I will not be voting in this Presidential election.

[Atlas Q. Powmonger]

Your candidate doesn't have to win for it to affect policy! Even if he doesn't win, Ron Paul will have changed the debate significantly.

[Cliff Huckable]

Not voting can be called voluntary resistance or voluntary ignorance, neither of which are a bad thing. And it's not a reason to be shunned from political discussions.
Part of the beauty of living here (along with being able to vote for whomever you choose) is the freedom to not vote, for whatever reason.
Many people vote in every election being completely uneducated to the candidates or issues...you shouldn't feel bad about making a calculated decision to avoid the polls.

1. You come out in favour of "voluntary ignorance".
2. You come out in favour of "the freedom to not vote".
3. and for those who opt out of voting you provide comfort by noting that plenty of those who do vote don't know what they're doing.

I have to ask:
wtf?

[Lemmiwinks]

I'm voting for Giant Douche

[Tri-Ungulate]

Beats Turd Sandwich 1410 to 36.

[nick > jesus]

I know you hate the president
Don't ya? Don't ya?
He's such a stupid fucker,
He makes me laugh
Ha Ha!
Of course he's dumb,
that's why they picked him
so you'd have someone to blame instead of the system
And you never have to think too hard about who's pulling the strings.

one of my favorite verses from a song ever

but really, people give way too much credit to the government while the cooperations run this country. its a little fucked up that a single company provides 90% of the new jobs and is also the largest commercial land own in the country. i think its wrong that that much power can be held by a single private entity.

any one care to guess what super corporation i am taking about?

[Tourette Dude]

one of my favorite verses from a song ever

but really, people give way too much credit to the government while the cooperations run this country. its a little fucked up that a single company provides 90% of the new jobs and is also the largest commercial land own in the country. i think its wrong that that much power can be held by a single private entity.

any one care to guess what super corporation i am taking about?

If you can check out the documentary "The Corporation" and read some Naomi Kline and Chomsky.... and then drink heavily


and who is
the corp your talking about?

[nick > jesus]

McDonalds

[Atlas Q. Powmonger]

Corporations are just people cooperating to make money. Is it wrong that people have that much power? I don't understand. People get this weird idea that corporations are some kind of autonomous entity that runs around the country destroying things like godzilla. It's just a bunch of shareholders like CalPERS.

[Tourette Dude]

Corporations are just people cooperating to make money.

True

Is it wrong that people have that much power?

Yes

I don't understand.

That may be because its easier to view the socieconomic stucture within simple darwinian philosophy.

People get this weird idea that corporations are some kind of autonomous entity that runs around the country destroying things like godzilla.

As you said in your first statement, "Corporations are just people cooperating to make money". The goal is profit(often driven by next quarters earnings). If destruction happens to be a side effect of increasing profit then destruction occurs. Whats more important profit or the good of society as a whole?

It's just a bunch of shareholders like CalPERS.

No, they invest part of the pension funds they manage in corporations. And one of there goals is to chose corporations that do the least damage to society.


A pure laissez-faire socioeconomic system is just as extreme as a pure communistic system. Neither are practical or efficient means to attain long term stability of a society.

[Blizzard7763]

1. You come out in favour of "voluntary ignorance".
2. You come out in favour of "the freedom to not vote".
3. and for those who opt out of voting you provide comfort by noting that plenty of those who do vote don't know what they're doing.

I have to ask:
wtf?

It's just a reasonable set of assertions that you do not have to agree with. I'm not saying people are obligated to not vote, I'm just saying that no person is better than another because they did or did not vote.

Besides, if you spell "favour" like you do, it won't affect you either way.

[Atlas Q. Powmonger]

A pure laissez-faire socioeconomic system is just as extreme as a pure communistic system. Neither are practical or efficient means to attain long term stability of a society.

It's the job of the government to create rules for corporations that are in the best interests of the country.

It's not the job of corporate managers to voluntarily give away profits to benefit "society". (I also think people have a misunderstanding of Society - as if it's a seperate living entity - Society is just you, me, and the next person, each with our own identity and opinions, and interests.) Profits belong to the shareholders. If shareholders want to give their profits away they're free to. It's the job of corporations (by which we're really talking about corporate employees), to make as much profit as possible within those rules for the benefit of the shareholders.

In the vast majority of cases, making a profit is consistent with making people happy and making the world a better place.

[Tippster]

Especially if those people are shareholders.

[rideit]

It's the job of the government to create rules for corporations that are in the best interests of the country.

In the vast majority of cases, making a profit is consistent with making people happy and making the world a better place.

Ahhh...the invisible hand....

[mr_gyptian]

Shut the Fuck Up if you have nothing constructive to add. I'm still angst-ridden and almost out of my twenties. Not everyone gives up on their ideals, or compromises their moral beliefs to feel they are a part of society.

Kucinich and Nader?

possibly your idea of maintaining your ideals and moral beliefs is really the view from inside your a-hole?

seriously, can anyone watch Kucinich and not burst out laughing?

[Jer]

a-hole

The preferred term is "bung-hole".

[rideit]

seriously, can anyone watch Kucinich's wife and not burst out of their pants??

Well, I have strong pants.

[Rooster]

In the vast majority of cases, making a profit is consistent with making people happy and making the world a better place.

So what corporation do you work for?

Totally disagree with this last statement. I don't believe it benefits society when corporations such as Wal-Mart, Exxon, the Kroc corporation, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Blackwater, Perdue or any other prosper. Where is the benefit. It benefits upper level management such as the Kenneth Lays of the corporate world. How does such uneven distribution of wealth such as is only found through corporations benefit society as a whole? Where is the benefit to society from these corporations to even outweigh the harm caused from their policies?

You see, its a fundamental difference in philosophy. The thread is about not believing in modern day politics enough to want to what I consider to be validating their purpose through the act of voting. Likewise are my decisions in life everyday from subjects such as the cars I drive, where I find employment, and where I spend my money. Corporations are the driving force behind what I see as the hardships much of the human race suffers now, and most if not all will suffer in the future.

[Tourette Dude]

It's the job of the government to create rules for corporations that are in the best interests of the country.

I agree, I thought you were advocating for a regulatory free enviroment. This leads to the question though of who the government truly answers to; the citizen or the corporation? History seems to point towards corporate influence winning out when it comes to influencing regulatory law.

It's not the job of corporate managers to voluntarily give away profits to benefit "society".

By definiton this is true, but should corporations be allowed to externalize huge costs to society(ie air/water polution>health problems; low gas milage vehicles>increased oil dependence>war in mid-east; lax food processing safety>health problems; aggressive lending practices>taxpayer bailout etc.......) The list is a mile long and one major reason is the corporate influece over regulatory law.

(I also think people have a misunderstanding of Society - as if it's a seperate living entity - Society is just you, me, and the next person, each with our own identity and opinions, and interests.)

Yea it is a nebulus concept ,but it is more than just a large group of individuals doing their own thing. It just seems as time goes by the concept of shared responsibilty has shift toward a more survival of the fittest philosophy. The end point of that is self-destruction

Profits belong to the shareholders. If shareholders want to give their profits away they're free to. It's the job of corporations (by which we're really talking about corporate employees), to make as much profit as possible within those rule
s for the benefit of the shareholders.

In the vast majority of cases, making a profit is consistent with making people happy and making the world a better place.

In general I agree, however the damage done by even a few large multinationals can weigh heavily on the positive accomplishments of all the other corps. We just need true representative control of regulatory law versus the corporate influence that runs the show now

[Atlas Q. Powmonger]

I agree, I thought you were advocating for a regulatory free enviroment. This leads to the question though of who the government truly answers to; the citizen or the corporation? History seems to point towards corporate influence winning out when it comes to influencing regulatory law.

I don't have a problem with corporations (shareholders) lobbying per se because they're doing it with their own money since corporation=citizen. I agree that there's a lobbying problem though, and the reason is that the incentives are different for corporations than individual voters. Companies aren't for free markets, they look for handouts just like people. It makes sense for companies to lobby for specific rules that help them, but it doesn't make sense for any single voter to learn enough about the details of a company to fight it, even if it's not a good piece of legislation. Logical ignorance.

But I think the single easiest, best way to improve the voting system and to eliminate the "penalty" for voting for underdogs is to use instant runoff voting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting Technology would make it simple. Vote your concience AND smartly! Sadly it'll never get passed because it would be really bad for both democrats and republicans.

[nesta]

I will not be voting in the election either, but that's because I live in Canada. I know lots of people that say the same thing when it comes to elections here in the great white north. And I say to them as tex1230 said to you. I know my vote doesn't really make a difference in the scheme of things, but can you imagine if everybody thought the same. Vote, it's your democratic right and it deserves to be exercised every time there's a chance to. I have never missed voting in a provincial or federal election since the age of 18 when I became eligible.