Should everyone be allowed to vote?

[MX7]

V8mate said:

Do you really feel involved with politics then? (Maybe you're a Party activist?)

I certainly don't. I'm very interested in politics, economics etc, but in no way feel that I have any influence, including at the ballot box, in anything the government might decide to 'do to me'.

I'm taxed a bit more, taxed a bit less, drive a bit slower, hand over more and more of my personal details etc. There was no opportunity to ever influence those things happening.

So, whilst I haven't yet indulged myself in such action, I wholeheartedly support the throwing of rocks at Police down Whitehall as the only way of drawing attention to public dissatisfaction.

I'm not an activist, and I don't feel particularly involved, but neither do I feel detached. We live in a country of 60m'ish, so very few people are actually going to feel involved. It's just not possible to have 60m decision makers, and I think that some people feel that they are being ignored, but in reality, it's probably more to do with those in power not agreeing with them, or, on occasion, their ideas are simply impractical.

I don't think that Labour have done much to make people feel that their voice is being heard, but I don't think that Labour's failings should instigate a complete overhaul of our parliamentary system. Labour would have been a screw up regardless of what system we had, and while people can cite many reasons for the state we're in now, it was only five years ago that the public gave them their support.

[V8mate]

MX7 said:

It's just not possible to have 60m decision makers,

But it is. No government, and a bunch of people who take responsibility for their owen actions.

And the closer we can get to that utopian ideal, the better.

[The Excession]

Don said:

Good poll.

I could make strong arguments for both so the result will be interesting. I don't think there's a "right" answer to this one as the qualifications for voting could vary so widely.

Indeed, but when your TV is broken you don't call a plumber. Like wise, when the country is fked who you gonna call?

[MX7]

V8mate said:

But it is. No government, and a bunch of people who take responsibility for their owen actions.

Does anarchy work anywhere?

[Fittster]

MX7 said:

It's just not possible to have 60m decision makers,

?

Why can't a direct democratic system work? The idea that one individual can effectively represent the views of 60,000ish people doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[V8mate]

MX7 said:

V8mate said:

But it is. No government, and a bunch of people who take responsibility for their own actions.

Does anarchy work anywhere?

I actually wrote a little more than you quoted.

[Fittster]

MX7 said:

V8mate said:

But it is. No government, and a bunch of people who take responsibility for their owen actions.

Does anarchy work anywhere?

Nigerian Rubbish Tips.

"Last night’s Tellybox offered us some thought-provoking political insights. I refer, of course, to BBC2’s Welcome to Lagos, the story of scavengers at the vast Olusosun rubbish tip. The curious thing is that this society seemed close to a libertarian idyll.
Not only did the scavengers sell on any rubbish of any value, but a market arose to satisfy their own needs; the tip had a café and even a manicurist. And at the nearby cattle market, every part of the cow except the hair was used for profit; even the blood that would otherwise drain away was scooped up and turned to chickenfeed.
In this sense, we saw the free market in its perfect form: sole traders exploiting every tiny profit opportunity; the minute division of labour; hard work, energy and entrepreneurship; the lack of any waste.
We also saw that the market policed itself. The scavengers claimed that they trusted each other - though whether this was because market transactions bred bourgeois virtues, or because they threatened to burn to death suspected thieves, was unclear. What was clear, though, was that they didn’t need the state to solve their disputes.
We even saw a libertarian-type scheme of criminal restitution. When one scavenger half-blinded another in a nightclub fight, he was arrested and charged. However, because the Nigerian criminal justice system is so slow, his victim’s family offered to drop the charges if restitution was made. After some haggling, this happened. Both sides seemed to prefer this to the state’s justice.
And here’s the punchline. Although everyone was dirt-poor by western standards, they seemed happy and optimistic; there was, I suspect, more laughter and good spirits in this programme than one would get in a documentary about an English council estate. Is this because of some cultural factors that make Nigerians generally happy? Is it because they are deluding themselves? Or could it be that freedom, even amidst poverty, creates happiness?
This, though, is not the only question. The programme raised others. Why is it that the societies that come closest to the libertarian ideal are poor ones, rather than rich? (It would, I think, be a stretch to argue that libertarianism causes poverty in this case). What is it about wealthier societies that brings with them bigger government?"

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_...

[V8mate]

Fittster said:

MX7 said:

V8mate said:

But it is. No government, and a bunch of people who take responsibility for their owen actions.

Does anarchy work anywhere?

Stuff about Nigerian Rubbish Tips.

Ditto with regard to the Kevin McCloud programme 'Slumming It', set in Mumbai, a month or so back.

[MX7]

Fittster said:

MX7 said:

Why can't a direct democratic system work? The idea that one individual can effectively represent the views of 60,000ish people doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Like Switzerland? I don't think it's a bad system, but as we've seen over the past week, people are incredibly easily swayed. I'm not convinced that a similar system would work here.

What ratio of representatives/population do you think would work?

[MX7]

V8mate said:

MX7 said:

V8mate said:

But it is. No government, and a bunch of people who take responsibility for their own actions.

Does anarchy work anywhere?

I actually wrote a little more than you quoted.

I only quoted the bit I was responding to. Does it work anywhere, particularly on a large scale?

Edited by MX7 on Wednesday 21st April 17:30

[V8mate]

MX7 said:

Fittster said:

Why can't a direct democratic system work? The idea that one individual can effectively represent the views of 60,000ish people doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Like Switzerland? I don't think it's a bad system, but as we've seen over the past week, people are incredibly easily swayed. I'm not convinced that a similar system would work here.

What ratio of representatives/population do you think would work?

Why do you feel that you need representing? Why can't you just go about your business without interference?

[MX7]

Fittster said:

MX7 said:

V8mate said:

But it is. No government, and a bunch of people who take responsibility for their owen actions.

Does anarchy work anywhere?

Nigerian Rubbish Tips.

Well, if it works in a Nigerian rubbish tip, it would clearly work here.

[Halb]

900T-R said:

So who are you going to trust with deciding who should have the right to vote - the government?

Quite. And I am sure everyone on PH thinks they would have a right and others wouldn't

[V8mate]

MX7 said:

V8mate said:

MX7 said:

V8mate said:

But it is. No government, and a bunch of people who take responsibility for their own actions.

Does anarchy work anywhere?

I actually wrote a little more than you quoted.

I only quoted the bit I was responding to. Does it work anywhere, particularly on a large scale?

It works if it has a capitalist base. Are people in countries where they earn a dollar a day actually poor, or simply relatively poor? (i.e. relative to us)

And then ask yourself to what extent the presence of government has contributed to the relatively inflated prices (and, therefore, earnings) we experience.

[MX7]

V8mate said:

MX7 said:

Fittster said:

Why can't a direct democratic system work? The idea that one individual can effectively represent the views of 60,000ish people doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Like Switzerland? I don't think it's a bad system, but as we've seen over the past week, people are incredibly easily swayed. I'm not convinced that a similar system would work here.

What ratio of representatives/population do you think would work?

Why do you feel that you need representing? Why can't you just go about your business without interference?

I'm not sure what you're suggesting so its difficult to comment. Are you suggesting no government, no laws, no judicial system, no social services? I don't think it takes much imagination to see that the country would collapse in days.

[MX7]

V8mate said:

It works if it has a capitalist base. Are people in countries where they earn a dollar a day actually poor, or simply relatively poor? (i.e. relative to us)

And then ask yourself to what extent the presence of government has contributed to the relatively inflated prices (and, therefore, earnings) we experience.

The poor question is a mixture of both, and I think that the last 13 years have been a catastrophe for the country, but that doesn't mean that the idea of government is fundamentally flawed. It means that the people we have in government are incapable.

[V8mate]

MX7 said:

V8mate said:

It works if it has a capitalist base. Are people in countries where they earn a dollar a day actually poor, or simply relatively poor? (i.e. relative to us)

And then ask yourself to what extent the presence of government has contributed to the relatively inflated prices (and, therefore, earnings) we experience.

The poor question is a mixture of both, and I think that the last 13 years have been a catastrophe for the country, but that doesn't mean that the idea of government is fundamentally flawed. It means that the people we have in government are incapable.

But government will always attract the 'wrong types'. Goes with the territory.

The people who step forward to govern us will always be the kind of people who feel that we need governing.

[anonymous-user]

no tax, no vote. shouldnt get a say on how its spent if you haven't contributed.

[Fittster]

fbrs said:

no tax, no vote. shouldnt get a say on how its spent if you haven't contributed.

Are you trying to tell me there are adults in the UK who don't pay tax?

[cymtriks]

MX7 said:

cymtriks said:

A politician's job is to interest ordinary people in politics.

It is? I thought it was their job to represent their constituents.

Part of that job is to discuss and communicate the important issues and convince us that their solution is correct.

MX7 said:

cymtriks said:

If so many people don't have a clue then perhaps it's actually the politicians that are at fault?

Loads of people don't have a clue how to cook, but given the amount of cookery programmes on TV, it can't be because they've never had the opportunity to learn.

Some people are simply not interested. It seems strange to give an equal vote to those who make no effort to understand politics, or those who's vote is decided by historical family voting, celebrity endorsements, or an hour or two of well manicured sound bites.

But, to use your analogy, if some recipes were shown to dramatically change your life for the better perhaps more people would learn how to cook?

The reason that people are not interested is that the really important things are not being openly discussed and the solutions are either token gestures or so similar to those of rival parties ideas that it makes no difference.

Edited by cymtriks on Wednesday 21st April 19:23