Do you look down on people who...

[alanschu]

And takes in how much?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh, it takes in a lot but think on this. If we had a more streamline system in which eliminates the IRS and the whole income tax system think of the billions of dollars saved. One system we could have would be a federal sales tax. Place an additional 3% to 5% sales tax on every non-food item purchased in this country and BOOM! Not only do we get rid the waste of the IRS but still rake in the money needed to fund our government.

 

It would also eliminate tax fraud as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yes, absolutely. Because it's impossible for businesses to commit tax fraud with a sales tax.

[213374U]

absolutely no. anyone who joins the army voluntarily are ****ing retards. the army is the world's biggest kindergarten; absolutely useless.

sterilization plz

[Lucius]

I would think a Norwegian (REG), of all people, would be too proud to hate his army so much.

[Walsingham]

You'd grind the entire economy to a halt. Far better to remove all sales tax, encourage people to spend.

 

I'm not sure I quite understand your view of Human nature there, Hades. On the one hand you seem to be saying that humans are filthy stinky pigs. And on the other hand that they are nice enough to handle their own affairs on an almost individual basis.

 

I suggest we all read (or re-read) The Man Who Was Thursday.

[Judge Hades]

Yes, absolutely.  Because it's impossible for businesses to commit tax fraud with a sales tax.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Okay, individual tax fraud. Sheesh.

[Judge Hades]

You'd grind the entire economy to a halt. Far better to remove all sales tax, encourage people to spend.

 

I'm not sure I quite understand your view of Human nature there, Hades. On the one hand you seem to be saying that humans are filthy stinky pigs. And on the other hand that they are nice enough to handle their own affairs on an almost individual basis.

 

I suggest we all read (or re-read) The Man Who Was Thursday.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am a creature of whimsy and sometimes multiple whimsies.

 

On occasion, opposing whimsies.

Edited May 17, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Calax]

Tyranny of the Majority and all that jazz.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

which is better? that or what we have now (tyrrany of the minority)?

[Dark_Raven]

You'd grind the entire economy to a halt. Far better to remove all sales tax, encourage people to spend.

 

I'm not sure I quite understand your view of Human nature there, Hades. On the one hand you seem to be saying that humans are filthy stinky pigs. And on the other hand that they are nice enough to handle their own affairs on an almost individual basis.

 

I suggest we all read (or re-read) The Man Who Was Thursday.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am a creature of whimsy and sometimes multiple whimsies.

 

On occasion, opposing whimsies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Substitute whimsies wit the word personalities.

[Cantousent]

Tyranny of the Majority and all that jazz.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

which is better? that or what we have now (tyrrany of the minority)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The tyranny of the minority occurs when the majority votes for one thing but the minority defies their will.

 

We have a rule reprsentative of the vote in this country, which means that the majority of voters will get their way. I think it is admirable to encourage folks to vote, but I cannot claim abundant sympathy for people who don't vote.

 

With television as widespread as it is, there is no real excuse for lacking at least a rudimentary knowledge of the issues. You need not be literate. However, add at least some literacy to the mix and your lack of voting is a shame.

 

So, the majority of voters put us here. You know, we hear it both ways. Folks question how the majority of Americans must be stupid based on the vote. On the other hand, we have folks claiming that we have a tyranny of the minority.

 

Here's a clue: the people voted. No matter how much money, influence, or power George Bush has, the people could have voted for someone else. In fact, if money and power were the only ingredients, we'd have President Cheney, who is far wealthier than Bush in the first place.

 

Just because you didn't like the results doesn't mean the results aren't legitimate. That's true no matter who wins the election. Suck it up, and vote in the next cycle.

 

As for you, Hades, you are the whimsical majority against whom the founding fathers worked to protect us. Democracy is just short of being my personal religion. In that belief, you are a heretic. In great enough numbers, and with great enough resources, you and your ilk would pose a real threat to our nation. Luckily, you only have one vote. I can take losing on an issue or in an election. That's fine. ...But you would destroy something that works because you want to "fix" it. I would say you exhibit the worst of the mob mentality but for the fact that I doubt the premise of your mentality.

[Judge Hades]

Oh, ouch. Eldar, that stings. Oh, ouch indeed. No Christmas card for you this year.

[Cantousent]

Ah, I have history and Classical Studies degrees. They're really only useful for rhetoric.

[Judge Hades]

Indeed. Closest I have gotten to Classical studies was through my minor in Religion and trying to learn Latin.

 

Majority of my literary knowledge only goes back to the 15th century.

Edited May 18, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Cantousent]

See, we should argue about ancient politics. That's more fun and actually causes just as much mayhem if you move in the right circles.

[Judge Hades]

HA! True indeed.

[Calax]

my point was that rather being as sensitive about things as the majority we have to be that way to the minority (snow white cannot prick her finger in certian im systems because prick is censored out for being "sexual innuendo") also it's not the majority that gets courted for votes... it's the VOCAL minority because the vocal minority will cause sympathy with the dumb idiots. :meh: it's not my country as I've never signed up to vote so...

[Cantousent]

That, my friend, is a shame. Sign up and vote. It is the most basic of both your civil rights and also your civic obligations.

[Judge Hades]

That, my friend, is a shame.  Sign up and vote.  It is the most basic of both your civil rights and also your civic obligations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As much as I complain about the US I always vote. I vote every single time there is something to vote about.

[Walsingham]

Good man. I actually didn't vote last UK elections, largely because I was living out of a suitcase and wasn't registered. But I did get out on the doorsteps campaigning. So I feel I still discharged my civic duty to a certain extent.

[Dark_Raven]

That, my friend, is a shame.  Sign up and vote.  It is the most basic of both your civil rights and also your civic obligations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why? Most of the time both candidates suck. That's the problem when we have two parties that are the majority in our system. I did not vote last time because we had Bush and Kerry, whoppy doo!

[Moose]

Contrary to what people may think, England doesn't actually have a democracy so voting is a waste of time. A democracy means power to the people; in England we use the 'first to past the post' system, meaning power to 'some' of the people. All others are by design of the system disqualified as they have no place for representation, no matter how large a group they may be.

 

A good example of this would be the underlying nationalism stirring around as a result of resentment to recent policies. It's there but may as well not exist as we live in a digital political system.

[Gorth]

We have a rule reprsentative of the vote in this country, which means that the majority of voters will get their way.

I got a question for you then, as your system "seems" relatively simple once the voting is done. The one of the two parties with the most votes is the "winner" and will "rule" until next election.

 

Where I grew up, it's more like a "democratorship" where you have a zillion small parties representing a lot of occasional odd interests (one party once get a comedian elected for promising more wind in the back for bicyclists, I'm not kidding).

 

In such a system, it's not really a majority rule, but largest minority who gets to to do it. Since the ruling minority is rarely able to get anything through parliament then, it's mostly a bunch of watered down compromises that gets passed.

 

It also means, that you have to go back a 1890 election or some such, to actually find a politician who kept his promises and didn't compromise 90% of his program away.

 

The end result of this is, people has grown increasingly disinterested in "democracy" and politics, as it is often like punching a pillow when trying to change things.

 

Let's take a hypothetical example and say people lose interest completely, would it really be a "democracy" then if few people even care where they put their 'X' or would they be better off with a different kind of government ?

[Cantousent]

The people are always free to voice their opinions. In cases where there is no clear majority, then the various minority blocks will be forced to compromise. However, those compromises still reflect the desires of the majority. In other words, the various parties that comprise the majority block each represent their own slice of the majority. When they make a compromise, it is as a representative of their constituents. It's not perfect, but it does reflect the will of the people, no matter how tortuous it might be.

 

Moreover, the will of the people is paramount. Measures that are hateful to the majority, in other words a true majority find them unequivocally despicable, are destined for defeat. For example, can you see a measure passing through your legislative body that allows for summary executions of non-Christians?

 

The status quo is the biggest stumbling block to voter turn-out. As long as the situation is not dire, voters are likely to remain apathetic. In our western democracies, the voters generally feel well served by the government. Sure, one politician or another will rise to or fall out of favor, but the fact is that the issues are rarely sufficiently dire to demand real change.

 

That's the first argument.

 

My real feelings are this: If folks can't be bothered to vote, then they are at the mercy of better men who exercise the right and responsibility of voting. That doesn't mean I hate folks who don't vote. I rather like some folks who refuse to vote, but I'd rather have people like Hades who, no matter how much I deride their opinions, at least carry out their most basic obligations as citizens.

 

There are too many parties? Combine forces. Compromise has turned into a dirty word, I suppose, but all democracy is built upon it. Without compromise, there can be no western democracy.

 

You must understand, however, that democracy is the heart of our culture. As ridiculous, dangerous, or even downright hateful as some of the proposals are in this thread, I'd stand by the decision to implement them if we reached that decision through our current democratic process.

 

I might think some measures are hateful, but I'll abide by them for the sake of our democracy. The sole exception are measures that are intrinsically hateful to the very nature of democracy itself. For example, I will never support a measure in favor of slavery. If the majority ever passed such a measure, I would rebel against it. I will never support a measure in favor of the establishment of the state religion. If such a measure were passed, I would agitate against it. I will never support a measure in favor of racial genocide. If such a measure were passed, I would actively fight it.

 

I trust our democracy, however. It loses its way from time to time, but it is better than all other choices. I would rather risk my life because of some of Hades ill-conceived proposals democratically passed than live safely under the heel of a dictator.

[Judge Hades]

Okay, we keep the current form of government but we still ned to trim away the various aspects of our government that wastes money and resources. We need to do a major reformation or elimination of all programs and offices. From the IRS to the Welfare system, from education to social security.

 

First off I still think that the IRS is simply not needed. If we place a 3 to 5 percent federal sales tax on all taxable items sold in the United States we would still bring in the same level of funds, if not more, into the government without the bureacracy of the IRS sucking funds.

Edited May 18, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Gorth]

I was having visions of a US lead international occupation army with soldiers forcing danes at gunpoint down to the election booth and vote or face "removal" to that gulag thingy on Cuba for working against the interests of democracy :D

 

I've only voted once in my life (and that was a "No" to the Maastricht treaty, a referendum, not an election), so I would probably be summarily executed for being a terrorist, actively undermining the system by withholding my vote(s)

 

I seriously can't remember a politician, that I in any way felt deserved my approval through my vote

 

 

The people are always free to voice their opinions.  In cases where there is no clear majority, then the various minority blocks will be forced to compromise.  However, those compromises still reflect the desires of the majority.  In other words, the various parties that comprise the majority block each represent their own slice of the majority.  When they make a compromise, it is as a representative of their constituents.  It's not perfect, but it does reflect the will of the people, no matter how tortuous it might be.

I forgot to mention something in my previous post (sorry), but I wonder if it really is the "will of the people" which is reflected in the results ?

 

What I'm getting at is media and the control of public oppinion and how much of a free will people really have. You actively (I suppose, correct me if I am wrong) information about events, candidates, what they represent etc.

 

I did that too, that is, until I realised what a bunch of dirty rotten scoundrels were available to choose between and then decided that none were suitable leaders.

 

However, how much effort does the average voter devote to keep themselves informed and enlightened ?

 

In a pessimistic estimate based on my own prejudices, very few does and becomes voting cattle for those who control media, giving the power of government to those who controls the media (Italy being a good example).

 

I don't have a fix for it, but I think the "system" is broken as it currently is. If you try to impose limits on who can vote (income requirements, written tests, forced indoctrination/education whatever), it no longer qualifies as a demokratia (no idea how to create funny greek letters...).

 

In it's current form, I don't acknowledge what people seem to swallow raw as democracy as what it pretend to be, just another control tool.

 

The status quo is the biggest stumbling block to voter turn-out.  As long as the situation is not dire, voters are likely to remain apathetic.  In our western democracies, the voters generally feel well served by the government.  Sure, one politician or another will rise to or fall out of favor, but the fact is that the issues are rarely sufficiently dire to demand real change.

You just need voter booth babes, like at the E3

 

My real feelings are this:  If folks can't be bothered to vote, then they are at the mercy of better men who exercise the right and responsibility of voting.  That doesn't mean I hate folks who don't vote.  I rather like some folks who refuse to vote, but I'd rather have people like Hades who, no matter how much I deride their opinions, at least carry out their most basic obligations as citizens.

I think I just described my own feelings (in my own "blunt" way) above, the difference isn't really that big if you withhold your vote or you place an uninformed/misinformed vote. In both cases, it's not truly the voice of the people being heard.

 

There are too many parties?  Combine forces.  Compromise has turned into a dirty word, I suppose, but all democracy is built upon it.  Without compromise, there can be no western democracy.

I don't mind compromises just out of some obscure princip, but when done habitually, it makes the available choices seems bland.

 

You must understand, however, that democracy is the heart of our culture.  As ridiculous, dangerous, or even downright hateful as some of the proposals are in this thread, I'd stand by the decision to implement them if we reached that decision through our current democratic process.

Depends on the age of your culture. I remember when my highscool celebrated it's 800th birthday in 1985 (I think that was the year). Browsing through all the old books, lots of them predating Gutenberg, there was very little "democracy" in there. For some, it may be all they know, for others, it's just a recent social experiment where the outcome is researched and added to the library :cool:

 

I might think some measures are hateful, but I'll abide by them for the sake of our democracy.  The sole exception are measures that are intrinsically hateful to the very nature of democracy itself.  For example, I will never support a measure in favor of slavery.  If the majority ever passed such a measure, I would rebel against it.  I will never support a measure in favor of the establishment of the state religion.  If such a measure were passed, I would agitate against it.  I will never support a measure in favor of racial genocide.  If such a measure were passed, I would actively fight it.

Thats where your personal thresholds goes, other peoples mileage may vary however. Examples of this has been seen for decades in Europe where terrorist organisations have worked against elected goverments since the early seventies in countries like Italy, Spain, UK, Germany etc.

 

I would definitely trust you to be a member of a democratic society

 

I'm less sure about other individuals :ph34r:

 

I trust our democracy, however.  It loses its way from time to time, but it is better than all other choices.  I would rather risk my life because of some of Hades ill-conceived proposals democratically passed than live safely under the heel of a dictator.

Yet people voted for Hitler and disposed of democracy after WWI.

 

I guess I'll always have difficulties trusting people to do much beyond what they are trained for :">

 

The resident cynic has spoken

 

Not that I really disagree with you on what is good and bad, but you know i appreciate your point of view on interesting subjects

[thepixiesrock]

Okay, we keep the current form of government but we still ned to trim away the various aspects of our government that wastes money and resources.  We need to do a major reformation and elimination of all programs and offices.  From the IRS to the Welfare system, from education to social security.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You want to get rid of educational funding and social security?

 

 

Can I ask why?