On elections and getting heard

[Neu Leonstein]

In the "Taxes are Theft" thread, it has been said that if you are opposed to taxation or the way taxes are spent, you can change the system through using your freedom of speech and participating in elections.

I find that spurious. Many people who actually spend a little bit of time thinking about politics and political philosophy don't come up with opinions that match the mainstream. I myself don't know of any political party that accurately reflects my views. For many here it is even more impossible. Those politicians and parties which are close to my views have no chance of getting elected, because the majority does not support them.

So does my participation in the democratic process actually allow me to make my voice heard? Isn't the fact that I belong to a political minority always going to lead to me and my views being ignored entirely? And is changing the system through democracy anything more than rhetoric? As a relatively extreme minarchist, or a libertarian socialist, does it really make a difference whether elections are being held at all? Or would a dictatorship which respected the same rights to information, commerce, etc as the current system be no different?

[Intangelon]

Yes.

Sorry.

[Yootopia]

Is changing the system through democracy anything more than rhetoric?

Not really, you just have to adapt to what is currently going on, make your way up the latter and effect policy changes that way.

[Neu Leonstein]

Yes.

Sorry.

Do you have anything to add? I mean, regardless of my action, I will not get the outcome I want. You are saying I am not being ignored and have a chance of changing the system. It seems to me like the burden of proof is with you.

Not really, you just have to adapt to what is currently going on, make your way up the latter and effect policy changes that way.

So you're saying that if I work at it, I can turn Australia into a minarchist utopia?

[Yootopia]

Not really, you just have to adapt to what is currently going on, make your way up the latter and effect policy changes that way.

So you're saying that if I work at it, I can turn Australia into a minarchist utopia?

Possibly, aye. All about contacts and that, though, really.

[Intangelon]

Yes.

Sorry.

Do you have anything to add? I mean, regardless of my action, I will not get the outcome I want. You are saying I am not being ignored and have a chance of changing the system. It seems to me like the burden of proof is with you.

You asked questions. I answered all of them in the affirmative, and expressed my regret that my answer was entirely in the affirmative because I believe that it sucks that third parties and alternatives to the two bloated, fuckwadded parties are utterly not viable.

You have no chance, no choice and no way to truly be heard by anyone who will be willing to act on your behalf or the behalf of those who feel as you do.

Sorry.

[Barringtonia]

How exactly would you envisage opting out of your country other than by leaving it?

How would it work exactly?

[NERVUN]

In the "Taxes are Theft" thread, it has been said that if you are opposed to taxation or the way taxes are spent, you can change the system through using your freedom of speech and participating in elections.

I find that spurious. Many people who actually spend a little bit of time thinking about politics and political philosophy don't come up with opinions that match the mainstream. I myself don't know of any political party that accurately reflects my views. For many here it is even more impossible. Those politicians and parties which are close to my views have no chance of getting elected, because the majority does not support them.

So does my participation in the democratic process actually allow me to make my voice heard? Isn't the fact that I belong to a political minority always going to lead to me and my views being ignored entirely? And is changing the system through democracy anything more than rhetoric? As a relatively extreme minarchist, or a libertarian socialist, does it really make a difference whether elections are being held at all? Or would a dictatorship which respected the same rights to information, commerce, etc as the current system be no different?

It's called compromise, it's part of the political process.

The problem with complaining that "Well, no one shares my views so I'm always going to be in the minority so who cares" shows that you are demanding the Burger King version of politics, you want it YOUR way. Sorry, but NO ONE gets it YOUR way. Everyone has to bend somewhat on some things in order to get a majority to effect some of the changes that they want.

So you're on the extreme, so what? The difference between partispaiting in the democratic process and the dictatorship in your question is that in the first, change might come if you're willing to bend and work a bit. It won't ever in the second. Or to put it another way, here in Japan (Which I hope you enjoyed, BTW), I cannot vote. I have no voice and no rights to ask for change. I am at the mercy of whatever party controls the Diet. Even if they treat me poorly, I cannot do ANYTHING. I can't even hope to change the system because I have no access to the system.

I Nevada, I am a citizen. Our gov is an idiot. The state goes between being conservative, libertarian, and sometimes liberal. My vote may, or may not get rid of Gibbons, but at least I have that option and at least those people who have been elected are under an obligation to respond to me. It makes all the difference in the world.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

Convince other voters or office holders that your position is the right one.

You can't claim that your freedom of speech is useless before first trying to exercise it. That's just laziness.

[Errinundera]

There is more to democracy than voting at elections, protesting, or forming lobby groups. Believe it or not, you can join one of the major parties in your country. In Oz they are the Liberal Party (centre right) and Labor Party (centre left).

Before you counter by saying that the two major parties in your system are tweedle dum and tweedle dee, that is not necessarily the case.

Speaking from my long experience in the Labor Party I can assure you that the rank and file membership is, on average, considerably more left-wing than the performance of its various parliamentary representatives would suggest. By all accounts, the membership of the Liberal Party is more right-wing than its representatives.

I am sure the same is true for the Republican / Democrat parties and the Conservative / Labour parties in the US and UK respectively.

The reason is quite straight forward. The policies of the competing parties seeking office will gravitate toward the political preferences of the electorate, which becomes the "centre". This centre is arbitrary - I suspect the centre for some western European democracies is to the left of the US centre.

The point is, the voters are not in the thrall of the parties. It's the other way around. But it's not all hopeless. Power is a reward to political parties that rule competently, that provide more or less what the electorate wants, and that avoids rocking the boat. This can still provide some space for parties to implement some of their ideological agenda. So long as they don't frighten the punters!

Politics is also about education and leadership. Over the last thirty years the right has been effective at convincing the electorate to lean towards its ideology. That's politics.

[Neu Leonstein]

The problem with complaining that "Well, no one shares my views so I'm always going to be in the minority so who cares" shows that you are demanding the Burger King version of politics, you want it YOUR way. Sorry, but NO ONE gets it YOUR way. Everyone has to bend somewhat on some things in order to get a majority to effect some of the changes that they want.

What about black and white issues? Going to war or not, for example?

Compromise gets thrown around as a good thing, but often it is not possible, and even more often all you do is mix a good option with a bad option and will always get a shitty outcome.

So you're on the extreme, so what? The difference between partispaiting in the democratic process and the dictatorship in your question is that in the first, change might come if you're willing to bend and work a bit. It won't ever in the second.

That sounds like you're trying to get me to lie down and accept my fate on the basis that "change" might come. Do you really think that Australia will turn libertarian if I just wait long enough? Because there is no action I can take which will accelerate that process. I am entirely irrelevant to the outcome of elections and to political discourse in this country.

... here in Japan (Which I hope you enjoyed, BTW)...

I did, it was brilliant.

I Nevada, I am a citizen. Our gov is an idiot. The state goes between being conservative, libertarian, and sometimes liberal. My vote may, or may not get rid of Gibbons, but at least I have that option and at least those people who have been elected are under an obligation to respond to me. It makes all the difference in the world.

They have an obligation to respond to the interviewer on the news. That's very different. In the meantime, your representative can be for the Iraq War, against healthcare and have any given number of other opinions which might correspond to those of the majority of voters but ignore your views entirely.

Convince other voters or office holders that your position is the right one.

That presumes that they will listen. There is no reason for them to. The majority of voters don't base their opinions on arguments and cannot be convinced of anything. And politicians necessarily ignore minority and/or extreme opinions because that is what they're incentivised to do.

The point is, the voters are not in the thrall of the parties. It's the other way around. But it's not all hopeless. Power is a reward to political parties that rule competently, that provide more or less what the electorate wants, and that avoids rocking the boat. This can still provide some space for parties to implement some of their ideological agenda. So long as they don't frighten the punters!

You say that, but you can't point at anything that happens in real life to support it.

Politics is also about education and leadership. Over the last thirty years the right has been effective at convincing the electorate to lean towards its ideology. That's politics.

That's because "the right" has abandoned its ideology in favour of populism/conservatism. Those aren't consistent political viewpoints, they're a mix of one-liners thrown at people for whom anything more would be too complicated. And the same goes for Rudd and the ALP.

So how can I claim to be involved in the process in any way? And how can the argument "if you don't like it, do something against it through democratic means" hold any water as we sit by powerlessly watching them censor the internet?

[NERVUN]

The problem with complaining that "Well, no one shares my views so I'm always going to be in the minority so who cares" shows that you are demanding the Burger King version of politics, you want it YOUR way. Sorry, but NO ONE gets it YOUR way. Everyone has to bend somewhat on some things in order to get a majority to effect some of the changes that they want.

What about black and white issues? Going to war or not, for example?

Because things are never black and white. You can say it's go to war, or not, but in actuality it can be for a limited war, full war, sanctions, etc.

Compromise gets thrown around as a good thing, but often it is not possible, and even more often all you do is mix a good option with a bad option and will always get a shitty outcome.

You have to know when to hold 'em and fold'em, but the point still stands, people horse trade to get the goals that they want. Some goals can be ignored, or set aside, some cannot. Sometimes you get most of what you want, sometimes you get nothing. The point I was getting at is that YOU can't get what you want, but there's nothing to say that you can go find some like minded people, horse trade a bit on what you think your major goals are, and then work to get them.

So you're on the extreme, so what? The difference between partispaiting in the democratic process and the dictatorship in your question is that in the first, change might come if you're willing to bend and work a bit. It won't ever in the second.

That sounds like you're trying to get me to lie down and accept my fate on the basis that "change" might come. Do you really think that Australia will turn libertarian if I just wait long enough? Because there is no action I can take which will accelerate that process. I am entirely irrelevant to the outcome of elections and to political discourse in this country.

No, I said you have to work for it in a democracy, but at least the chance is there. Under a dictatorship, you HAVE no chance (Beyond revolution, which is of course rather extreme). Again, YOU can't have it your way, but why not find other people who think like you and slowly work it out?

Honestly, it sounds like a child saying "I want it my way and I want it now!" It doesn't work that way anywhere unless you happen to be Kim Jong Il.

... here in Japan (Which I hope you enjoyed, BTW)...

I did, it was brilliant.

Glad to hear it. I was worried you might have gotten caught in Takayama during the snow.

I Nevada, I am a citizen. Our gov is an idiot. The state goes between being conservative, libertarian, and sometimes liberal. My vote may, or may not get rid of Gibbons, but at least I have that option and at least those people who have been elected are under an obligation to respond to me. It makes all the difference in the world.

They have an obligation to respond to the interviewer on the news. That's very different. In the meantime, your representative can be for the Iraq War, against healthcare and have any given number of other opinions which might correspond to those of the majority of voters but ignore your views entirely.

I've yet to write to a rep of mine who hasn't at least had a staffer write back. And yes, they might not change their views, but I can at least feel as if I was heard. I have no such outlet here in Japan. The Diet member for my little slice of Nagano is under no obligation to even listen to me.

[Blouman Empire]

In the "Taxes are Theft" thread, it has been said that if you are opposed to taxation or the way taxes are spent, you can change the system through using your freedom of speech and participating in elections.

It is absloute bullshit, the whole "if you don't like it vote for someone else" is a cop out, when we all know that simply you voting for someone else is not going to make one difference to what happens in the end.

[Blouman Empire]

How exactly would you envisage opting out of your country other than by leaving it?

How would it work exactly?

Something like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutt_River_Province

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

Convince other voters or office holders that your position is the right one.

That presumes that they will listen. There is no reason for them to. The majority of voters don't base their opinions on arguments and cannot be convinced of anything. And politicians necessarily ignore minority and/or extreme opinions because that is what they're incentivised to do.

Again, you're just trying to use game theory to justify your laziness. There have been plenty of instances where both public opinion and the opinion of policymakers has changed because someone convinced them that their way was better.

People do have an incentive to better the world around them whether you choose to recognize it or not.

I'm sure Barack Obama asked himself why he was bothering to run for president when the odds heavily favored Clinton in the primaries. And yet he managed to win.

So again, if you don't try, you can't complain.