Post by thread:[OT] Google are on to Russell mob rule

{Quote hidden}> > On Jun 5, 2007, at 9:45 PM, Nate Duehr wrote: > > > On Jun 4, 2007, at 4:53 PM, James Newtons Massmind wrote: > >> Ah... Remember the good old days when we could laugh at the French >> and not >> hear them laughing back at us? > > :%s/French/anyone/g > > Iacocca's new book is excellent reading for those sick of the current > state of things in the U.S. Excellent suggestions and insights, very > hard to implement, however. > >> It's enough to make you want to move to Sealand >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand > > Or just get involved -- only 49% of eligible voters in the U.S. > actually participated in the last election. > > -- > Nate Duehr > spam_OUTnateTakeThisOuTnatetech.com The 49% who did not vote did indeed participate. They showed that they do not accept the "mob rule" component of majority voting. They did not participate in a mis-defined system of government. Cedric

> The 49% who did not vote did indeed participate. > They showed that they do not accept the "mob rule" component of > majority voting. They did not participate in a mis-defined system of > government. Majority is no majority in the present system. There at least be an option to "reject" all offers available to all, and voting is made compulsory. Majority only wins if majority > (unknown + reject + opposition). But then again, in this multi-polarised society, there may never a winner. And if one emerges, extremistism shall likely follow. Ling SM

On Jun 12, 2007, at 8:18 PM, Ling SM wrote: > There at least be an option to "reject" all offers available to all There is in the US. You can go into a voting booth, and not vote for anyone or anything. I find it very handy when there are a lot of positions and/or propositions where I don't care enough to figure out which way I want to vote... BillW

> Majority is no majority in the present system. > There at least be an option to "reject" all offers available to all, > and > voting is made compulsory. Majority only wins if majority > > (unknown + > reject + opposition). That's the way that our church meetings work. Only those who attend have the right for their vote to be counted BUT there is effectively no abstention - a motion must be passed by a preset percentage of MEMBERS PRESENT. So an abstention is a no vote. I have had trouble trying to explain that to some people over the years :-). The actual required percentage varies. For most vote categories it is 50% but rises to 66% and perhaps even 75% in some special cases. I like 75.001% as a threshold. That way, for everyone who said NO there is a person who said YES and then, after that and not including those people, there is still an absolute majority. FWIW, when they do happen, most of our motions get carried unanimously. Russell

> > Or just get involved -- only 49% of eligible voters in the U.S. > > actually participated in the last election. > > > > -- > > Nate Duehr > > .....nateKILLspam@spam@natetech.com > > The 49% who did not vote did indeed participate. > They showed that they do not accept the "mob rule" component > of majority voting. They did not participate in a > mis-defined system of government. > Cedric Sure, 'don't care' is a perfectly valid position. 25% pro-Bush + 50% don't care = 75% happy with the status quo. Consider what would happen if you polled the world on 'Star Wars' vs 'Star Trek': Star Wars - 1% Star Trek - 1% Star huh? - 98% with "Bloody nerds, sod off and get back in your basement." How is that any different to politics? Besides, what happens if the 49% who don't vote don't agree with your views? Tony

> > On Jun 12, 2007, at 10:56 PM, William Chops Westfield wrote: > > > On Jun 12, 2007, at 8:18 PM, Ling SM wrote: > >> There at least be an option to "reject" all offers available to all > > There is in the US. You can go into a voting booth, and not vote > for anyone or anything. I find it very handy when there are a lot > of positions and/or propositions where I don't care enough to figure > out which way I want to vote... > > BillW I have never seen the abstentions reported by the media ..... Are they reported ? Cedric

{Quote hidden}> > On Jun 13, 2007, at 6:37 AM, Tony Smith wrote: > >>> Or just get involved -- only 49% of eligible voters in the U.S. >>> actually participated in the last election. >>> >>> -- >>> Nate Duehr >>> nateKILLspamnatetech.com >> >> The 49% who did not vote did indeed participate. >> They showed that they do not accept the "mob rule" component >> of majority voting. They did not participate in a >> mis-defined system of government. >> Cedric > > > Sure, 'don't care' is a perfectly valid position. 25% pro-Bush + > 50% don't > care = 75% happy with the status quo. > > Consider what would happen if you polled the world on 'Star Wars' > vs 'Star > Trek': > > Star Wars - 1% > Star Trek - 1% > Star huh? - 98% with "Bloody nerds, sod off and get back in your > basement." > > How is that any different to politics? Besides, what happens if > the 49% who > don't vote don't agree with your views? > > Tony Tony, your style of discussion kills me. ( not literally ) I think you have a habit of defining things in a manner that creates a strawman and then you bash the strawman down. Not voting is not necessarily a " don't care". In my case it is a "none of the above are satisfactory". 25% Bush and 50% no vote and 25% whoever means to me that 75% did not vote for Bush. It is true that I do not like voting in any case since 95% of the voters can vote to rip-off the other 5%. There are better forms of government than the democracy that exists in the USA. Cedric

> 25% Bush and 50% no vote and 25% whoever means to me that 75% did not > vote for Bush. I somewhat disagree about that. The way I see it is that those who do not vote, put in their vote as "I don't care" even if that "I don't care" really means "I don't care because I don't like any of my choices". If that 50% actually did go to the booths and did not choose anyone, then it drives a different message, that is, "Hey I care, but none of these choices are good for me". Not voting is not the same as "I did not vote for you", it says "I'm fine with whomever everybody else chooses". I've been in the US for just under 20 years now and finally became a citizen 2 years ago, and last year was the first time I was able to vote. There was no way I was not going to show up to vote just because I did not like the names on that form. Since I had never voted before I was rather surprised to find out that you could actually write down some random name in some of the spots where you did not like the choices you had. So Mickey Mouse got a few votes from me last year =) -Mario ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Cedric Chang wrote: > It is true that I do not like voting in any case since 95% of the voters can vote to rip-off the other 5%. There are better forms of government than the democracy that exists in the USA. > The United States does not have a democracy. We have a representative republic. There is a difference. What form(s) of government are better?

> 25% Bush and 50% no vote and 25% whoever means to me that 75% > did not vote for Bush. That's what I said. The 50% are happy either way. Saying they did/didn't vote Bush (or Kerry) is irrelevant. You can say the 50% are pro/anti Bush, it doesn't matter. They are 'meh, whatever dude' Bush. The correct answer to 'Star Wars' vs 'Star Trek' is, of course, 'Doctor Who'. Right, too many deadlines for [*OT]... Tony

> > On Jun 13, 2007, at 9:42 AM, John Pfaff wrote: > > Cedric Chang wrote: > >> It is true that I do not like voting in any case since 95% of the >> voters can vote to rip-off the other 5%. There are better forms >> of government than the democracy that exists in the USA. >> > > The United States does not have a democracy. We have a representative > republic. There is a difference. > > What form(s) of government are better? You are correct that the US supposedly has a representative republic. In practice it is more like an oligarchy with a large number of members belonging to the ruling class. Handouts to selected groups outside the ruling class keeps any major of rebellion from occurring. Minor rebellions occur all the time. The form of national government I favor is a constitutional republic which has a military sufficient to defend it's borders and a set of rules that force the states to maximally respect the autonomy of individuals. Very few criminal laws would be existent. Voting on the national scale would be minimal. I realize such a government is a pipe dream since most people live in terror of death, competition and personal responsibility. Such people select " Uncle Sam " or equivalent to take care of them. I also favor one world government following these principles. This would amp down regional conflicts. Because of the nature of most people the chance of such a government being put into practice is described in two words : " Fat Chance " The closest the world ever came to this was in the USA between 1790 and the early 1800's. Best Cedric

> > The 50% are happy either way. Saying they did/didn't vote Bush (or > > Kerry) is irrelevant. You can say the 50% are pro/anti > Bush, it doesn't matter. > > They are 'meh, whatever dude' Bush. > > indifferent != happy. > > Nate True, doesn't mean they're unhappy either (what would Heisenberg say). Next you'll tell me ignorance isn't bliss after all. That 50% doesn't seem unhappy enough to storm the White House and install the libertarian utopia that apparently we all want. I guess this is where I insert the Heinlein (RAH RAH RAH!) quote. Good lord, they might all vote PETA! Maybe the 50% are all NRA supporters; wouldn't that be interesting. (I've always loved how the NRA promotes gun safety courses (fair enough) but it always seems to be young white folk (ie farmers). How come the brothers down in the hood don't get no learning? They be the ones having all the accidents, right?) Anyway, I doubt the end result would change even if the US had 100% voter turnout. Australia has 100% participation (we at least show up), and the trends are similar to those in the US. Two parties, labelled liberal or conservative, with the vote more-or-less evenly split between them. The minor parties (hippies, pinkos, druggies, gun nuts, fundies, greenies etc) don't matter much. I'd assume places like the UK, Canada & NZ would be similar. Well, that's probably enough to upset the "Gah! This is important!!!" folk. Now to go back to figuring out why ADOX doesn't like setting permissions on Access forms. Gah & meh indeed. Tony