• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Democracy Overrated?

Originally posted by Jessica Blue Don't go overboard. I hardly think turning up at a ballot box every few years is going to shatter anyones religious freedoms. Besides, I don't think Australia should be organizing its political system by walking on eggshells around religious dictates. Some religious sects want to slice up a womans vagina but we dont allow that either. Is that undemocratic? [/B]
Click to expand...

1) There are plenty of religious sects that don't vote. Another example are the Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't particularly like them, but if you can force them to vote, why not force an atheist like LFTKBS to abstain from blood transfusions?

2) You're right: Australia shouldn't organize its political system around religious dictates. However, it should also not organize its political system around a law that is based ultimately in force. I.e., if you don't vote, we either put you in jail or fine you.

3) Some religious sects want to slice up a womans vagina but we dont allow that either. False analogy and appeal to emotion: the act of not-voting hurts no one, whereas clitorectomies and FGM have a victim.

Freedom includes freedom from as well as freedom to.
 
Compulsory voting is tyranical in the same way that A refusing to tell B what to think is a religious imposition by A on B.

I hear the latter all the time by prospective B's who have theretofore only encountered people who have identical views to theirs, and who thus can tell them what to think without telling them to think anything they're not already thinking. Along comes somebody who doesn't tell them what to think, and out comes all the accusations that THAT person is imposing on them. Count yourself lucky if you've never been the accused in one of these.
 
I'd just like to point out that "not voting" and voting an abstention are practically identical. Thus "being compelled to vote" is rather like "being oppressed by the Law of Gravity".

Can we consider the consequences of blocks effectively abstaining on matters on which they might actually posess an opinion? An opinion, which somebody refuses to express and act upon in any way--does it still exist?
 
DrMatt said:
I'd just like to point out that "not voting" and voting an abstention are practically identical.
Click to expand...

Yeah, except in one instance you're actually voting, while in the other one, you're not. ;)
 
Originally posted by KimpatsuYou still miss the point, Jessica. First of all, compulsory voting IS denial of religious freedom. Secondly, the Buddhist doesn't want to go to the polling booth, spoil the paper, and leave. Nor should they have to. Making them do so is to forcibly involve them in an earthly process they find grubby and demeaning. You have no right to force people to do that.
Click to expand...
I find this laughable. It's not that I'm missing the point Kimpatsu...it's that I don't happen to agree with it. Clearly we have different ideas of what constitutes tyranny. If you live in a society then you are expected to participate in its laws or pay the penalty, whether you find them "grubby and demeaning" or not. You can't please all of the people all of the time.

*Requiring a citizen, who may be a buddhist to turn up at a polling booth every few years is not, IMO a significant enough erosion of religious freedoms that we should sacrifice a system that works well for the majority of Australians and which most Australians are happy with. I don't think religious freedom should extend to changing our laws to appease a very small group.

You assume that Australia is a fine western demo0cracy, and so tyranny can never truly happen there

You've made a big jump there. Where did I say this? I think that given the right set of conditions and enough time to develop tyranny could happen anywhere.

You're wrong, and your complacency is dangerous, not least because it is capitalised upon by the likes of John Howard and the convict Pauline Hanson. The curtailments of liberty using the excuse of 9/11 are a case in point, but most of all, if you really want to witness the contempt in which Howard holds you, look at how he treats asylum seekers, for in the words of Neil Acheson, "Always watch how a country treats refugees, for that's how they'd treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it."

What does all this have to do with my defence of compulsory voting? Just because I don't believe compulsory voting is the slippery slope to tyrannical despotism doesn't mean I'm complacent. It doesn't mean I think Australia has a perfect democracy or is immune to political dangers...I already made that point in an earlier post.

Compulsory voting is not responsible for the horror that is Pauline Hanson or John Howards deficiencies or the refugee issue. Without compulsory voting it's likely the Howard government would have had an even greater majority. In the US, where there is no mandatory system they have George Bush and the Patriot Act so what's your point? In a democracy you dont always get the best candidate...whether you have compulsory voting or not.

Supporting compulsory voting doesnot equate to complacency...in fact it's rather the reverse.
 
Originally posted by LFTKBS
There are plenty of religious sects that don't vote. Another example are the Jehovah's Witnesses. I don't particularly like them, but if you can force them to vote, why not force an atheist like LFTKBS to abstain from blood transfusions?
Click to expand...

You've made a false analogy yourself. Compelling someone to reject a blood transfusion is life threatening and thus creates a "victim"...in the same way a female circumscision does. Enforced refusal of blood transfusions is not reasonable in any way and would have no social benefit. It's a crap analogy.

Under a mandatory system no-one is told "what to think" or compelled to hold a certain view. All this "stifling of religious freedom" is just a bunch of hot air. Turning up a polling booth once every three or four years is easy. It's less drag than taking your rubbish to the tip or getting a dog licence.

Scribble on your vote if you want and keep your religious principles in tact. Tyranny my arse.
 
You still miss the point, Jessica. "An it harm none, do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". Anything else is tyranny. You are compelling people to break with their religious faith. Such compulsion is tyranny. This is not a debatable point; you just don't get it. Most likely, you think that such religious edicts are stupid and that these Buddhists should grow up, but all that does is show your complete lack of empathy for their standpoint and your own Anglocentrism. Allowing the government to force you to do things incrementally is indeed being asleep at the wheel.
If you think compulsory voting is a good thing, what else do you believe should be compulsory? Voting for a particular party? Sterilisation? Euthanasia? The point is that the government has no right to force people to do anything, except in the case where actions by one directly impinge upon the liberty of another. Anthing else is tyranny by definition. Your unwillingness to accept this basic fact is the living definition of complacency. Big leap? Not at all; glum recognition. I've seen the symptoms a million times, and things are not getting better. And your stance on compulsion is adding to the problem. It's only when the government compels you to so something you domn't want to do that you'll develop empathy for the first time. Pity it will take such an experience, though.
See you in the gulag.
 
Jessica Blue said:
All this "stifling of religious freedom" is just a bunch of hot air.
Click to expand...
And there we have it. If Buddhism is a "lot of hot air", what else do you consider to be hot air? Xpianity? Islam? Hinduism? The point is that just because you think it to be piffle doesn't make it any less important to believers. You're a bigot. You think that what's best for you is automatically in the best interests of everyone else too. To these Buddhists, going to a polling station every four years is NOT easy. It is a retrograde step in their quest for enlightenment. You are the living, breathing example of tyranny. Oh, to be a lawyer in Australia and wipe the floor with you for breach of human rights. Now that would be entertaining. I could even sell tickets.
 
Nicely done, Kimpatsu.

And Jessica, nice catch on the whole false analogy thing. You're still wrong, tho'. ;)
 
DialecticMaterialist said:
Basic inference will tell you what my point is.
Click to expand...
No, I don't get it. Do you think compulsory voting is tyrannical? If not, why not?
 
Kimpatsu said:

And there we have it. If Buddhism is a "lot of hot air", what else do you consider to be hot air? Xpianity? Islam? Hinduism? The point is that just because you think it to be piffle doesn't make it any less important to believers. You're a bigot. You think that what's best for you is automatically in the best interests of everyone else too. To these Buddhists, going to a polling station every four years is NOT easy. It is a retrograde step in their quest for enlightenment. You are the living, breathing example of tyranny. Oh, to be a lawyer in Australia and wipe the floor with you for breach of human rights. Now that would be entertaining. I could even sell tickets.
Click to expand...

Hahaha...What a twister you are! I never said buddhism was alot of hot air. I said your arguments about compulsory voting stifling religious freedoms were. I acknowledged that compulsory voting was a possible infraction of religious freedom but did not consider this infraction significant enough to abandon the system, because the benefits outweighed such deficits.

As it happens it's possible for those citizens with religious beliefs to argue exemption on the grounds of conscientious objection.


In 1983 the Commonwealth Electoral Act Act was amended to provide that an elector who fails to vote may be excused if he or she shows cause why proceedings should not be instituted against him or her for failing to vote without a valid and sufficient reason.16 Arguably, conscientious objection on religious or other grounds would be a valid and sufficient reason. Prior to the 1983 amendment the practice was to excuse only those objecting on religious grounds.

Law Reform Commission Publications
 
Well since you "don't get it" (more like won't get it) I will spell it out for you.


First, compulsory voting is tyrannical, because it violates freedom of conscience. And a free conscience is a corner stone of democracy.


Secondly, I am illustrating the point that while democracy has problems, other forms of government have more. If you can present a better system, a better hypothesis, I'd love to hear it. Until then you are merely arguing from the negative.



Third, democracy is the best form of government I know of for many reasons.


1) It allows for easy mechanisms that encourage change, instead of stagnation.


2) It fragments power, leading to less corruption.


3) It makes the majority happier, usually, leading to less infighting.

4) It leads to an easy way to attain power peacefully, causing less infighting.


One of the great strengths in a demccracy is that disagreements are settled by words and vote, not coupes and revolution.


The greatest strength however is how open it is. Open systems, like a democracy run by vote and basic rights like free speech and conscience; can change rapidly and efficiently. The people can learn from mistakes and throw out politicians who may otherwise be dogmatic. Newer generations can eventually out-vote the old, bringing with them newer, more refined and modern ideas, which may otherwise, under a set un-elected ruler would never see the light of day for decades more. Democracy thus encourages reform and progress, change that comes from openness, whereas more closed government systems encourage mere secrecy, dogma and stagnation. Autocracies and Oligarchies are extremely succeptible to the Planck problem.

That is why demcracies have typically done much better then other forms of government, and that is why they are out-competing those others forms today.
 
Jessica Blue said:
Hahaha...What a twister you are! I never said buddhism was alot of hot air. I said your arguments about compulsory voting stifling religious freedoms were. I acknowledged that compulsory voting was a possible infraction of religious freedom but did not consider this infraction significant enough to abandon the system, because the benefits outweighed such deficits.
Click to expand...
How can compulsion have benefits?
As to conscientious objection being permissable, then I object on human rights grounds, on behalf of the whole country: all 21+ million of you. Australia is a signatory to the UN Charter on Human Rights. (Even if it hasn't been ratified.)
 
DialecticMaterialist said:
Well since you "don't get it" (more like won't get it) I will spell it out for you.
Click to expand...
No, I seriously can't see how the Chrchill quotation is germaine.
DialecticMaterialist said:
First, compulsory voting is tyrannical, because it violates freedom of conscience. And a free conscience is a corner stone of democracy.
Click to expand...
Thank you. But tell Jessica, not me. I agree with this assessment.
DialecticMaterialist said:
Secondly, (snip)
Click to expand...
There is no second. The topic of conversation is the ethics of compulsory voting. As I said, the Churchill quotation would be relevant if we were discussing democracy vs. oligarchy vs. theocracy, etc., but it's as useful as duck soup to the question of compulsory voting.
 
How can compulsion have benefits?

Think about it. Do you think a society could function well without any?

I've already listed the benefits of compulsory voting in earlier posts.


As to conscientious objection being permissable, then I object on human rights grounds, on behalf of the whole country: all 21+ million of you

[laughs]Go for it...I'll see you in court.
 
Kim your opening statement on this thread was directed at democracy in general, not just compulsory voting. In any event then, my statements concerning democracy were in general par original subject. I don't see why you would find that offensive by any means.
 
DialecticMaterialist said:
Kim your opening statement on this thread was directed at democracy in general, not just compulsory voting. In any event then, my statements concerning democracy were in general par original subject. I don't see why you would find that offensive by any means.
Click to expand...
I don't find it offensive, DM; the conversation has meandered from the original title, and is now wholly regarding the issue of compulsory voting. (As a background, I should add that the British government is panicking about falling voter turnout, and has bruited the introduction of compulsory voting. This was shown to be daft when Robin Cook, then foreign secretary, went on a radio phone-in show, and spoke at length about 21st century voting schemes involving texting from your mobile, etc. Then the first call came through, and the caller asked a simple question: "Are you a socialist?" This shows the gulf between the rulers and the electorate. We don't vote not out of apathy, but because there are no candidates we view as worth supporting. This requires a change in the calibre of the candidates, but no politician will admit to themselves that they are anything less than sterling, 100% the best politician the country has ever seen.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom