Mandatory Voting

I oppose voting all together as voting leads to the destruction of freedom. Why? Lets say you have radical Muslims who use the freedom of speech, and the freedom to vote to get rid of both. It leads to collectivism. If we had a state where freedom is held to the standard of untouchable by the state, then freedom will not be harmed. Voluntarism day is more effective and people have more power over the state than ever before. The state has no resources, all they have is what they have taken. But under nationalism and voluntarism people have the freedom to choose how much they want to give to the state. The money is an indication on how the leader is managing the money. If he is doing horrible, then they simply boycott the leader until the council pick a better alternative.

 
Australia has mandatory voting. @digrar and @CQB , what do you guys think from the Aussie POV? I'm not a fan of it, personally, and I've had discussions with Aussies who don't seem to like it much, either.
Comma lyfe.
 
They still only ask for our name and address at the booths, so easy enough to commit voter fraud.
Having to rock up to the local school and vote every other year (state and federal) is just one of those things, I don't think about it much and most of the country must feel the same as we generally get 94-96% registered voter turn out.
 
http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/members/x-sf-med.54/

I am more of a rightist because it needs a hierarchy in government. Last time I checked, the left hates hierarchy.

Basically in order to be in the ballot you must have years of experience through the right rhetoric.

Who will protect their freedoms? The people. You also forget the nationalism that will increase the incentive to pay the voluntary tax, and to voluntary to join the military.

I'm no economist by any stretch of the imagination Sir, but I'll stick with reading Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt, F.A. Hayek, Carl Menger, and Ludwig Von Mises. My point being is that the state will have no power over the individual, and should be held at a moral standard so high that we must not corrupt it by voting.
 
http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/members/x-sf-med.54/

I am more of a rightist because it needs a hierarchy in government. Last time I checked, the left hates hierarchy.

Basically in order to be in the ballot you must have years of experience through the right rhetoric.

Who will protect their freedoms? The people. You also forget the nationalism that will increase the incentive to pay the voluntary tax, and to voluntary to join the military.

I'm no economist by any stretch of the imagination Sir, but I'll stick with reading Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt, F.A. Hayek, Carl Menger, and Ludwig Von Mises. My point being is that the state will have no power over the individual, and should be held at a moral standard so high that we must not corrupt it by voting.


Kid, you are a troll. You are ungrounded in reality and are wishing to enact a pie-in-the sky ideal that has been espoused since Plato. Morality will always fall to the greed of those who have evil in their hearts and arms at their side... a government is not inherently evil, but many of the people that join it are.

Consider yourself put on ignore.
 
Kid, you are a troll. You are ungrounded in reality and are wishing to enact a pie-in-the sky ideal that has been espoused since Plato. Morality will always fall to the greed of those who have evil in their hearts and arms at their side... a government is not inherently evil, but many of the people that join it are.

Consider yourself put on ignore.
You can't deny that capitalism works it is the only system that truly benefits us. If we achieve it, then why change it? Why vote for politicians who would want to change it? I believe that state and business should be separate, both serve a purpose. The state was created to protect, and preserve free will, the safe haven of freedom which is the free market. I only want to enact the true intent of the law, and preserve the law the best way it can be done.
 
I'll stick with reading Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt, F.A. Hayek, Carl Menger, and Ludwig Von Mises

LOL! I"m sorry, but I love this kid!

OOOH.gif
 
I believe that state and business should be separate, both serve a purpose.

War should be illegal.
Crime shouldn't happen.
The strong should protect the weak.

"Should" is utopia and thousands of years' worth of human history tells us "should" is a dream, not reality. You can't deny human nature so why base your argument on something that doesn't exist?
 
You focus on should, and not on what is true. I do not wish to shape a man's dream, but have a society where he has the freedom to do so. Also assume dreams are not real, but many have potential. There are many dreams and visions, and many have come true, due to human action. In the end, my plan, or your colonial minarchists plan, we both can agree the state interfering with the market has lead to poverty, war, and death, correct?
 
You focus on should, and not on what is true. I do not wish to shape a man's dream, but have a society where he has the freedom to do so. Also assume dreams are not real, but many have potential. There are many dreams and visions, and many have come true, due to human action. In the end, my plan, or your colonial minarchists plan, we both can agree the state interfering with the market has lead to poverty, war, and death, correct?

No, no we cannot agree. You are overlooking or discarding what man does. Forget the state or the business or the church or whatever, MANKIND will not allow your ideas to exist. There will always be those who are strong, those who are weak, those who prey on the weak, those who protect the weak, the greedy, the saints, the devils, the anything we can imagine because that is our history and your dreams are irrelevant against historical reality.

Take a "perfect" system. Men/ women run it, and we expect zero corruption to exist? No one would use their influence or take a bribe EVER? You're kidding yourself.
 
No, no we cannot agree. You are overlooking or discarding what man does. Forget the state or the business or the church or whatever, MANKIND will not allow your ideas to exist. There will always be those who are strong, those who are weak, those who prey on the weak, those who protect the weak, the greedy, the saints, the devils, the anything we can imagine because that is our history and your dreams are irrelevant against historical reality.

Take a "perfect" system. Men/ women run it, and we expect zero corruption to exist? No one would use their influence or take a bribe EVER? You're kidding yourself.
Of course and I realize this but name ONE system that man let it happen? None. I am saying what works best. I guess I'm having to branch out here even further.. But we both can agree on less government. The bigger the state the more corrupt. Correct?
 
"What have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
"A republic, if you can keep it."

IMO, Franklin was on the right track, and forcing people to vote (legal issues of compulsion set aside for a minute) is a really good way to push our country in an unsustainable direction.

I really don't see how anything positive can result from compelling people to vote.
 
Keep in mind, this is just a theory. I realize it has kinks. But I also realize no government will ever be perfect.
Yeah it's a theory... a theory that you've been spoon fed, to which you've clearly applied zero critical thinking and demonstrate zero original thought. This is exactly the kind of thing that I'd expect from someone who took a one-semester survey course and now thinks that he's an expert in both comparative politics and American politics. You're mashing up a bunch of buzzwords from different schools of thought and throwing them against the wall to see what sticks. That's not going to fly here.

Last time I checked, the left hates hierarchy.
What does that even mean? The left might hate the patriarchy, but it LOVES hierarchy. The left is all about big government, and you can't have big government without a massive bureaucracy to manage it and an hierarchy to oversee it.

Who will protect their freedoms?
The same people who always have, since before the beginning of our country: men with guns who know their rights and are willing to resort to violence to ensure them.

You also forget the nationalism that will increase the incentive to pay the voluntary tax, and to voluntary to join the military.
Bwahahahaha good one. Oh wait, you were serious? O_o

Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt, F.A. Hayek, Carl Menger, and Ludwig Von Mises
Ooh! Can I play this game too? I'll take "names I'll look up on Wikipedia and then toss out to make me look educated" for $500, Alex!
What, no Piketty? I thought that was the guy all of you young people were told to champion these days. Maybe we need to save him for Final Jeopardy.
 
Minimum wage is for minimally skilled, minimally trained, minimal expectations work. This isn't a living wage, this is something you do to get somewhere else or in the interim while you DO something else (like education). In some cases it's a training wage until you get certifications inherent, such as if you're an apprentice or the like. Cranking it up so it's equatable to a living wage is ludicrous. There's no reason you should be paying the worthless douchenozzle running the stand at Walmart anything more than 8 an hour at best, when all they are doing is sliding things across a counter and barely bagging things (usually incorrectly why yes I like my ammonia with my perishable fruits thank you very much could I have canned motor oil with my bread please)

Long story short, your bayou graduate credentials are showing significantly in how retarded you've put together your understanding of how things work, should work, and will work in reality.
 
Back
Top