Should abstaining from voting in elections be allowed?

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by Xanafax

There is no logic in forced voting. At all.

On the contrary I think some choices whether good or bad forms a precedent of continuity which in the long run works for the good of the community.

[Xanafax]

Who says the good of the community is the supreme good?

[newsbone]

The good of the community results ot the good of everyone!

[Xanafax]

No.

The good of the community is a tribal belief.

The good of the individual is the paramount good.

[newsbone]

What then is the end result of the good of the individual if not the good of the community as a whole, everyone plays his part for the good of all at the end.

[Eric Roosevelt]

Originally Posted by newsbone

What then is the end result of the good of the individual if not the good of the community as a whole, everyone plays his part for the good of all at the end.

I'd also add to this that no individual survives forever, whereas human civilization may well survive forever (or at least a very long time), and therefore it's important to think in the long term - past the life times of everyone living right now.

On the other hand, I think granting freedom to individuals (or individuals taking it, rather) increases creativity. And creativity - whether you're building something or just thinking of new ideas - requires freedom of choice (see my signature ). The creativity that comes from the individual ultimately leads to a better life for everyone.

It also just feels much better for most people to be free than to be violently forced into submission. That's something we also have to take into consideration.

[Parthon]

There's too many factors to just put through a black and white rule like that. There's personal freedoms, who is and isn't allowed to vote, when/where/how people vote. Tehre's the argument of individual vs collective and different ideologies. There's the question of a multiparty system vs a two party system.

Even still, politicians aren't very good at what they do. They rarely keep promises, bamboozle and swindle when they think they can get away with it and generally act against our best interests.

Lastly: The collective has no interest in the individual, and that's dangerous. You can't ignore the individual people in order to satisfy the greater populace, anarchy would happen. A collective overlooks minorities and tramples all over human rights. It's not long before you have a gap between those that have, and those that have not. Soon there's a large portion(about5%) of the population that is disgruntled and wants to be heard. Then a riot happens, all hell breaks loose, there aren't enough police to handle it and chaos happens. You can't ignore anybody, because everyone is important. Something politicians too easily forget.

[ns123]

In my own personal experience, forcing people to vote (decide) under threat of punishment never generates the kind of participation and empowerment that I want to see. In fact, it generates the opposite. And I end up having a terrible time in the process.

Good luck to you if you think punishing people is a good inducement for participation. Try experimenting with that to see what kind of results you get.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by ns123

In my own personal experience, forcing people to vote (decide) under threat of punishment never generates the kind of participation and empowerment that I want to see. In fact, it generates the opposite. And I end up having a terrible time in the process.

Good luck to you if you think punishing people is a good inducement for participation. Try experimenting with that to see what kind of results you get.

Obviously indifference, riots and all the common accompaniments but with consistent purnishment they will learn to participate freely. Its just like pain you fight to overcome it but once you realize that, you can't do anything about it you learn to live with it.

[Xanafax]

Originally Posted by newsbone

What then is the end result of the good of the individual if not the good of the community as a whole, everyone plays his part for the good of all at the end.

You see newsbone your assuming that the only goal of human life is the continuation of human life.

Your saying it doesn't matter if individuals are unhappy or forefully made to act aslong as the entity that is the community is being done right by.

It's ridiculous.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Xanafax

No.

The good of the community is a tribal belief.

The good of the individual is the paramount good.

I was going to disagree with you, but actually I think you are right. If by "good of the individual" you don't mean "my own good", but "the good of each and every single individual".

[Xanafax]

Yes. I am not saying my personal beliefs are the only ones that matter in the universe and no one else has any rights.

I am saying that we must respect and cherish an individuals right to freedom - any individuals, no matter who they are.

However I would also say that if you commit a crime you forfeit certain rights (like freedom of movement, for example) but that's another issue altogether.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by Xanafax

You see newsbone your assuming that the only goal of human life is the continuation of human life.

Your saying it doesn't matter if individuals are unhappy or forefully made to act aslong as the entity that is the community is being done right by.

It's ridiculous.

Am not assuming anything but that is realism; as a matter of fact this is where most folks actually agree. Why then should the government determine the cars that people should drive in the name of reducing carbon emissions, why are you not rioting about that? Deep inside you just like every other human being, the need for continuation of species is paramount in as much we might pretend.

Governments are there to make decisions on behalf of the individual therefore I see no reason not to participate in determining its composition. Why give someone the authority to determine your destiny when you can not decide on who it should be? Why let someone decide what is right or wrong when you could make sure through the voting process that you have a credible person who can defend what right and not righting what should be wrong.

Freedom without boundaries results to anarchy which does not come as an event but is a result of a process time, am sorry to say that is where the world is heading. Thus the need for the people in the governments stop shouldering all the blame and force the community to participate in making choices of the leaders they want to have.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by aelle

I was going to disagree with you, but actually I think you are right. If by "good of the individual" you don't mean "my own good", but "the good of each and every single individual".

The community is made up of individuals of whom one’s good is good for everyone. I don’t think Xanafax is seeing your way, I assume he is of the opinion that an individuals good should override the good of a community. My opinion is that the better the community the better the individual and vice versa!

[Xanafax]

Originally Posted by newsbone

Am not assuming anything but that is realism; as a matter of fact this is where most folks actually agree. Why then should the government determine the cars that people should drive in the name of reducing carbon emissions, why are you not rioting about that? Deep inside you just like every other human being, the need for continuation of species is paramount in as much we might pretend.

So your saying to justify my opinions I have to make a fuss about every infringement? No thanks. Of course I am opposed, but I am opposed to over-reaching principles that governments choose - not specific actions. The need for the continuation of this species is hardly a need. Consider the massive population of Earth today - we hardly need to feel compelled to continue it. Yes I want a child, but no I do not feel a child is the only goal of my life. Yes I want to live - but existence at any cost is not my goal. I would rather die than live as a slave. Continued Existence does not = Life.

Originally Posted by newsbone

Governments are there to make decisions on behalf of the individual therefore I see no reason not to participate in determining its composition. Why give someone the authority to determine your destiny when you can not decide on who it should be? Why let someone decide what is right or wrong when you could make sure through the voting process that you have a credible person who can defend what right and not righting what should be wrong.

Governments exist to protect the rights of individuals. Not to make decisions for them. Of course we should participate. But your advocating forced voting. Let people decide if they want to vote or not.

Originally Posted by newsbone

Freedom without boundaries results to anarchy which does not come as an event but is a result of a process time, am sorry to say that is where the world is heading. Thus the need for the people in the governments stop shouldering all the blame and force the community to participate in making choices of the leaders they want to have.

The world is not heading for anarchy, it's heading for a global police state where one cannot sneeze or have a controversial opinion for fear of being locked away on grounds of being a biological hazard under the terrorist act or inciting racial hatred against minority groups.

How do governments shoulder the blame? They make US suffer for their stupidity in the form of higher taxes, recessions and wars no one wanted.


Your arguments are severely flawed and you haven't yet given me a good argument for enforced voting.

[Holistic Star]

Originally Posted by newsbone

with consistent purnishment they will learn to participate freely.

That statement is worthy of a statement from "The Ministry of Truth" in George Owell's novel 1984! (War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength).

It is defeated by it's own internal logic! How can consisent punishment mean someone participates freely?


I agree with Xanafax that there is no point having continuity of human life if every individual is miserable.

Originally Posted by newsbone

Governments are there to make decisions on behalf of the individual therefore I see no reason not to participate in determining its composition. Why give someone the authority to determine your destiny when you can not decide on who it should be? Why let someone decide what is right or wrong when you could make sure through the voting process that you have a credible person who can defend what right and not righting what should be wrong.

Surely then you would want empowered informed people voting who care enough to vote, rather than people who will vote and put an X against any old name because they have to vote for someone.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by Xanafax

Governments exist to protect the rights of individuals. Not to make decisions for them. Of course we should participate. But your advocating forced voting. Let people decide if they want to vote or not.
The world is not heading for anarchy, it's heading for a global police state where one cannot sneeze or have a controversial opinion for fear of being locked away on grounds of being a biological hazard under the terrorist act or inciting racial hatred against minority groups.

How do governments shoulder the blame? They make US suffer for their stupidity in the form of higher taxes, recessions and wars no one wanted. .

But we have let them do so by virtue of not voting hence the need for enforced voting, as I said only enforced voting will help people get rid of such kind of governments who are the consequence of freedom of voting or not. My fear is the world becoming a police state just as you have mentioned because of individuals right to vote or not, half of whom understand how a government is meant to be run. And like you they choose to blame instead of using their votes wisely, if then enforced voting can bring about a convenient government so be it.

[tintin]

i dont know newsbone i dont even care enough to complain. what the french does the govt.have to do with my life anyways?
im getting all my needs fulfilled by the universe (govts included) what a waste of time to go select people.i select no one.
who are they anyways?


pshah! windbags all.

its not the whistle that moves the train.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

That statement is worthy of a statement from "The Ministry of Truth" in George Owell's novel 1984! (War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength).

It is defeated by it's own internal logic! How can consisent punishement mean someone participates freely?


I agree with Xanafax that there is no point having continuity of human life if every individual is miserable..

I meant in the long run people will get used to the idea and eventually take it as a need. What if the miserable life is brought about by exercising the right not to vote?

[Xanafax]

newsborne your making a fatal error!

Your assuming that you can force someone's mind!

Your saying basically: Your fear, and need for a stable government means everybody else is obliged to vote to make you feel happy.

This is nonsense.

You have to let people do what they want in these situations. If you don't like the fact that no one votes start a campaign to raise political awareness amongst younger people (or older people). Get the political information out into the communities around you. Make people care. Be the change. Don't just sit and demand tyrannical measures be employed to satisfy your own insecurities.

[Holistic Star]

Newsbone,

Why do you think enforced voting will defeat a 'police-state' style government.

If people don't care enough to vote for change now, why do you think that forcing them to vote will make a difference? They are just as likely to vote for whoever is in power, rather than vote for change.

If your reasoning for enforced voting is that it will overthrow govenments, I think you would be better off asking for proportional representation, rather than 'first past the post' voting.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by tintin

i dont know newsbone i dont even care enough to complain. what the french does the govt.have to do with my life anyways?
im getting all my needs fulfilled by the universe (govts included) what a waste of time to go select people.i select no one.
who are they anyways?


pshah! windbags all.

These people determine how you live your life tintin! They say what is wrong and right not you! You obey what they have predetermined for you by the same people you do not care to select. They are your government.

[Holistic Star]

Originally Posted by newsbone

I meant in the long run people will get used to the idea and eventually take it as a need. What if the miserable life is brought about by exercising the right not to vote?

No it will be a compulsory duty, not a need.

I don't know the answer to this but it would be a fascinating study to compare countries where people are forced to vote and not, and find out if the governments were left or right wing, the GDP of the country and how happy the people were. (not sure how you would measure happiness though)

[tintin]

OH GOD!!!
do something then newsbone..quick!





*except getting me to vote

[Xanafax]

Newsborne:

I get the disturbing feeling you consider the government to be a substitute mind for your own.

[newsbone]

Me thinks that all efforts must be made to force people to vote both soft like raising awareness and hard-enforced voting which in the long-term bear the same fruit. Resistance to this will be there for some time but come the next generation voting shall be an inalienable right.

[Xanafax]

Yeah.

To quote Ayn Rand:

"Force is the great evil that has no place in a rational world. One may never force another human to act against his/her judgement. If you deny a man's right to Reason, you must also deny your right to your own judgement. Yet you have allowed your world to be run by means of force, by men who claim that fear and joy are equal incentives, but that fear and force are more practical."

Is that not what you are saying?

[tintin]

i seriously think you have something to offer.
no.really.
but this approach is so offensive and dictatorial that it can start a war.

maybe if you work on the approach?


and seriously *respect* free will?

you wanna vote -go ahead.but dont you be tellin me what i should be doing newsie.


hey how about going in for a past life? maybe some kinda truama happened back then?...regarding free wills? (i see it in all your posts..so just 'suggesting' )

[Holistic Star]

Another point to consider is that there are more adult women than there are adult men. (Women tend to live longer, and also the effects of having large numbers of young men killed in wars over the years means that women are in the majority).

So newsbone, enforcing the vote means you would be submitting the way your country is run to a majority vote by women. I'd be surprised from your other posts that this is something you would want.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by Xanafax

Newsborne:

I get the disturbing feeling you consider the government to be a substitute mind for your own.

I am a very independent person Xanafax but I also know the limits to affecting my fierce opinion that is created by people in power.