise is a lie. Again. The only option is that you actually don’t understand market ideology… but you speak with such force that I can only assume you would first ensure you are properly educated on the topic.
Joe, it still appears you are confusing me with cs. There is no pill to cure that.
cs — How are the semantics my way? I have already explained my reason for using “voluntary” and “compulsory” voting. Everybody knows what is meant by these words.
You say arguments for voluntary voting are bunkum because they rely on a naive view of the state. Not true. I am looking at the world. You seem to think that Europe and the Americas and every other democracy is having a crises of polling access. Is the democracy in the rest of the world “bunkem”? Is Australia the only true democracy? (Belgium doesn’t enforce their punishment).
Nobody is suggesting voting on a work day. I think the idea of a voting public holiday is a good one, but I’m sure there are other alternatives.
Further, if somebody does have higher priorities on election day — then that is a decision for them, not you or Mr Howard. This is already accepted by our current rules — where you can get out of voting by providing an excuse such as “I had lots of work to do” or “I had to care for my sick mother”. I am just asking that we switch the burden of proof, unless there is a good reason to treat non-voters as criminals. You have not provided such a reason.
As for the state facilitating voting… there are no changed incentives for the AEC employees. AEC employees aren’t fined for you/me failing to vote. Are you suggesting that they will all turn evil and try to hide ballots from people the day after voluntary voting legislation is put in place, despite legislative requirements to the contrary?
Thanks nabs: for reminding me.
Which gets me back to that point bout me be selfish and what not. In 5th grade I got hold of the end of year science exam as a relative sat for it at another school a week ahead of time. So I did the right thing: memorized it (it was mostly multi choice) and shared the questions round with every other kid in the class. Now I didn’t ask for money and probably didn’t even get a thank you. I did it out of pure altruism- yes I shared the spoils of war. The end result was a class average of 95% outta 100.
So CS, Naomi, Kim, El. This proves I am co-operative, helpful and sensitive. There was some real low voltage in that class and I got them through it. There!
Yep what Naomi said. Plus if you don’t vote, your complaints about government should be automatically discounted – the way I turn a deaf ear to any pronouncement about sex by a religious leader who’s forbidden to open the carnal gates of paradise himself
“the Prime MinisterÄôs realised that heÄôs on a hiding to nothing with this one”
Not really. T’was a nice little oxygen sucker for the media who were starting to look a bit too closely at the new terror laws.
“IÄôve decided Joe Cambria is much more fun to stoush with since he was so complimentary. ”
Yes, if we can get him in the groove, I reckon he’s a keeper.
No Naomi — yes yes, market ideology… very amuzing.
I don’t blog at work. But I am leisured as I’ve made a decision to give up work and be relatively poor. Clive Hamilton, down-shifting, life-is-more-than-your-job and all that. Personal decision. No dole.
I am arguing against victimless crimes. Vote-avoiding is a victimless crime. While I think tax isn’t very much fun, that is not related to this debate.
I agree NZ isn’t like Australia. Neither is it like the US. Australia is unique… just like every other country. But I find it hard to swallow the idea that Australia is the only democracy in the world…
I agree the idea isn’t popular. And perhaps we should leave it at that. Though I note that popularity is irrelevant to the debate.
I wasn’t attacking semantics — I was trying to make sure words were being used in a way to aid communication, not prevent it. I know I called you a liar. It was because you lied. I wasn’t wounded. I’m just increasingly bored of debates that amount to slanging matches.
OK, I know how you guys like to pride yourself on your sense of humour, so I can only presume this is now becoming a running joke…
“Yep what Naomi said.”
Nab — there is no reason to discount the opinions of people who don’t show up to the polling booth, but to include the opinions of the person who shows up and doesn’t vote. Perhaps you should judge ideas on their merits?
To Joe and John
We do have voluntary voting. You can turn up to your ballot box and drop a blank ballot or write a manifesto on how turning up to an polling booth in your electorate on a saturday is the first step on the road to serfdom, and rest asurred that it won’t be counted.
What you’re complaining about is compulsory showing up-to-a-polling booth. That’s all you have to do in the this great country. One of your few duties.
And even then you can get past it with a doctor’s certificate or by sending in the Voluntarist Manifesto by mail ballot.
So again this argument comes down to making major changes to an effective, simple, hassle free and non-partisan system, to say nothing of the ramifications it may have for the health of our democracy because… you don’t want to get your name signed off on saturday at a polling booth every odd year.
(This reductio ad absurdium brought to you by: what Amanda, Naomi, cs, Jason (kinda?), Gummo, Zoe, LE and Tony said)
“Yep what Naomi said.”
“Nab Äî there is no reason to discount the opinions of people who donÄôt show up to the polling booth, but to include the opinions of the person who shows up and doesnÄôt vote. Perhaps you should judge ideas on their merits?”
I was agreeing with her points about compulsory voting. The “who lied about who lied about who lied first” stuff is some blogsquall I have no interest in.
Damn these criss-crossing threads to perdition or usenet.
Leinad:
Of all the names I was called, being referred to as boring especially by a smart, pushy gal hurt the most. I am not gunna go down that Road to Surfdom (as you say) again. So rather than copping abuse and then fending off….ummmm he who agreed with me, I suggest you read up all the answers to those questions you pose that are attached above.
If anything is missing y’all come back ya hear and I will only be happy to oblige.
Naomi — you implied that free-markets are inconsistent with cooperation and compassion, and you implied that market ideology is undermined by altruism. Neither is true. Either you don’t know your topic or you intentionally lied — neither of which helps.
I’m blogging on Neil’s computer today. He’s an english-teacher here in Korea who has kindly offered me a corner of his floor for a few weeks.
Yes Leinard — we’ve gone through all of that before. Pointless semantics. You know what we mean and we use “voluntary voting” simply because “not being forced to make some voting activity such as showing up to a polling booth and crossing of your name or getting a postal vote etc” is a bloody long sentence. If it will put your mind at ease, we could make a new word for it — how about “schmurgeon”?
Our point (or at least my point) is that schmurgeon is a victimless crime, and therefore should be legal unless you can think of a bloody good reason why it shouldn’t be. And no, saying “I agree with Naomi” is not a sufficient argument.
I don’t think you should count Jason’s comments as an endorsement of compulsory voting.
And the change isn’t that major. All you have to do in the first instance is not enforce the schmurgeon fine. And after that change has been done we would still have an effective, simple, hassle free and non-partisan system… but with politicians that now have greater incentive to listen to all of their suppoters, not just the fickle ones.
Joe, you’ve been treated with a fair degree of derision because you make an extra-ordinary argument without presenting extra-ordinary evidence to support it – to the contrary you’ve asserted that your strong opposition to compulsory showing-up-at-the-polling-booth-to-do-a-donkey-vote is reason enough for its abolition and then started rehashing Chapter One of the Wealth of Nations as if that had something to do with your argument.
Compared to some places on the internet the ‘abuse’ you’ve recieved in this thread wouldn’t even show up on the radar, and I think I speak for everyone who’s responded to you in saying that we think any actual ill of you, we just find your arguments here to be less than convincing and you insistence otherwise to be worthy of scorn.
Nab: I was agreeing with her points about compulsory voting.
I was talking about her comments on compulsory voting as well. Most of her points have been tackled head-on and shown to be wrong… but people keep saying “yes, me too”. Strange.
“You mean you guys all got rid of the Mao suits. ”
Hardly. Silk navy blue Shanghai Tang number with pink satin lining baby. Never mind the biting bitter-sweet post handover Hong Kong statements, look at the fabric sir.
John: Please don’t be offended if I don’t take up your offer of using “smurgeon”, because I suspect you’re aware that the semantic definition I’ve proposed amply makes my point.
Moreover, I’d be pretty darn surprised if the refusal-to-show-up-at-a-polling-booth-to-drop-a-ballot-paper-in-a-box fine is enforced with anything approaching dilligence, going by the regular 75-85%ish turnout at elections of any sort. That’d mean thousands of non-attendants getting $20 fines, the following up of which I’m pretty sure MiniElect knows isn’t worth the trouble, especially if they’re all like you. In any case you can consider it a libertarian conscience tax which can amply be covered by all the productive time you gained by not submitting to the evil lure of the polling booth.
Leinad:
I was only joking about what Naomi said, about me (about being boring and all). It was the accusastion of being repetitive that I left out of the tabulation of abuse that really hurt. Leinad, seriously, you guys can abuse me till the cows come home as every rhino in the world is looking for a hide as thick than mine.
However at the risk of repeating myself only in a different way;
My position isn’t extreme when the only countries that support compulsary voting are Australia and Belgium (as CS reliably corrected me). To be perfectly honest, now that I think of it, if the French or Germans support my point I am not sure I wanna support my point any longer. But then I have to go along and support Belgium and when I think of Belgium I think of Brussels, which means the EU. And then, then I just wanna give up the idea of voting anyways because if you have France and Germany rooting for you on one side and then the Belgium/Brussels axis on the other, i got to the point where I need to go on suicide watch. Anyways markets beckon. Stocks to be traded, currencies to to be sold (Euro). I’ll be back says Arnie.
CS, be nice to me ok. I am gentle and cute.
“been tackled head-on and shown to be wrong”
No they haven’t.
“CS, be nice to me ok. I am gentle and cute.”
So am I. But I’m still not cs however. We are very different. For starters, I’m fatter but with thicker hair and his flat is much cleaner than mine. However I have more booze in my fridge.
joe: cool, this is the internet, never can be sure etc, etc,.
When I think Belgium, I think Brussels and then Brussel sprouts. So to counter that I usually I try and think of Belgian chips. I don’t know why Australians as a great beachgoing and chip guzzling nation haven’t taken to mayonnaise and vinegar with our fried potato fatsticks, instead preferring super-salty, watery, tomato (or worse, barbeque) sauce, which don’t come anywhere near the mouthwatering ecstasy of pommes frites.
So, I’ve decided to form my own party: Bring On Belgian Booze and Chips. Even voluntary voters are welcome, because some things are too important to get caught up in.
Enough is Enough Australia, It’s Time to Give Mayo a Chance!
“The dessert is Soon accusing me of being emotive and associating my view on voting, which (hysterically when put in proper context) he long handedly agreed with ”
Joe, the reason I called you emotive was because your argument seemed to exclusively consist of complaining about what a hassle it was for you to vote. Not an irrelevant consideration but not exactly the full story either, sort of like doing a cost-benefit analysis but looking at only the cost to one person. And the rest of the discussion was just me doing my usual ‘two handed economist’ schtick pointing out that there were possible problems with both voluntary and compulsory voting in terms of incentives for political operators not being directed to the general welfare.
“but somehow templated to G Mason University; a well known racist university of the recent past”
This is the most mystifying comment on the entire thread. let me rehash it for you – someone linked to an article on neuroeconomics and the psychology of traders citing research from George Mason Uni. You dismissed it by saying the article was from the Guardian therefore by implication left-wing and biased. I then pointed out that George Mason U has a right wing economics department. As for this charge of George Mason U you’re either being pathetic – falsely accusing a uni of being racist because you don’t agree with some conclusions from their research or confusing it with some other faculty. FYI these 2 fellas come from GMU
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/
I’m not into gentle and cute blokes Joe. I think you’ve got me mixed up with Nabs again.
John, we’ve turned around this so often I’m beginning to feel like the latest Rolling Stones album. Suffice in sum for us to agree to disagree, as I feel your point is merely to make a trifling, even piffling, stand on behalf of an effectively meaningless abstract principle, at the cost of what I see as a practical system that firmly puts the screws on the state to facilitate every citizen being able to vote if they wish.
In compelling the state to facilitate voluntary voting (at last, the right form of words), there are moreover a myriad of other diffuse consequences, most of which are good or better. On the other hand, in a gesture toward pushing the post toward more interesting corners of this envelope, one consequence that might not be good is the immediate political consequences. In all the civic celebration on this thread, it should not be lost that the only reason Australia has the wonder of compelling the state to enable voluntary voting is that the conservatives (Lord Bruce, as I recall) figured they had to dilute the activist working class vote with the drongo working class vote back in the ’20s. It is thus interesting that the conservatives now find themselves reversing on their historical selves. It suggests they now imagine the Big Right Turn has been so profound that there are now more activist conservative working class voters than radicals these days. As much as this political possibility might be painful to imagine, let me nonetheless pause in my moment of democratic purity and still disdain the plea for risking the act of making it (effectively) voluntary for the state to facilitate voluntary voting.
In other news, Ronnie Barker just died.
So it’s goodnight from him.
Jason:
Let me apologize for being an idiot. I confused G Mason with that tinpot place- Bob Jones University. Yep! I am an idiot. I am very sorry for pressing the accelerator without putting more thought to it. I can now understand why Mark came down on me. In retospect I did look like a luni. However I did get it confused and only realzed now after your most recent post after I looked at the links and G Mason didn’t quite sound the saem as Bob Jones.
In my job, I learned the hard way not to have an ego and admit mistakes when they happen. I just realzed I did make one now and ask you accept my apology.
I wasn’t deliberalely attempting to make make an emotive argument about the context of voting. I was trying to explain my opinion. However it may have looked to personal.
Please accept my apology. I am being quite honest about the mistake I made.
However I have more booze in my fridge.
Dang that.
And Jase, sorry if I lumped you in as pro compulsory-turning-up-and-dropping-paper-in-a-box-on-election-day
fair enough Joe, your comment makes more sense now
Leinard — no offense taken, but I think you missed the point. Everybody already know what is and isn’t compulsory. Your comment was a pointless sidetrack caused by irrelevant semantics.
As for enforcing compulsory voting, or schmurgeon, or RTSUAAPBTDABPIAB (can you see why we shorten it now?) … people get fines, and if they don’t pay the fines they get more fines. Eventually there is a warrant issues for them, and ultimately the “criminal” can spent a few days in jail. This has happened.
But if you agree that we shouldn’t enforce the penalities, then we’re largely in agreement. I don’t mind if there is a piece of legislation saying “hey, you should all vote, and if you don’t — nothing”.
And once again — this isn’t just a libertarian issue and I would vote anyway.
Nab: “No they havenÄôt”… yes they have
She implied you can’t have democracy and voluntary voting — reality makes a lie of that idea. She says voluntary voting (VV) will destory minor parties — reality makes a lie of that idea. She says that VV will require parties to encourage people to vote — but that is a good thing because it makes political party consider the will of their supporters. She says VV will destory political participation, but there is no evidence that our participation is particularly high now or that VV countries have lower participation.
In response to all of these points, the only rejoiner has been “you’re radical/crazy” and “I agree with Naomi”. Wow.
cs — yes, we’ve gone over this a few times. I agree that we disagree but I don’t agree that the final word should be you calling my ideas “piffle” or “meaningless”. If you wanted to bring the debate to an end, may I suggest a different tact.
I have no problem with compelling the state to facilitate voluntary voting. So we agree! And the obvious conclusion from our agreed position is no fines for non-participants.
Or are you implying that removing the fines is the same as “making it (effectively) voluntary for the state to facilitate voluntary voting”. A remarkably disingenuous thing to say.
John, if you knew the state like I know the state, boy what a gal … Nothing like having an angry citizen up its clacker because he/she is being threatened with a fine and it wasn’t his/her fault the facility wasn’t provided! Hell has no fury … this is accountability with real teeth – millions of them. If the state has to put itself in a position where it must be able to defend a fine, you get action, not Sir Humphrey.
But still, you miss the more general social point. Let me have another go by putting it to you this way. When I turned 18 I was tasked every election with collecting my old granny to allow her to vote. It was always something I resented in the morning, but always something that I was always glad I did in the end, and I still warm in the memory of leading her into the booths every time on my arm and helping her out, and so on. Now do you think this would have happened if it wasn’t compulsory for her to be facilitated? Not on your Nellie bubba. Multiply this by a zillion different sorts of stories that have the same result. One of my most fundamental objections to your line is that you present as the last logical white man, but won’t or can’t see the way this law just puts away so many real world pressures that would descend on people to prevent them from participating in its absence.
And I agree with Naomi.
And just so’s you know, Joe, I’m nice and cute, too.
I’m also, according to Nabakov, “much bigger in real life than on the blogs”. That’s not a threat, btw.
(and you did get less boring as the thread went on, bless)
Zoe is the floral hotness.
John: but with politicians that now have greater incentive to listen to all of their suppoters, not just the fickle ones.
Got any evidence to support this claim? It’s still going to be the “fickle ones” that need to be convinced to vote at all.
The point about compulsory voting/ complulsory showing up is only semantics if your argument is that it’s wrong to force people to show up.
The downside of not making it compulsory is that cost becomes a factor in providing polling places – and it becomes easier to justify closing booths that don’t get a good turnout, disenfranchising others who want to vote.
It also means the Government can get away with understaffing/ underresourcing booths in areas that vote for the other side. If voting’s not compulsory, busy people will often choose not to wait in line for a few hours. They can’t get away with pissing people off that much when it’s compulsory.
When the claim is that people shouldn’t be forced to vote for politicians they don’t like, however, the point is no longer semantic. It’s the entire issue, because no-one does have to vote if they don’t want to.
So then the argument becomes: does not voting at all make for better/ more representative politicians? And since you’re the one wanting change, and you’re the one in the minority within the community, the burden’s on you to show that it would. The view of most people on this thread is that it wouldn’t, that it just causes people to become even more disconnected from society and government.
And when people become disconnected, they start feeling like their voice doesn’t count, and they start believing that their vote doesn’t matter. Making it compulsory means that even the disenfranchised have their say. The ruling class can’t make them feel like voting is a waste of time – well, they can, but it doesn’t matter because they will usually vote anyway, since they made the trip.
And that ensures that politics and Government doesn’t become only representative of a radical minority.
Such as…
NZ doesn’t have compulsory voting (though it is compulsory to register as an elector). But still, around 80% of then turned out a couple of weeks to elect a centre-left government.
Food for thought….
Interesting comments by Anthony Green: Parties would also have to spend time campaigning in non-marginal seats to ensure voters turned out to vote. and I would think the only party certain to benefit from voluntary voting would be the Greens
cs — fear not good sir, I know the state. You say that it is the threat of court that would make AEC bureaucrats do their job. That threat can exist in compulsory or voluntary voting. Are you really suggesting that Australia is the only country in the world were electoral bureaucrats do their job properly?
I did not miss any point. Social cooperation and happy grannie stories do not require punishing non-voting “criminals”. I find it amazing you’re trying to use a social capital argument here. Levels of social capital are perfectly fine in many other VV countries and social capital grows primarily from voluntary interaction.
I don’t think my race or sex is relevant.
Life’s pressures don’t change because of compulsory voting laws. Your parents don’t stop getting sick… your work requirements don’t go away. All that happens is that one activity is given an artificially higher priority because there is an additional threat of sanction if you do what you want to do instead of what you’re told to do. If people are too busy to vote, then making them vote will not make them less busy!
Back to Naomi — yes, you have said your points. They have been shown to be wrong. Saying “wonderful” and “your boring” and “granny” is not an argument.
Naomi said…
Free market liberalism 101 for Joe – unfettered freedom cannot exist, because humans need to get along at least long enough to reproduce. — this obviously implies that humans will not cooperate and “get along” with free market liberalism.
ThereÄôs a little word called altruism, which others explain as family values, that will always undermine rampant market ideology. — this obviously implies that altruism is inconcsistent with free markets.
Neither of which is true. But that’s fine … because now Naomi denies ever having written the above! I wonder if there is any way to check?
I have listened to everything you’ve said. That is why I have been able to show your arguments to be wrong. I haven’t based this on opinion — it is a fact that democracy can co-exist with voluntary voting, contrary to what you have implied. To paraphrase Sinclair Davidson — this is a democracy, so you can have your own opinions. But you cannot have your own facts.
Amanda — The point about compulsory voting/ complulsory showing up is only semantics if your argument is that itÄôs wrong to force people to show up
Very true. And that is exactly what we’re arguing. But if I use the words “compulsory showing up” then somebody points out you can use postal votes. Everybody knows what is meant, so I can’t see the value in these diversions.
The argument that VV makes politicians respond to their own supporters is generally accepted. There is ample evidence that there are rusted-on supporters of various political parties that will never vote for “the other guy”. There is ample evidence that VV focus some of their resources on convincing their supporters to vote (indeed, this has been admitted above). There are examples of situations where sufficient antipathy towards a party’s candidate has resulted in the losing of a safe seat.
You suggest that people who may not vote are also fickle. That is not necessaily true. Abstaining is a legitimate political position and is often done quite intentionally by rusted-on party supporters as an act of protest against their party.
There is no reason why cost is more of a factor for the AEC under voluntary voting. The cost of providing the same polling booths would be the same, and nobody is suggesting that we cut the budget to the AEC. And I simply don’t accept that the AEC would suddently become a politisized, biased and evil institution if we failed to enforce fines. They are independent of the government of the day — and quite often many electoral workers hate the government of the day. The real thing preventing such bias in elections is our open society, free media and democratic traditions. These are the same things that defend democracy in the rest of the world… and it works fine there. The big problem you have (and cs etc) is that you are effectively denying the existence of other viable democracies around the world — which is demonstratably false.
You raise the prospect of VV leading to radical minority government. Again, we need only look at the rest of the world. Is France, Germany, NZ and the UK all that much more radical than Australia?
Lots of people already believe that their vote doesn’t matter. You can force an action, but you cannot force a feeling. There is no evidence that German, French, UK, US, NZ, Dutch, Norweigen, Finish, Greek, Italian, Spanish, Canadian, Swedish, Swiss, Portuguese, Danish, Korean, Japanese, Malaysian, Indonesian, Polish, Turkish, Slovakian, Czech, Brazilian etc etc citizens are less conneted from society and government than Australian citizens.
Finally — I fundamentally object to the way you see the burden of proof. I understand that the conservative paradigm is dominant today (ie null hypothesis is to stay the same)… but in my opinion it is the government that needs to justify victimless crimes, the government that needs to justify acts of agression, it is the government that needs to justify the appropriateness of their restrictions, regulations and legislation. Fundamentally, I believe that the null hypothesis should always be that people are free to do what they want unless somebody can show good reason why they should be controlled/punished/fined/regulated etc. I believe that is the very definition of a free country.
Finally — I don’t think the popularity of an idea has any bearing on the worth of that idea.
You say that it is the threat of court that would make AEC bureaucrats do their job. That threat can exist in compulsory or voluntary voting.
No. I said that the need for a system of fines underpins the seriousness and thoroughness with which they do their job. Earlier I also noted the beauties from a bureaucratic perspective of having a full set to accommodate. Bureaucracies always work best the more discretion and uncertainty you relieve them of. The Oz voting system is a cracker.
Are you really suggesting that Australia is the only country in the world were electoral bureaucrats do their job properly?
No. Only that they do it best under Australian conditions (because it places so much beyond discretion and uncertainty).
Social cooperation and happy grannie stories do not require punishing non-voting “criminals”.
Are they ‘criminals’. This is merely a civil offence. What is the fine, btw?
I find it amazing youÄôre trying to use a social capital argument here. Levels of social capital are perfectly fine in many other VV countries and social capital grows primarily from voluntary interaction.
I don’t like the term ‘social capital’ (is it a stock or a flow?).
LifeÄôs pressures donÄôt change because of compulsory voting laws. Your parents donÄôt stop getting sick… your work requirements donÄôt go away. All that happens is that one activity is given an artificially higher priority because there is an additional threat of sanction if you do what you want to do instead of what youÄôre told to do. If people are too busy to vote, then making them vote will not make them less busy!
My point is that it supplies a social trump. People may well want to vote but are exposed to all sorts of other pressures which the availability of the presumption that you must vote protects them from, and so on. This is the point you don’t get. By organising ourselves to vote via the state, the presumption of voting is embedded in society at large.
My concessions about the system are twofold. First, as mentioned much earlier, I think there may be a case for optional preferential. Second, I’d be happy to explore the introduction of a facility for conscientious objection, provided it was at least marginally more trouble than voting.
I think the fine’s 50 bucks. A friend of mine forgot to vote in the Brisbane City Council elections one year and it’s not hard to get it waived.
Very true. And that is exactly what weÄôre arguing. But if I use the words “compulsory showing up” then somebody points out you can use postal votes. Everybody knows what is meant, so I canÄôt see the value in these diversions.
Did you actually read my comment? Read it again – I was explaining when it is and isn’t an important point. Sometimes it’s the point, especially when the argument is about forcing people to express a preference for a particular party.
I also didn’t say anything about cutting the AEC’s budget, it was a point about how that budget may be spent, and subtle ways that governments could make it harder to vote, just enough to make you give up waiting. If it’s compulsory, you don’t have the option of just not bothering so you will tend to get a lot more angry if you are inconvenienced unnecessarily.
Also it also makes it harder for other members of society to prevent people from voting. Harder for bosses to guilt you into not leaving in time to vote. Harder for the sick and disabled to convince someone to help them get to a booth.
You keep coming back to the idea that it’s a victimless crime that shouldn’t be punished. As cs pointed out, it’s not a crime it’s a civil offence, and as almost everyone is pointing out, it’s also not victimless.
If you want to make a special statement by not voting, go ahead and pay the fine. It’s a more impressive statement.
Sorry, it ignored my formatting – can someone fix that?
Done, amanda.
cs — the AEC employees are not fined when you don’t vote, so how would it influence their job other than through feed-back mechanisms — which could exist under VV also? There is no difference in discretion and uncertainty for the AEC employee under VV.
I much prefer your new random meaningless word “cracker” to “piffle”.
I believe the fine is $50.
I don’t like the term social capital either. I believe it is a stock in the way it is most often used.
People may well want to vote as you say… but people may also not want to vote. The best way to find out is to see what they actually do if the decision is left up to them. People do not need protection from sinister forces that are warping their incentives — and they certainly don’t need protection in the form of a $50 fine. Social pressures really exist and people’s preferences really exist.
I agree with optional preferential too.
Amanda — yes I read your comments. My response made perfect sense. What bit are you confused about?
The government doesn’t control the AEC, except through it’s budget. The incentives of the AEC will not change under VV.
Your points about influence are interesting — but influence is legitimate in a free society and people are free to respond to it as they prefer. I have no problem with you (or anybody else) using influence to achieve any end… so long as you don’t fine people $50 when they disagree with you.
As for “crime”… more semantics. OK, OK — if it helps you sleep it’s a “victimless illegality which is punishable”… like smoking pot in Canberra. Both should be legal. And your claim that not-voting has a victim is absurd. Your definition of victim must be very … unique.
And for the umpteenth time… I would vote anyway, so could people please stop telling me how I can get out of voting.
Naomi — I did not misrepresent you, I quoted you. I am not an idiot. I read your adjectives. I am perfectly literate.
You claim that using the word “rampant” in front of market ideology makes it different from free-market ideology. This is obviously not true, rampant was obviously just a derogitory term for unrestricted free-markets… but if you want to pursue this odd detour, please tell me the difference between free markets and rampant free markets and how the latter is inconsistent with altruism or cooperation.
I have shown your arguments wrong several times… but if you missed it I’ll do it again. You claim that CV is important because “AUSTRALIANS FOUGHT LONG AND HARD SO THAT ALL WOMEN AND MEN, REGARDLESS OF INCOME OR CIRCUMSTANCE, WOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE”. This implies that VV would somehow change the ability of women or men or rich or poor to vote. Untrue as a point of fact. It would change their incentives, but not their ability. You also claimed VV would damange minor parties… but evidence from around the world makes a lie of that also. When these things are pointed out to you, you do nothing but repeat your already discredited opinions.
Of course you’re entitled to think. I invite you start whenever the mood strikes. That is another irrelevant strawman, as I have never said that you’re not entitled to think (and VV certainly doesn’t stop you thinking).
And yes, most people agree with you. As I’ve already said, that has nothing to do with the validity of an argument. I can agree to disagree. If you like… we can leave it at that. Agreed?
People may well want to vote as you say… but people may also not want to vote.
And nor do they have to – the informal option is always there.
(Heh – I don’t think I can go through any of this again: I think you’re wrong and/or don’t or won’t understand; you think your responses make “perfect sense”. That’s what I call time to go our separate ways, on this one at least.)
OK, I’ll sign up to the ceasefire. And as a parting concession, I totally agree that you think I am wrong.
It’s a deal. And if I get a mind to, I might write a post actually on the topic some time in the future and we can rejoin – remember, this post was about the apparent contradiction in the bid for 4-year terms, not compulsory voting, but there you go. It was fun.
I had no idea what this post was about until I read the comments. I have a question for the libertarians: which of the following is a duty – to pay taxes or to vote?
I have no issue with fixed terms, in fact I recommend them.
Bugger. I’ve been away from this thread for a couple of days and now arrive back just as peace has broken out. I’d still like to make a couple of comments.
First, as a matter of principle, I’d make voting an obligation of citizenship. If you join the tribe you contribute to its governance. So if you don’t want to vote then hand in your citizenship, which may have other implications, like being stateless, but that’s another topic.
A point has been made that we shouldn’t be forced to vote for people we don’t think would do any sort of a job. My suggestion is that instead of voting 1,2 etc we mark all the candidates out of 10. That means if we really like two or more candidates we can give them all the same mark. If we think they are all useless we can give them all 0 out of 10.
In principle I don’t like the business of handing in a blank sheet or writing little rants that only the electoral officials will see. But practically there is no way such behaviour could be penalised without breaching the sanctity of the voting booth.
John makes a good point about penalties, I think. But I’ve put such a high value on the obligation of voting that penalties would seem in order. But it does clash with another principle that the state should not be coercive. But then cs makes a good case for having a penalty. On balance $50 sounds about right, given that it would probably cost that much to collect it.
cs makes a strong case for obliging the state to cater for a full set. In the last election some did fall off the edge. It had to do with getting the papers out to people in very remote locations and the physical impossibility of them getting the return back by polling day. I think about 500 people may have missed out and I think the Greens were thinking of having the whole election declared invalid for a moment or two. I gather that the AEC outsourced some vital functions which were not carried out with the diligence required by the specification.
There was quite a fuss about something which would have been a mere bagatelle in Ohio or Florida. It’s good that there is this strong obligation on the state and we have to be careful not to disturb it.
John also made a point about the obligation to be informed which no-one has responded to.
On this one I think you just have to rely on education, facilitating policy debate and live with the result. Some people don’t change their minds no matter how much information they get. I think we have to be pomo on this and accept that each citizen’s reasons for voting have equal validity.
There was some discussion about the impact on minor parties. The issue here perhaps relates to the resources required to mobilise the vote. Amanda linked to an opinion that the religious right would be advantaged by voluntary voting because they can use their existing institutional facility to get the vote out.
A fair point, I think, but perhaps of greater significance is the notion that of the smaller parties would be advantaged by a more friendly voting system such as prevails in New Zealand and Germany (MMP?) where if you get 5% of the vote you are entitled to seats from a ‘second list’. I certainly favour this.
John, you pointed to lists of countries as being self-evidently democratic. But democracy is never perfect and is determined by more than the voting system. Almost everywhere there is a complaint about the ‘democratic deficit’ these days.
Part of the democratic deficit relates to negative campaigning, I think. One suspects that in the calculus of people like Lynton Crosby is the notion that negative campaigning will turn a lot of people away from the political process, and that this can be manipulated differentially to favour the right side of politics.
Recently I read that when you experience fear (as when you see the tiger in the forest) a spot in the right side of your brain lights up. When you are happy a spot lights up on the left. But when the right side spot is alight you can’t turn on the left side. This is just the physical side of the story that says negative campaigns work.
So in voluntary voting fear may become a weapon that is used to degrade the whole currency of politics (which is what’s happening now) but with the purpose of de-activating not particularly active voters.
I could go on and relate this to the role of emotion and rationality in decision making and why Jason’s public choice stuff doesn’t work all that well. Emotion is a far greater factor than is commonly realised and we have a very sophisticated advertising industry that is cynically pulling the strings and pressing the buttons. But that might be opening another topic.
Y’know, I’ve never fisked Brian Bahnisch before. But there’s a first time for everything.
“If you join the tribe you contribute to its governance.”
Damn right! Isn’t “no rights without responsibilities” a catchcry in some circles?
“My suggestion is that instead of voting 1,2 etc we mark all the candidates out of 10. That means if we really like two or more candidates we can give them all the same mark. If we think they are all useless we can give them all 0 out of 10.”
Hmm. Easy, simple and appeals to human nature. What’s the catch?
“But practically there is no way such behaviour could be penalised without breaching the sanctity of the voting booth.”
Diebold?
“On balance $50 sounds about right, given that it would probably cost that much to collect it.”
Yes, nicely pitched between potent nagging (ie: the cost of an evening at the pub vs 10 minutes of your time) yet not enough of a profit centre to give the authourities a stiffy about cracking down to build up revenue.
“There was quite a fuss about something which would have been a mere bagatelle in Ohio or Florida. ItÄôs good that there is this strong obligation on the state and we have to be careful not to disturb it.”
Yes, from what I’ve seen and gathered, Australia has probably the world’s most straightforward yet robust and rigourous voting systems. (Talkin’ here ’bout praxis not theory). If it ain’t broke, why change it?
“I think we have to be pomo on this and accept that each citizenÄôs reasons for voting have equal validity.”
Brian’s come up with the first practical example of pomo that no one in their right mind can argue with.
“John, you pointed to lists of countries as being self-evidently democratic. But democracy is never perfect and is determined by more than the voting system.”
Yes. There’s a certain wiry pragmatic thread running through democracy as she is practiced in Australia – which is reflected in our voting system, and yet not totally driven by it.
“Part of the democratic deficit relates to negative campaigning, I think. One suspects that in the calculus of people like Lynton Crosby is the notion that negative campaigning will turn a lot of people away from the political process, and that this can be manipulated differentially to favour the right side of politics.”
Yes, this boils down to those who think the ends justify the means and those who think the fact we have the means is an end in itself.
“So in voluntary voting fear may become a weapon that is used to degrade the whole currency of politics (which is whatÄôs happening now) but with the purpose of de-activating not particularly active voters.”
Whaddya mean “may become”?
“..and we have a very sophisticated advertising industry that is cynically pulling the strings and pressing the buttons.”
Fuckin’ A! Seen in it in action at first hand. Sophisticated and cynical are poor shadows of the words we could really use here.
Yeah, of course that wasn’t a fisking. I reckon young Brian is right on the money about much here.
Call it a frisking instead.
Thanks, Nabs. Sometimes one feels one is shouting into the wind. Nice to have an echo coming back from the mountain, with interest.
Thanks, Naomi. I was going to begin by saying that I mostly agree with whatever you say, not just on this issue, which is true, but I thought I should stand on my own legs.
This thread has followed an odd path. As it wasn’t the original topic, I kept imagining that the voting matter was a side issue that would go away, as soon as we put Joe and John away. As it happened of course, voting ambushed the whole thread, but by the time I figured that this was final, the argument already had deep tracks and it seemed too late to go back and address it square on, which Brian has done very well.
Marking the candidates out of 10 is a good idea, but alas way beyond the capacity of the system to manage in my experience. On the other hand, I think there is more to say about the likely practical political consequences (Minchin and co are brutally self-interested in their calculations, in my view). Another general point not picked up on much is the social asset Australia (nationally and at provincial levels) keeps replenishing as a consequence of constantly organising its whole self in this way. When we look at the US, it’s hard not to draw parallels between its hopelessness in organising its vote and its hopeless organisation of the New Orleans evacuation. Does the US do anything at all that involves everyone, i.e. the full set? On the other hand, constant practice in Australia perhaps helps makes for perfection, or at least generally a calmer, more effective and more efficient capacity for self-organisation.
With comments like “put … John away” and the rest of the pro-CV love-in it is close to a break in the ceasefire.
BB… let me attempt to keep to the ceasefire by just addressing the matter of principle that you raised.
Rights are the inverse of responsibilities in a free world (as was pointed out by one of your echoes). For example, the right not to get killed goes with the responsibility not to kill. The responsibilities can be determined by considering what rules need to exist to ensure a right can be maintained under the rule of law? However, the responsibility of voting has no corresponding right. Therefore, I can’t see where your argument for “natrual obligation” comes from. Note that being governed is not a right, and government services are the flip-side to tax, not compulsory voting.
I also note that I didn’t voluntarily join any national tribe, and that I have no option but to belong to a nation. I am happy to be stateless, so long as you leave me free with my private property and free to deal with other people voluntarily.
Personally, I feel no greater connection to people in Darwin than I do to people in Bangkok. I do not love/hate people based on the colour of their passport. Consequently, I reject the idea that Australia is one “tribe” in any meaningful sense other than as a convenient jurisdiction over which to govern.
I note that your argument for penalties was “I agree with cs”. So my response is, “I agree with what I said before”.
Under CV fear is a weapon also. Howard.
As a point of agreement — I also would prefer a more prop rep system that allowed more political diversity.
Compulsory Voting: The Recent Britiahs elctions: the turnout was a record low turnout: Reason, none of the parties attracted voters. The Tories, when they ousted Thatcher, was back in the hands of the Tory Socialist Big Beasts, and it shows, from Major to Michael Howard. To make this clear, the minor parties failed to pick up votes and attracted no potential voter.
One argument , as an example, used by Oz politicans to justify compulsory voting is: it ensures the winner’s majority is legitimate, a true majority, unlike majorites in Britian and the U.S. Fallacy of: petitio principii from, having compelled all to vote, the notion of the majoirty is some how superior in quality, and that is what that claim amounts to, is garbage.Many Brtish voters voted by staying away and the correct conclusion is, the parties are a bad smell. Blair is turning into a police state, Brown is pending, taxintg, and forging money hand over fist. The quandary for the Brtish voter,none of the other parties awere any more prinicpled than not `New thir Wave socialism ALP but in reality, old socilaism and to put this in persepctive, until the late 19th century the name for socialism was `Govt. central planning and consumption.
Another stupid reason given, `it educate4s Oaussies: What great things are to be learned by stumping up to a bloody poolling both and running a list of numbers. Against learning how to work and succeed in markets, poltics as nothing but simply changing which socialisto pooh bahs sits in Cabinet, the epistemological value of voting for bloody govts. is zero. Primitive, sterile, contrary to what Sneators were pontifcating on in the Senate yesterday.
There is no such thing as society, for all it can mean is the interaction between those who observe the same conventions.
Those who believe law is made rules to prescribe action and impose order have swallowed the B.S. of the Continentals: the Common Law tradition is the living contradiction of that pseudo-philosophical drivel much beloved by those charlatans cvaslled sociologists – they are not scientists, they are not historians, the are charlatans whose speudo-theiries are derived from the pseudo-philosphers whose grand notion boils to nothing more, how to justify absoutlist govt. and justify liberty , which Mr. Joe Cambria has touched upon above on the true classical defintion of liberty. Yet, it is that tradiotin of law which the polticial parties in Oz, through the instrument of the machinery of Parlaiment and `bureacracy’ are overthrtowing – by taxation, by regulation. An irony and bleak one: in the common law tradtion parliament developed as a a common law court to ensure the King’s actions were not in conflict with the rule of common law domestically. The King, for exampple, had no divine right to tax, it was Peel who changed that , he was nearly turfed out because of that and he shaould have been.From Henry II, the underlying tradition was not Kings making law, nor jusdiciary exercising aurhtoritrarain power.
Now what have in Oz, is not only pollies overthrowing the Rule Of Common Law, but increasing numbers of Judges doing the same, whose notion law can be summed up, the coervice power of the King. toidays grawduates walk out of law schools walk out totally ignorant of commoon law,`You mean, fuzzy law’. They are not schjolars, they are ignorant technicians. Moroever, the schools , basically put, teach the garbage of the Continetals, there are no Professors steeped in common law tradtion teach history of law on sound foundations: it was not that long ago when the UNiv. of Adelaide managed to boot it its last Professor of the history of law. Summed: the learned profession is not learned and is heavily biased from school to bench to the docrtines of law which are nothing but fictions justifying totalitarainsim.
And, that is the context of those specious notions: `Social Contract’ and `Human rights’, they have nothing to do law, they are just more rubbish to excuse absolutism. To check, Thomas Hobbes, chucked out of Engald for his totlaitarain pseudo-philisopher was a seminal influence on the Continentals. Hobbes belonged to an idiosyncratic clique of which Filmer was the major figure and that school whose `philosophy’ was explicitly totalitarain and they were committed to realsing it in britain. Idiosyncratic, because they were detested by the English because of not just their notions but their aims. That is why Hobbes had to flee Rngland. Hobbes most eloqunetly set out what they were on about .
In the market place, you do have to co-operate, you do have to serve others, and you do have to exercise comptenece, you do have to be restrained, you do have to be civil and civilised. There is no contradiction between self-interest and those virtues socialsits beleive they are divinley possessed of. Rubbish, to the contrary, the most selfish types I have met, the greediest, self serving inhumane types are socialists. Real people, and people in need of real muscle are mere inconvenient blots, `social justice and welfare’ has noting to do cherity, except as forced charity which is not virtuous. The remark of some socialist cergly men are to the point:
they don’t dispute free markets actually serves what the classicists examplfied by the Austrian school of economics, claim, but, it makes people independent of god, it is onoly in deprivation and suffering that man learns to be dpendant of god.
Now, having listened to such clergymen, two things: I was shocked, and someone who is a theolgian, it is worse than not merely being not at all theological, it is a gross caricature of the Christain confession of faith, it has its legs , the heresy gnosticism and, to be blunt, is, in opposition to the gospel and creed, the proclamation of the crucified and the Trinity and that the individual, not some lumpenmasse, is the crux of what is proclaimed. Wrose, that so called chriatains can comntemplate reducing so many to destitution on the ine hand, and permnanent mendicance upon `govt’, is shocking for the sheer vioence that inplies and the sheer not at all christain contempt for all others but them selves and that, is what socialism amounts ot. That characterises all those socialists in parlaiment who wear their `consciences on their sleeves’ as they tax, spend, reduce to manedicancy, corrode and undermine and over-ride common law, corrupt markets, impose rotting monoliths such as medicare and `schools’: their `compassion’ can be measured by tyhe real nderlying contempt for others and their self-regarding moralising and proclamation of how they do so much to save so many: it is disugusting. It is disgusting the polticansd sit in parlaiment ramming down decree after decree, over-riding the Rule of Common law for the `law’ of the dictator. It is even more disgusting , appalling when they,as some of them do, whine about some govt. measure which threaten freedom and even the rule of law: in fact, the hypocrites spent the best part of yesterday so fulminating against the Coaltion Cabinet. Hypcorites becuase,their record to date leaves no doubt: when it comes to overthrowing the Rule of Common law for diktat ( regulation and `balck letter law) the ALP and the Greens and The Democrats work hard at raising more. I will go further, they are not merely hypcorites, they are liars. just as those not at all apostolic christian clergy are liars – `apostles who can contemplate are not, first of, apostles of Christ’, they are `paostles of something quite opposed to the gospel: likewise on the secular side, not civilisation but the inducement and entrenchment of barabarism. That is all socialism amounts to, whether of the type `radical’ or `conservative’, and the record is applaing, disgusting, wreaks of hell brought down ton earth .
oh boy
if D and Jack Strocchi are going to be regulars here, Mark should think about renting a large Pacific island to keep his servers
Oh, oh. OK, who left the door open?
(apologies for choice of words John – I meant, as i thought this issue a no-brainer, I always thought it would end in a comment or two – little did I know, and if I had, I would have fully squared up at the start – which is why I have left open the possibility of a future post on this topic alone).
D, are you typing by the light of a single candle as the night winds shake the doors and rattle the windows and the mobs bay for blood in the distance? Your spelling and tone certainly suggests such picture. If not, then I admire your ability to get so throughly drunk so early in the day.
As to your point though, as far as I can make out you won’t be satisfied with anything less than a Bourbon back on the throne.
Long rambling dissertations or short pithy rapier thrusts? I must admit to preferring the latter (or something in between tends more towards the short end), because I think it more reflects the nature of an actual “dinner table conversation” (occasionally a pretty rowdy dinner table at that, but I grew up in a big family. so I like that) which seems to be the general feel of this blog. But it could also be because I’m not real bright and have a short attention span.
And what ever happened to Popper & Hayek, and who do you get for 150? I’d suggest Schumacher – he wasn’t much of an economist, but there’s a delicious irony in using the author of “Small is Beautiful” to recognise a large number.
Or has the whole concept become a bit jejune? Am I once again “sooo last year”?
Sorry, Doc – looks like I killed this one stone dead.
I’m afraid D put the mockers on it Tony. The guy sure knows how to clear a room.
A thread to be proud of, though, in all its byways, weird tangents and ultimately amenable conclusion.
My god. It’s like Strocchi without the spelling, punctuation and grammar.
Thanks D, you’ve made me appreciate Strocchrates a whole lot more.
I was out dealing with asparagus vine yesterday in blistering heat (I’m not enjoying global warming) in air thick with smoke from fires. So last night I ended up with a headache.
Today I’ve been traipsing around used-car yards with an 18 year old, again in blistering heat, so I’m not sure I’m going to make any sense.
cs, reading through the thread I thought there was a distinct unwillingness to engage with John and I can see now why. It’s a topic that’s not immediately enthralling and people tend to take up entrenched positions that don’t move. The VV camp tend to base their arguments on individual rights and it’s hard to counter those arguments on the run. One needs to lay out one’s position in some detail so that the basis of one’s position becomes clear. I actually think I haven’t yet done that and now is not the time to try. But I’d be very interested in your exposition in a seperate post when you are appropriately inspired.
On the 0 to 10 voting, I agree with you on the practicality. You’d need computerised voting, but with a paper trail so that there could be auditing and recounts. It’s a concept that occurred to me in a former life attending committee meetings, when you had to vote +1 or -1 to a proposition that you were lukewarm about. In that case you’d need a + and – scale and with computers such a system could be used in an instant to test the strength of feeling in a straw vote at any time in a discussion before everyone finished having a say. It might save some pointless argument.
John, the issue of rights and responsibilities. I don’t claim to be a full bottle on this but it interests me.
I think rights generally carry responsibilities. For example if our 18 year old wants the right to have a party on our back deck every Saturday, assuming we agreed there would be a long list of responsibilities spelt out.
But there is a question as to how rights originate. In some cases they are claimed, but they have to be socially constituted through norms, concessions or laws and may not be unconditional. More interesting, however, is the notion of ‘natural rights’ or rights that stem from what we are rather than what we claim.
For example, it is clear, I think that parents should love and care for their babies unconditionally. It is a responsibility arising from the reality of the situation rather than any claim. Indeed an infant cannot make the claim in any rational and coherent way. You can say that the infant has a right to care, but perhaps that is just a manner of speaking. You can say that the responsibility is absolute and it is a question of what society is going to do if the exercise of this responsibility breaks down.
Nor is it clear what rights if any parents gain from having the responsibility of love and care.
What I’m raising here is whether there are responsibilities with no attendant rights.
But in any case the responsibility doesn’t mean anything outside a social context.
I’m arguing that we are not rights-bearing isolates who negotiate our way into a social context, but thoroughly social beings who may choose to step outside a social context. We are all born and become who we are inside a social context. There may be responsibilities stemming from this social context without any direct implications in terms of rights. Or maybe my Prussian heritage is showing!
Still I think you should be perfectly free to decide that no polity suits you, although not to escape tax. In fact my main criticism of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is that it assumes that everyone must be part of a state. Actually it specifies this as a right and assumes that everyone would want to be, without making clear how stateless persons would find a home in a society somewhere.
I think we should be generous and hospitable to stateless persons and accord them maximum rights including the right to travel. But then who issues the passport? Whoever holds your birth certificate, I guess. But we are back to a social context again and a problem that no-one perhaps wants to get too excited about.
Finally, there is an Australia way of doing democracy, which I think is one of cs’ main points. Not perfect and capable of improvement, but as Nabs said, “Australia has probably the worldÄôs most straightforward yet robust and rigourous voting systems.” I understand 70% currently favour compulsory voting and to me there is no compelling case to change this to cater for an argument based on individual rights. While you are of course free to persuade us otherwise, for now the tribe has spoken.
I understand 70% currently favour compulsory voting and to me there is no compelling case to change this to cater for an argument based on individual rights. While you are of course free to persuade us otherwise, for now the tribe has spoken.
This is where you finally come to on this issue, do you not? There are many substantial arguments for compulsorily facilitating voting, but if a majority of individuals autonomously decide that the value of not being faciliated is of more worth, then fair enough. Although I think the situation can be simply legislated away, the only fair way to change it would be to put the pro-voluntary position to the vote … in which case, would the pro-voluntary crowd stick to their principles and advocate a voluntary plebiscite? Heh.
I’m touched by the sentiments, truly, a pleasure to have entertained. Spelling mistakes: many apologies – I’m a pen and paper man and thus, using typewrtiers and computers, even my most carefully, meticulously, tapped best, show up after, shot full of errors.
`D, are you typing by the light of a single candle as the night winds shake the doors and rattle the windows and the mobs bay for blood in the distance?’ I wouldn’t mind having that as an excuse for the typos.I’d whip out the service revolver and enjoy a fine time potting the mobs baying for a bit of the blood out of the old veins while swigging the scotch, and issuing blood curdling curses at the `Parisian’ louts outside the gates.
However: two things to sum it up:
`compulsory voting’ is simply a measure to buttress the falsehood of `the rule/will of the majority’. The purpose of an election is simply to put in a Cabinet whose charge is simpply the execution of the trust when it comes to war, the only function of what is falsely called `government’ they will do so not recklessly.
Secondly, each of the major parties, the Coalition and the ALP are committed to what is nothing less than national socialism. The analogy with Germany 1870′s to 1930′s is tight, very tight. The policies bothe the Coaltion and the ALP are committed, marked by the overthrow of common law for `regulation’, draing on the mystical powers written into the `Constitution to justify that’ were pioneered by the Germans under Bismarck. Then, socialism was called `organisation’. It is most amusing, during that period of the German Federation, that slide into totalitarianism was accompanied a slide into mystical rubbish , of which Hegels pantheism was but one example. History was, for example, mythologised and myth historicised, while hocus pocus was purveyed as science and that is the case as the claim `man causes global warming’ and the psuedo-sciences and their proliferation by each tier of govt. such as sociology and the no less bullshit of `environmental science’ are disgusting examples. There is a distinction: at least the German mystogogues of the 19th to early 20th centuries were brilliant unlike the Oz mystogogues who are fith rate – and that is being generous to the Oz bullshitters.
All those developments are fundamental to the rise of the National Socialist Party and Hitler.Just as they were fundamental to Marxism and the rise of Hitrler. The root of each is the same, they are but hues of socialism. Socialism will always end in tyranny and that is what the lying bullshitting hypocrites of the two major partries will achieve becaause they, the Coaltion and the ALP are just two more national socialisto stupid parties. Without them,their commitment to socialism, the greenies and the Dems would not have even surfaced on the voting card.
As I said, the ALP, the Greenies and the Dems rail in parlaiment about some`police state measures’ of the Howard Govt. but they are lying hypocrites because for the very reasson, what they are committed to is not liberty through the rule of common law which does entai its ground, economic liberty. No, what they mean by the `rule of law’ is exactly the same as what the socialist-kenyesian bull-shitter Peter Costello means, the issue of diktat – in dah name of dah people, of course. And, keynesian economuics is quackery , charlatanis,, just as sociology and environemantalism are. That is all before the States’ socialisto `govts.’ and the no less thieving, lying ,socialisto spivs in `local councils’.
Taxation and the bribery of protectionism and other tranfers, from `Medicare, `free schools, `free child minding’ , has bought a voting block ,a large one of Aussies who are, it can be nailed, gultess, whining whingers who now fear being kicked of the ruinous udder of fast god almighty socialisito thieving lying spiv govt.The notion of facing up to life as adults as all too, much for the buggers, right down to: now they all must `have a university experience’ and the `govt. must guarantee them a careerah’ ( careerahs are what the dead have had as in, that was the course of their life, careerahs are for the dead.)
well, that settles it, then.
hey, who stole my gravatar??
Right on D! I too am at one with Zardoz as we purify the earth of the filth of brutals!
Wizzo! I bags Charlotte Rampling.
Hah! No! Back I say! The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life, and poisons the earth with a plague of men, as once it was. Here, take this gun instead and go with D to hunt down the brutals.
I will stay here and await your return, while explaining to Ms Rampling the mysteries of homo sapiens procreation.
(This should really give you some fun search strings Mark)
Do I have to wear the red loincloth? It chafes a bit in the saddle, if you know what I mean.
Whatever a Zardoz is, Nabaokov.
A simple exercise: 1 added 3 times.That is the minimum of what each dollar of tax actually costs, and it is more in the order of 4 to 5 times. In other words, that is $dollars real taxpayers do not have to apply to whatever their priorites and discretionary expenditure.
Add on, as an exampple, Medicare:
1. The tax taken to keep the ATO
2. The tax to keep the `department of health.
3. 1 and 2 are before the `Govt.’ spends one sigle cent on its consumption of medical services and products on behalf of all who are addicted to the rubbish `it is a right and must be free’.
4. On socilaist medicare schemes which medicare is, internal cost shoot verdict. For each dollar spent by govt. on it, the internal costs shoot up swallowingthe majority of each dollar govts spend. The price of mudicare is in the order of at the minimum of 12 x that which would prevail of govt. got its grubby mits out of the supply of medical services and products and not least because suppliers then would have to supply services at prices which consumers will pay, and, run their internal costs accordingly.
Before Whitlam began the long march to an Oz version of NHS, there was no NHS. Parents on very modest pay could afford to pay cash for home visits from GPS and could afford top medical insurance. Those, the very few who were destitue were catered pro bono and suppliers could do so because the burden was zip of nothing.
Medical services are consumtion items, not items of investment contrary to what federal and states’ politicans claim. For the last three years the Federal cabinet alone has increased the budget for medicare by $3billion per annum, on top of states govts – the Bracks commie Junta has this year increased spending on hospitals by $1b, or, t real taxpayers, $3b minimm. Councils spend a not inconsiderable budget on trivial services. What is the upshot?
Internal costs have shot skywards again and the waiting lists are increasing and for what but a few extra patients treated in hospitals.
Rule: supply equals demand but what the govt. supply is the items of consumption. Needless to say, govts buying medical services and products to supply them free is matched by a corresponding increase in demand by just the existing usuers of medicare.
Until National socialist medical schemes the great advancers in medicine from the early 19th century to the 60′s were brought on by free markets. By the end of the 19th century, the latest advances in medical services were being taken by not just high earners but families on very modest earnings, same record with schooling.
Other ramifications, the hideous charge which is socialist consumption of medical services and products means real, major economic losses , since the sheer amounts of funding taken by taxation and thrown down the socialisto consumption medical gurglar is funds which have been directed from savings which means capital which also means fewer jobs. To check, take the current federal budget alone and run the hypothetical of compounding that at a modest rate of 6-8%/annum over 3 years, then 5, then 10, then 50, then 100 years.
All thoise who beleive they are getting a really turly good deal by Medicare a fooliing themsleves. They are not, they are worse of immediately than would be the case in free markets in supply and , the long term ramifications are worse.
So,
Nabakov says:
October 11th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
Right on D! I too am at one with Zardoz as we purify the earth of the filth of brutals!
Well, it is socialist scams, Nabokov, which are really brutal.Medicare is a rule of thumb: if you want first rate medical services you really do have to be on a high incoome because, thanks to the socialist policies and theft called taxation, the reality is, govt. consumption and taxation does mean you have to earn far more to buy what was bloody cheap until the socialists got going. As I say, not just the ALP but the Coalition are also stupid bloody ruinous socialist parties.
Oh, and, despite the hideous charge of tax for things like medicare, that’s why I have medical insurance, I want to buy medical services from those who serve customers and on the basis I want them and not on the basis bloddy commie polticians and bloody bureaucrats decdiinding what I will have what and when.As an e.g, no why will I ever go to one of those dumps called a `public hospital’
Another case: `Govt schools’ The annual charge per pupil is $80,000 to $100,000 annum: a boy can be sent to Eton for that instead of the zoos run by states’ `govts’ What a thucking rip off , more so in view of the pigsswill of what is `taught’in `chools.’
As I say, so many Aussies are so corrupted by the so called freebies they cannot face up the fact that they are worse of. Bloody socialist pollies like that, permanent mendicancy of as many as possible because, that ensures they can continue on with their socialist scams which has nothing to do with charity’, it has every thing to do with the acqusiion of `power’, the road to absoltuism. As I said, the precious `conseiences’ and `compassion’of socialists exists only at what they stare at, they ugly thucking navels.
I call for a strict enforcement of the Lefty Elitist Three Paragraph Rule™.
So, Liam hogan, cliche filled socialist slogans is the go, for a few hard facts are unpleasant, nasty to see through socialsto glasses , want to see pretty pictures than face up to, socialism is ruinous backed by a pretty horrific record, try most of the 20th century. Don’t want to face up the fact the socialist policies of each `tier of govt.’ in Oz are ruinous, usurious,m nothing less than criminal fraud. Want to nbelieve in pixes in the bottom of the garden? Right, here is something simple , not quite in leftoid style but it will do:
I wish for everyone to be happy, now pay a squillion through the police state method called taxation. Yup, just ticketty boo that.
Socilaist intellectuals is an oxymoron.
Dear readers of Larvartus Prodeo
On behalf of the US Department of Defence and Massachusetts Bay University, I would like to apologise for any disruption caused to your threads by D. Since the Cold War is now over the files relating to D have been declassified so it is within my capacity to share the following with you – D is an AI program that was developed by myself and my late colleague Dr Reinhold von Blitzkrieg-Dornhauser-Bulow to aid the US effort during the Cold War to propagandise against Communism behind the Iron Curtain. It was equipped with a voice program and the idea was to have its thoughts broadcast over the covert Radio Freedom operation as an amiable anti-communist ‘DJ’.
D was designed to pass the Turing Test, programmed with responses to 500,000 possible questions relating to Communism. Unfortunately D barely passed the Turing test and the project was shelved. I decided computer science was not my field and moved into particle-physics instead where I helped initiate research into the Jackerstrocchi particle (a much greater success I hasten to add).
My contacts at the Pentagon tell me that D was accidentally reactivated after a thunderstorm in Washington DC last week and like the fictional Tron has managed to infiltrate his presence into various parts of the World Wide Web through wires leading from Pentagon mainframes. We currently have a clean up operation in place to put it back in its lid.
I sincerely apologise for any psychological damage caused.
Yours sincerely
Professor Milhouse Cornelius Poindexter
Faculty of Physics and Cosmology
Massachusetts Bay University
Millhouse, you are a dropkick just like AI was always a dropkick of a an hypoythies – to be polite for it is no hypothesis.From your ha ha piece, your grip on the Turing Test and its purpose is fuck all of bugger all ( does one have to rummage through the archives to supply not my reasons but the a.
Dear Dr Nabakov
We have been experiencing great difficulties in reining in our renegade AI program, ‘D’ and would like to engage your consultancy services as soon as possible. We are prepared to fly you to Washington DC as soon as you are ready as the situation has reached Code Red. Rest assured, we will spare no expense. The usual arrangements have been made with Le Chat Noir and Madame Fleiss.
Yours sincerely
Professor Milhouse Cornelius Poindexter
Faculty of Physics and Cosmology
Massachusetts Bay University
PS stay away from my twins or I’ll put a bullet into each of your gonads.
Good call Liamista.
Bear in mind the three-paragraph rule can be enforced against unruly bloggers on the ‘demand-side’, through self-regulatory reading practices.
For example, above, I duly read as far as “… got its grubby mits out of the supply of medical services …” and then invoked the rule.
It was a strange conclusion to a strange argument, but then again, there’s very little thematically adduced after the third prong of any rant-ette, LW or RW.
… but the arguments of dsintuinguised philosphers. Hobbe’a ontology is crap, the brain is a computer.What is programme, just a deductive logic tree.
In an essay,Popper he attempted to substantinate why induction is false, as a buttress to deuction only. So ignoramous dickhead `Professor Professor Milhouse Cornelius Poindexter of the Faculty of Physics and Cosmology Massachusetts Bay University [and if his as his sobriquet declares he gives his game away he is into superstition and magic], please set out:
The title of the paper
The argument against induction
Why it is False.
For, Dickhead Cornelius Poindexter, if you are a professor, all one cvan say is, the undergraduates under you have wasted their money on a university which funds a charlatan.
Next: Why did Popper assert deduction as the via media to the truth of what is?
Lastly, Dickhead of a Fucking Usless Professor of crap, why should real tax apyers fork out, for example, the sum sufficient to send a boy to Eton or a girl to a school of equivalent establishment? Why should so many children be damned to the barren, ugly heel holes called govt. schools not overlooking, stripped of the bcriminmal fraud of socialiust policies and taxation the price to send a child at a free school would be no better than $2,000 as opposed to – how much tax day you pay on your fucking pay packet of $37,000 plus state govts taxes plus local council taxes plus this tax and that fucking tax.
Now, I tell you Millhouse: I have a fine library but in the last two years I’ve added 5 books because: between protection of book manufactuerers and all the other damned things to boot, I don’t have much left over to spend on forst rate scholarhsip, novels, poetry. We have very fine paintings in poour house, the last 8 years we have spent not a cent on an artist.Now, I tell you you you puking half witted bastard, what’s left has to go on some priorities and those priorites entails others earning an income which they will not have in future if the govts keep on pursuing theirn national socialist aims. Tradesmen for example, their serices are co9nsumptin items, -maintianing the house is bllody crucial, but that has to be rationed out rather a lot thanks to fuckiing spiv socvialsits. So, instead of tradies and theitr families enjoying so many thosands from us alone, next to so many others who also now hoave to factor it in very slowly, they get crumbs per annum. Fporget writers, bugger all to them and so too artists.Do you appreciate, Fuckhead of a Professor it would be really nice to continue building the library thus seeing not only book makers but authors receive anothermarginal contribution to the revenues , and it would be really nice ot buy of an artist as opposed to the talentless dropkicks who dole bludge courtesy of fucking govts.
It would alsdo be really nice to send children to an Eton instead of being screwed for $100,000/annum and be comelled to send them to a dipstick commie zoo called a school and, best of all, just send them to a learned tutor for a thousand or so a uear and no fucking school to support.
So Millhouse, when ypou hit the headliines as a first rate, seminal scientist, -philosopher,economist, or as an entrepenuer, that day one will take you seriously but, right now, you are a fucking usless slob.
I object!
Dear Larvatus Prodeo,
I regret to have to inform you that word has reached the Foundation that an earlier invention code-named “D” and attributed in certain respects to Dr Nabokov and Professor Milhouse Cornelius Poindexter has, not to put to fine a point on it, gone berko. You will of course appreciate that this has created certain sensitivities concerning the current nomination(s) of Dr Nabakov, Dr Hogan and Mr Soon for the exciting ‘jackerstrocchi particle’.
Needless to say, please ensure you keep the Foundation abreast of all developments.
Your sincerely
Dr Marcus Storch, Med. h.c.,
Chairman, Nobel Foundation
Dear Dr Marcus Storch, Med. h.c.,
Chairman, Nobel Foundation,
It has indeed come to our attention that the artifical life form code-named ‘D’ has infested this comments thread.
We are well aware of the implications of this infestation and we shall act quickly to contain the outbreak.
We shall report back forthwith.
Yours,
Kate
Door Bitch
Larvatus Prodeo
PS — in other words, I’m going to shut comments to this thread.