Nsw state election : Who will you be voting? (1 Viewer)

[moll.]

This guy's a fucking nutjob. Has he been living in a hole his entire life? Has even met another human being before? Does he not know anything about human nature?

 

[sdent40]

EDIT: If you don't vote, you're a fucking retard. You're not 'defying the system', you're purposefully silencing yourself.

Leaving the ad hom aside, I think there is a very fundamental way in which a person who doesn't vote is "defying the system". If the system is "let's all vote on what policy to impose on everyone" and some people stop voting well then clearly they are defying the system. So I think you're having trouble identifying what system it is we're talking about here.

Also, you are missing the point:

• The message is that voting is pointless and will not achieve freedom, because the very problem is with people's mindsets, not just the existence of the state's buildings and guns. There are people who feel they are entitled to other peoples money/time/effort and until this mindset is changed, there can be no improvement.
• The chance that your vote changes the outcome is miniscule
• Voting is a false dichotomy, between left and right. It's like when a salesman says, "So do you want to buy 10 or 20?", he is excluding the choice of 0, in case you don't want to buy any. No matter who I vote for, the state always gets in.

There is no way to achieve a viable anarchocapitalist state aside from democratic means.

Incorrect, there are non-democratic ways of moving towards ACism.

Agorism - Via counter economics and performing free market transactions without regard to the state's "licensing laws" etc, taxation, regulation and just doing business off the books, agorists are undermining the state's stranglehold over the economy. Eventually, government would become irrelevant under this system because the "real economy" production would eventually far outstrip the pace at which the state is able to control it. There are incentives to doing this because right now the state taxes many many things, from income, to production, and also you lose money to inflation when the state prints money. So by working outside of that system and using sound money, you stand to make a lot more money and you have more flexibility to produce things that people in the market demand.

Secession - A bunch of market anarchists could get together, go buy up some land where government influence is weak and begin a free market stateless society. Once enough people have seen it work, they'll realise that so much of the current state's taxation is just wasted and just goes towards people who spent the most money lobbying for an issue, not those issues which actually need attention.

Talking to people about the issue can also help, it took time for people to come to realise that slavery was wrong. But surely ridiculing the idea and by talking about it, that helped the change towards the idea that slavery is wrong. Likewise, if enough people thought non consensual governments were wrong, well then maybe there will be a day in the future where there would just be mass individual secession and the government would just not exist.

 

[sdent40]

waf is defending the state and getting arttacked by a libertarian~~!

the world has turned upside down

If his only counter argument is that anarchism is a "wank", well he's certainly not doing a good job

Science and other metrics denote when people are considered adults.

First off, you claim "cience as though it is "on your side". This claim doesn't even really make sense, since I'm not suggesting that children reach "biological adulthood" at 13, I'm suggesting they shouldn't be subject to as many restrictions as they currently are. There is a difference between these two things.

Just because you fap over Rothbard doesn't change this empirical fact. GG.

This is a strawman, I'm not suggesting that they should have the right to "because I fap over rothbard", I'm suggesting that free market courts and the customs of society would determine these things, as opposed to the state, because the state is not something consented to and has no authority over this matter.

 

[sdent40]

Postulating a concept in the abstract as being informed by 'society at large' when there is a clear scientific reasoning behind it is as flawed and specious.

Well what "clear scientific reasoning" suggests that children should not leave school earlier than 15? As far as I'm aware, the state legislates that children should be at government schools (or government allowed schools, even in the case of "private schools") from the ages of 6-15, I think there are many kids that would be better off leaving school earlier, since government schools are crap anyway. They could earn work experience (not just for a week in year 10 lol), they could go to specialised colleges based on their chosen occupation rather than learning about how to use "intertextual references and imagery" in english, even if they plan to never use that skill.

What "clear scientific reasoning" suggests that children shouldn't be able to vote under the age of 18? Good luck with this one. Now yes, I realise that I promote non-voting, but if you truly believe voting and democracy are good things, why not allow children to partake in it? What "scientific" reason do you have?

What "clear scientific reasoning" suggests that children must be restricted drivers merely because they are young? Why not have driving tests that are the same for everyone (regardless of age) and then restrict based on those results? Why not allow insurance companies to be the ones to 'play the probabilities', rather than government laws doing this?

Wonderful intellectual exercise, I agree with you completely, but in our current framework, we would work towards a democratic solution to the problem rather than an outright dismissal of the state. They've got guns, you know.

We are discussing normative things here right? Not what exists now. So why must we be limited to "our current framework"? This is like person A saying "hey the piano should have more than 88 keys cos I'd like more flexibility with the music I play" and then person B responding "oh nah silly everybody knows pianos only have 88 keys". You don't respond to normative statements of how the world should be by just saying "thats not how the world is now".

In the free market society, education would probably be much faster so that children learnt all that we do now, but faster. Or at least become more specialised, so they don't learn things they don't want to or don't need. This would happen over time as free market processes allowed schools to develop and experiment with different teaching strategies and methods. So leaving school earlier would be a completely sensible thing to do. A free market schooling system would also allow much more flexibility, rather than trying to prescribe certain subjects to learn or ways to study.

 

[DDEVIL]

I think personally the whole political system sucks it's By the party for the party... It's never about the people just the party...Not to mention why is it that we have a Govt. and then another party constantly trying to stop the Govt. this seems to be a little anti-progress...

lots of respect for Obama, to actually ask the opposition to help him because they are the better person for the job says that he's working 4 America not his party

 

[Trefoil]

Here's a hint sdent: humans practice bounded rationality. You give a kid a choice between learning something at school and running around in the forest nearby with his mates, what's he going to choose?

 

[Gerald10]

I think personally the whole political system sucks it's By the party for the party... It's never about the people just the party...Not to mention why is it that we have a Govt. and then another party constantly trying to stop the Govt. this seems to be a little anti-progress...

I believe thats called a one party state and hasnt been so successful.

 

[Trefoil]

I think personally the whole political system sucks it's By the party for the party... It's never about the people just the party...Not to mention why is it that we have a Govt. and then another party constantly trying to stop the Govt. this seems to be a little anti-progress...

Google 'democracy'.

 

[U.S.A]

I believe thats called a one party state and hasnt been so successful.

Google "your a retard"

 

[Trefoil]

Google "your a retard"

*facepalm*

 

[moll.]

Someone get this man some rep!

 

[DDEVIL]

Democracy- power is held by " the people"-

Yes the people being the party...
​

Google said : accountibility- the obligation to bear the consequences for failure to perform as expected;-

Yes such terrible consequences that they get free travel for life, huge payouts even if they don't complete the term...i would love to bear those consequences
​

 

[Trefoil]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Schroedinger again.

 

[DDEVIL]

You have to be a complete fucking retard to not understand why we have an n-party system.

There's this thing called 'representation'. Governments don't get 100% of the vote.

I understand it perfectly doesn't mean it's not flawed

 

[moll.]

It's a sight better than the nearest competition.

 

[Trefoil]

I understand it perfectly doesn't mean it's not flawed

Maybe we should try a one party state. That's never been done before.

 

[sdent40]

Here's a hint sdent: humans practice bounded rationality. You give a kid a choice between learning something at school and running around in the forest nearby with his mates, what's he going to choose?

The "choice" is much broader than that, the kid might want to go and start working, to get some experience, make some money and start producing. And even if the kid wants to go play in the forest, eventually he has to grow up, and he knows that. His parents and social pressure to not be a leech on society would motivate him to grow up, not the government.

I think it's worth noting that since schools right now have to teach prescribed subjects, they may not be as fulfilling for students. A free market in education would allow many many different options and provide much more flexibility, as well as potential for specialisation. It's more likely that the kid would be able to study specific subjects that he wanted to, and then go into a career using that skill. So I definitely think there is scope for children spending less time at school anyway. I also think that there'd be a great deal less pointless homework being set, and this frees up more time too.

Information has costs, there is risk involved in many things, individuals should be able to choose. The point is that right now, the government is making people's choices for them, and that's wrong. Not only is it wrong, but it's probably hindering the growth of society because a free market in education would most likely mean that people learn faster/more selectively and enter the workforce sooner. This means more years in the workforce as opposed to learning stuff that the kid doesn't want to learn and won't use in his future life (and could go and get a specific training course in the future as an adult anyway, if he really wanted to go back and learn something).

 

[Gerald10]

Correct me if Im wrong but DDevil is suggesting the absolute combining of the legislative and executive branches of government so that there is no opposition (or indeed review) of policy.

If I were to point to the single biggest flaw in the Australian system I would say that the legislative and executive branch are too close together as it is (see Rudd pushing through laws without serious review).

 

[moll.]

Good god how I hate ideological twerps aged 16-25 who think that their own form of an authoritarian one-party dictatorship would be so much more successful than the previous 32764296 times that's been tried. They also have a tendency to ignore basic human traits, such as selfishness or irrationality, which makes their theories null and void.
The worst part is that I used to be one of them. I used to think that we should only allow ex-servicemen to vote because they've shown an ability to sacrifice themselves for the betterment of the state.
Bet sdent and DDevil think that's not such a bad idea now.

 

[sdent40]

moll, if your post is directed towards me then you are misrepresenting/misunderstanding my position:

1. i don't support an authoritarian one party system, this is the opposite of what I want as a free market anarchist

2.

They also have a tendency to ignore basic human traits, such as selfishness or irrationality, which makes their theories null and void.

This is a commonly cited "problem" used to justify the imposition of a state, because people like to look at something that exists, compare it to "nirvana" and then say OMG we need a state to fix this! The problem here is that the people working for the state are the same normal human beings that are claimed to be irrational and "selfish". So your stated solution does not solve your problem.

3.

I used to think that we should only allow ex-servicemen to vote because they've shown an ability to sacrifice themselves for the betterment of the state. Bet sdent and DDevil think that's not such a bad idea now.

I promote non voting or spoiling the ballot, so no.