why 'vote' for someone who just wants to control others

this topic may have already been discussed, if so please post a link. thanks. If not…

why ‘vote’ for someone who just wants to control others

why?

either way that is what it comes down too. Rep or Dem. it don’t matter

people go out of their way to get elected to ‘govern,’ which boils down to that person wanting the ‘power’ to control other in one form or another.

Because it’s how this system works.

Then who do you suggest be in charge?
Haha, put someone who doesn’t want to be in charge of other people in charge of other people. Mob rule rules.

a month ago I would have agreed with the topic sentiments, such was my nasty mood. But I think I’m starting to realize that nobody can really control us. In perception, they can, but there exists unshattered freedom at our core. They, whoever they are, can never touch that freedom and its return to nothingness.

um, yeah, so like smile for your masters.

I don’t have a link, but South Park addressed this issue at length in an episode about an election between a douche and a turd sandwich.

South Park does have its thumb on how things work. It really is a worthwile show to watch. And it makes you laugh.

Voting is like a pacifier or security blanket. When our numbers were fewer it was a great way to do things but, now its mostly all show no blow.

Exactly.

There really is no practical reason to vote because an individual’s vote makes absolutely no mathematical difference. Helping an old lady cross the street is more useful than going out to vote.

I agree. If we forget about the ineffectiveness of an individual’s vote and only look at the mechanics of democracy on a moral level, that is exactly why I believe voting is bad.
It is bad to force your will upon people against their consent – except for during an act of self-defense, that is.


It is more important to look at how peacefully leadership changes hands in democracy instead of how leadership is decided. Compare the WBush’s re-election to the current politics in Pakistan. Both are “democracy” in action. The first was peaceful while the second is chaotic. Democracy is not for everyone.

I think the best thing about representative democracy is that we can choose among those that wish to govern, and leave the real talent for more important things. Very good governors tend to hold on to power too well. It’s important to keep a certian level of incompetency in government - it makes it easier to get rid of them. The best feature of democracy is not efficiency, it’s a peaceful succession of power.

If you don’t get this, I, for one, don’t want you out there voting, anyway. Please stay home on election day.

southparkzone.com/episodes/8 … -Turd.html

thats the link but
this isnt my objection to current politics.

it is beyond obvious the people ‘running for office’ want ‘power’

what ever they do with that power is besides the point.
they are power hungry.

‘power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutly.’

there has to be a ‘better way’ of governement

I have one in mind.

Oh that sucks, I wanted to stay home… Voting for dumb or dumber gets to be like an oft repeated sitcom situation. The names may change but, the characters and plot never does.

I know those words from somewhere Faust, who came up with that thought? My grandad taught me it but, not in those words.

I must agree only because the statement is ridiculous and I discourage people from voting.
As such, government incompetency is laudable because I would expect it to discourage people from voting.

Well, then, on election day, you will be in good company: surrounded by people who want government incompetency.

Kris - I dunno. As far as I know, I did. Where I got it from - maybe a bit of Nietzsche.

But (Sammy) - the Founding Fathers, lest it be forgotten, were reacting to a government that was too strong, too efficient, too powerful. I am not advocating some minimal amount of competency - I am advocating a brake on too much competency. Like any social arrangement, it’s a balancing act. I am not talking in absolutes. I know that absolutes are comforting in there finality, but comfort isn’t everything. The government shouldn’t get too comfortable, nor should the citizens it governs.

Life is arduous. It is sometimes a struggle not to become heartbroken at its imperfections. Not every leader is a hero. Be your own hero, and stop bitching about how not everyone is as smart, or noble, or honorable as you.

I have as many problems with the government as does any thinking person. But it’s lack of competency is not an outright detriment - that’s the point I am trying to make. It’s not a black and white thing. It’s just not that simple, and simplistic thinking doesn’t help.

Just an opinion.

I’ve found that I’ve gained a more optimistic view of participatory government by getting involved in the local goings-on, not as an elected official, but by occasionally sitting on citizen advisory boards. Not only does this teach me how the process really works – and I’ve come to appreciate more the natural messiness of it by having to hash things out with people who have different views and interests than I – but also it gives me more of a hands-on feeling and I increase my investment in making it work as well as it ever can.

How about random selection from registered voters, like jury duty.

Seems like that was an original democratic concept.

What i’m most amazed by is how election issues always cover the most basic surface ideas. They never venture into things that seem invisible to the common voter, things that effect them daily on a large scale, like how the reliance on technology causes alienation. Instead everybody gets depressed and is treated by tech advances in anti-depressants. A sort sick cyclical effect. But who cares right . . .computers in every classroom! Progress! We must have Progress! Joke.

Its like the dems and the repbulicans have a secret handshake that allows the course of the country to go the same way, no matter who’s in office.

No, the question is will they be debating abortion into eternity. Joke.

In that case, I understand but it is not prudent to use the terms “competency” and “efficiency” as synonyms when related to government actions. Government actions are not efficient but rather they are re-distributive.

Well, Sammy, I think what I was getting at is that competency can lead to efficiency - the object of that efficiency perhaps being the furtherance of government power. Doubtless I wasn’t clear. I dunno. Looked okay to me.

Ingenium!

You see, that’s the proper attitude.

Firstly, you actually have a clue about what you are talking about.

Refreshing.

Secondly, you probably have a lot more than a clue.

Thirdly - you’re taking some responsibilty - it’s tougher to play “victim” that way.

Please tell me where you ‘found’ or ‘heard’ this idea.

I dont really see the point in voting. It’s not like your vote counts anymore. I mean Hillary Clinton already proved that once…