For those voting Tuesday for the 2 Parties...

[thekingsmen]

You can't remove the masses. We could all stop voting, but we still pay taxes, we still pay their salaries. They will still make decisions and the few people voting would hold power over the masses.

This is proves my point here....without the masses looking for reform of voting than people will still vote with the popularity contest. Voting is a start, just like everything else....baby steps...

 

[MeachTheMonster]

This is proves my point here....without the masses looking for reform of voting than people will still vote with the popularity contest. Voting is a start, just like everything else....baby steps...

How do you get the masses to look for reform?

So while we take baby steps and stop voting. Those who still vote hold all the power and can still vote to make our goals more difficult to attain. The only way to change any system is to participate, you cant turn your back and say the system will fix itself.

 

[thekingsmen]

How do you get the masses to look for reform?

So while we take baby steps and stop voting. Those who still vote hold all the power and can still vote to make our goals more difficult to attain. The only way to change any system is to participate, you cant turn your back and say the system will fix itself.

Ummm demand better/more choices of debates. Demand more choices in presidential candidates. If the powers that be say no....then boycott the elections until the demands are met. It's how boycotting/striking was successful in the working section in America for over 100 years.

You can't change a broke system by participating in the broke system. It's like throwing water on a grease or electrical fire. You want the fire to go out but don't want to educate yourself in how to avoid fires like this /causing less damage and how to handle fires. It's the same with voting or anything else.

 

[TrueEpic08]

So instead if answering my question you attack the question. You sound like a politician. If your stance is that people shouldn't vote, then tell me how will that benefit me?


Most issues are resolved through the majoritarian vote, it would be impossible for all citizens to be involved in all matters which is why we elect government officials to represent us. Those officials don't always do what we want them to do, but i don't see how NOT voting will get them to do what I want them to do either.



That quote means nothing. Again How will NOT voting help me?

It has nothing to do with skin color. Obama was born to a middle class family, he went to college and he started his career from the bottom as most of us do. And as most politicians dont. This is what makes him one of us, not his skin color.


One more time. How will NOT voting help us achieve these goals. I agree that there is a problem with the two party system, but how will NOT voting fix the problem?



It's easy to pick single issues to criticize any politician. No two people will ever agree on everything, and no one person will solve/address all the issues that you want addressed. Reality is in America you have no choice but to contribute. You go to work, you pay taxes. Your taxes go on to pay government salaries and to support whatever decisions they make. You support these politicians whether you like it or not. You have no choice in the matter. The only choice you have is who you support. Either you can make that decision, or others will make it for you. It's that simple.

The quote was me answering your question in short form, essentially. That tells you how it's beneficial to your life, how poisonous our current paradigm is in terms of our lived life and what voting essentially doesn't do for us. I actually wasn't going to answer the question because it fundamentally doesn't deserve an answer, but I decided to do it with a quote because it articulates my point better and more succinctly than I could have (I also had an aphorism and a screw in the lightbulb joke on deck).

But I'll answer it by taking your last point and working with it, since you're unconvinced.

Essentially, what you're saying there is that because there are basic, inescapable elements of the system like taxation which flow into the government to be used, and will be used in ways that are completely independent of my own thought (Most of your tax dollars are going toward the preservation of unelected entities, so even if its someone that you "support," it fails on even that level), I should participate in an empty ritual which exists solely to validate the spectacle of democracy.

The reality is this: You alienate your political will from yourself and inhere it in someone that you have no connection whatsoever to, who will use it in ways completely independent of you. Apparently, we should vote because even though their political will is magnified because we as a populace have abandoned ours and they will use it in ways that have nothing to do with us and can and will be contrary to our desires, NOT voting (as you so elegantly put it) will get us toward....that exact same situation essentially. It's a ridiculous position that assumes that there's no political action other than voting. What if my desires are not at all aligned with theirs? What if the desires of those "representatives" are actually opposed to mine in every way? Should I still participate in the empty ritual then?

1). Voting exists solely to validate the existence of power that elites already have and could execute at their convenience as long as people believe in a system that robs them of their lives as social agents.

2). You essentially reduce the multiple paths, lines and constructions of your thought that are fundamentally rhizomatic, go in any direction they choose to a binary logic in every way, from this choice we're discussing to "either this version of civil society or nothing at all." It's a poverty of thought.

Related to the second, why is it that we in America are not allowed to theorize and attempt to realize anything outside of the paradigm of the nation-state. It's "because you pay this and this, you MUST be a part of the system" or "because all citizens can't get involved in all matters in a majoritarian vote, it MUST be this way" instead of developing consensus based solutions to that problem.

And that point you made about Obama misses my point entirely. I didn't say a damn thing about skin color or any "one" fundamental identity. It could be ANY fundamental identity which taxonomizes any mass of differently developed lives into just "one" thing. It could be race, class, anything. They cross cut, and work together to limit identity formation to just a few codewords rather than the lived experience of life itself. You just proved my point there. Just because he lived a certain life doesn't mean that I did, or that I can identify with what he is or what anyone is.

 

[TrueEpic08]

How do you get the masses to look for reform?

So while we take baby steps and stop voting. Those who still vote hold all the power and can still vote to make our goals more difficult to attain. The only way to change any system is to participate, you cant turn your back and say the system will fix itself.

No one said anything about letting the system fix itself. Let the system calcify while you find alternative means of organization. Whether that means splitting into smaller blocs of free associative, consociational democracies, parapolity, just finding ways to evade the state in general even as they legislate against you if you must (there are many peoples all around the world that do these things) while organizing along more legitimately democratic means. If you're not willing to theorize or practice anything, you're essentially dooming yourself to what you have.

For those on the other side: Why the adherence to majoritarian democracy? Is there something about its organizational makeup that makes it inherently more legitimate than other systems of organization (not necessarily systems of governance).

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Ummm demand better/more choices of debates. Demand more choices in presidential candidates. If the powers that be say no....then boycott the elections until the demands are met. It's how boycotting/striking was successful in the working section in America for over 100 years.

The bolded can be done while still voting, in fact the best course of action would to be to support and vote for people who will advocate for these changes

Boycotting works because the boycott hurts the company financially. The US goverment gets paid no matter what. Boycotting the political system will do nothing but put even more power into the hands of those still participating.

You can't change a broke system by participating in the broke system. It's like throwing water on a grease or electrical fire. You want the fire to go out but don't want to educate yourself in how to avoid fires like this /causing less damage and how to handle fires. It's the same with voting or anything else.

Voting for a third party would be the equivalent of throwing water on a grease fire. It's saying " I know there's a problem and I don't know how to fix it, so I'll just throw this water on it" voting for one of the main candidates is the equivalent to either smothering the fire or using a fire extinguisher. Neither method is a sure fix, but at least you educated yourself and tried to make the correct descision. What you advocate is turning your back and leaving the fire to burn, while you try to convince people of a new method of putting out the fire. Problem is while you fight to advocate your new method, others have already put out the fire and moved in to your spot in the house.

 

[88m3]

Smh at this white boy telling you who to vote for sit the fukk down

 

[thekingsmen]

The bolded can be done while still voting, in fact the best course of action would to be to support and vote for people who will advocate for these changes

Ummm no that can't happen if your candidates are picked before you even see them. It's this or that....nothing more.




Boycotting works because the boycott hurts the company financially. The US goverment gets paid no matter what. Boycotting the political system will do nothing but put even more power into the hands of those still participating.

The Government is an entity, not a person. Without workers...it's nothing. Same goes with parties.



Voting for a third party would be the equivalent of throwing water on a grease fire. It's saying " I know there's a problem and I don't know how to fix it, so I'll just throw this water on it" voting for one of the main candidates is the equivalent to either smothering the fire or using a fire extinguisher. Neither method is a sure fix, but at least you educated yourself and tried to make the correct descision. What you advocate is turning your back and leaving the fire to burn, while you try to convince people of a new method of putting out the fire. Problem is while you fight to advocate your new method, others have already put out the fire and moved in to your spot in the house.

You might want to find another analogy instead of using mine and not really doing well with it. The problem is not you or your counterparts have done your research on any of the candidates you are voting for. I don't expect you to since most Americans are working all the time or too preoccupied in research their ability to find new APPS for their I-PAD/I-PHONE, getting their stats for Fantasy Football and watching large amounts of tv.

 

[thekingsmen]

No one said anything about letting the system fix itself. Let the system calcify while you find alternative means of organization. Whether that means splitting into smaller blocs of free associative, consociational democracies, parapolity, just finding ways to evade the state in general even as they legislate against you if you must (there are many peoples all around the world that do these things) while organizing along more legitimately democratic means. If you're not willing to theorize or practice anything, you're essentially dooming yourself to what you have.

For those on the other side: Why the adherence to majoritarian democracy? Is there something about its organizational makeup that makes it inherently more legitimate than other systems of organization (not necessarily systems of governance).

Very insightful posts True.

 

[thekingsmen]

Smh at this white boy telling you who to vote for sit the fukk down

Hurry back in the field before master see you token.

 

[88m3]

Hurry back in the field before master see you token.

You're a waste of space.


You never answered me before btw. Don't you live in Europe?

 

[MeachTheMonster]

The quote was me answering your question in short form, essentially. That tells you how it's beneficial to your life, how poisonous our current paradigm is in terms of our lived life and what voting essentially doesn't do for us. I actually wasn't going to answer the question because it fundamentally doesn't deserve an answer, but I decided to do it with a quote because it articulates my point better and more succinctly than I could have (I also had an aphorism and a screw in the lightbulb joke on deck).

Your quote didn't answer anything. Nor do you have any evidence that it's true. Your quote basically said "the more people that are included in the political process, the less people who will actually be in charge. First off this makes no sense whatsoever, second how will not voting reverse this trend?

But I'll answer it by taking your last point and working with it, since you're unconvinced.

Essentially, what you're sayinkg there is that because there are basic, inescapable elements of the system like taxation which flow into the government to be used, and will be used in ways that are completely independent of my own thought (Most of your tax dollars are going toward the preservation of unelected entities, so even if its someone that you "support," it fails on even that level), I should participate in an empty ritual which exists solely to validate the spectacle of democracy.

No you should participate because there is a possibility that your concerns will be addressed. If you don't vote there is no chance whatsoever for your concerns to be addressed.

The reality is this: You alienate your political will from yourself and inhere it in someone that you have no connection whatsoever to, who will use it in ways completely independent of you. Apparently, we should vote because even though their political will is magnified because we as a populace have abandoned ours and they will use it in ways that have nothing to do with us and can and will be contrary to our desires, NOT voting (as you so elegantly put it) will get us toward....that exact same situation essentially. It's a ridiculous position that assumes that there's no political action other than voting. What if my desires are not at all aligned with theirs? What if the desires of those "representatives" are actually opposed to mine in every way? Should I still participate in the empty ritual then?

I didn't say it was the only form of political action. Voting is quick and easy, real change requires a lot of hard work and dedication. I'm saying that refusing to vote while performing the hard work that's required for change is counterproductive. It's essentially handing what little power you have over to others. Who will just fight to prevent the change using their newfound power.

1). Voting exists solely to validate the existence of power that elites already have and could execute at their convenience as long as people believe in a system that robs them of their lives as social agents.

Not voting won't change or remove their power. But voting might get them to use some of that power on you.

2). You essentially reduce the multiple paths, lines and constructions of your thought that are fundamentally rhizomatic, go in any direction they choose to a binary logic in every way, from this choice we're discussing to "either this version of civil society or nothing at all." It's a poverty of thought.

Related to the second, why is it that we in America are not allowed to theorize and attempt to realize anything outside of the paradigm of the nation-state. It's "because you pay this and this, you MUST be a part of the system" or "because all citizens can't get involved in all matters in a majoritarian vote, it MUST be this way" instead of developing consensus based solutions to that problem.

Those solutions can be developed, but again not voting won't help achive this goal. Peope need to be more involved overall. Waiting till the election to try to make a change will never work. The people who think NOT voting or voting for a third party will cause change are just as misguided as those who think Obama will change their life.

And that point you made about Obama misses my point entirely. I didn't say a damn thing about skin color or any "one" fundamental identity. It could be ANY fundamental identity which taxonomizes any mass of differently developed lives into just "one" thing. It could be race, class, anything. They cross cut, and work together to limit identity formation to just a few codewords rather than the lived experience of life itself. You just proved my point there. Just because he lived a certain life doesn't mean that I did, or that I can identify with what he is or what anyone is.

I didn't say he lived the same life as you. I said he lived a similar life to most middle class Americans. If you can't relate thats fine, but you can't fault others for feeling like they can.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

No one said anything about letting the system fix itself. Let the system calcify while you find alternative means of organization. Whether that means splitting into smaller blocs of free associative, consociational democracies, parapolity, just finding ways to evade the state in general even as they legislate against you if you must (there are many peoples all around the world that do these things) while organizing along more legitimately democratic means. If you're not willing to theorize or practice anything, you're essentially dooming yourself to what you have.

Again NOT voting won't help you in any of these pursuits. You have still yet to tell me how NOT voting will help us reach these goals.

For those on the other side: Why the adherence to majoritarian democracy? Is there something about its organizational makeup that makes it inherently more legitimate than other systems of organization (not necessarily systems of governance).

It's the system we have, and it's worked pretty good so far. Yes we should fight for change/improvements but again voting/not voting isn't the way to do it.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Ummm no that can't happen if your candidates are picked before you even see them. It's this or that....nothing more

You have the power to nominate the candidates, but you have to vote to do so. If you have a candidate you think would do a good job, then you must do work to increase their popularity and to get the masses behind your candidate. But in the end you still have to vote that person in.

The Government is an entity, not a person. Without workers...it's nothing. Same goes with parties.

The only way to stop working for the government is to stop working for yourself. If you stop working someone else will step in and take your place, and you'll still be fukked.

You might want to find another analogy instead of using mine and not really doing well with it. The problem is not you or your counterparts have done your research on any of the candidates you are voting for. I don't expect you to since most Americans are working all the time or too preoccupied in research their ability to find new APPS for their I-PAD/I-PHONE, getting their stats for Fantasy Football and watching large amounts of tv.

Your week analogy broke down, so you resort to personal attacks and assumptions.

 

[thekingsmen]

You're a waste of space.


You never answered me before btw. Don't you live in Europe?

No I don't live in Europe.