You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Voters, You Empower Your Enemies
there's a reason that their government is fundamentally and ideologically very similar to that of the original USA. The founders of the US used them a model for the new government they want to create. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/217630.Exiled_in_the_Land_of_the_Free
Leadership. management and governance are all used in the corporate model, without democracy, by either consensus or majority. Are you arguing that leadership. management and governance should be rejected? Or that for them to be legitimate that they must have consent? Or something else?
"There are nations that have been around for countless centuries that have rules but no rulers. They make decisions by voting, but rather than having a 51% majority, everyone needs to agree."
So what happens when you can't get everyone to agree? Getting everyone to agree on anything anywhere, any time is a tall order, if not impossible.
"The Nation is still governed by a Council of Chiefs, selected in accordance with its time-honored democratic system"
What's the difference between a "democratic system"
and a democracy?
"Are you arguing that leadership. management and governance should be rejected?"
No, quite the opposite.
"Or that for them to be legitimate that they must have consent? "
Yes I would argue that consent is needed for legitimacy.
Essentially I'm arguing against the theme of this main post (That we should not vote in US elections), and that will somehow improve our system or situation.
As I said in earlier replies, unless you can convince millions to do the same, then your 'not voting' is unlikely to make any difference.
You then informed me that "There are nations that have been around for countless centuries that have rules but no rulers."
It then turned out that they do have rulers. They call them Chiefs who are selected in accordance with its time-honored democratic system.
What's the difference between being selected and elected?
We complain about our leaders being selected rather than elected.
So all I'm saying is that unless and until we can somehow get rid of the corruption in the Government(not sure how we can do that) we're better off voting for the lesser of two evils rather than not voting, since that way we're more likely to get the worst of two evils.
"So what happens when you can't get everyone to agree? Getting everyone to agree on anything anywhere, any time is a tall order, if not impossible."
It's funny that you would say that something is impossible when people are doing it
"You then informed me that "There are nations that have been around for countless centuries that have rules but no rulers."
It then turned out that they do have rulers. They call them Chiefs who are selected in accordance with its time-honored democratic system.
What's the difference between being selected and elected?
We complain about our leaders being selected rather than elected."
You watched Oren Lyons tell you how chiefs are selected by consensus.
"So all I'm saying is that unless and until we can somehow get rid of the corruption in the Government(not sure how we can do that) we're better off voting for the lesser of two evils rather than not voting, since that way we're more likely to get the worst of two evils."
I can think of 100's of things that would get rid of corruption and voting for someone who is in favor of corruption isn't one of them.
"I can think of 100's of things that would get rid of corruption and voting for someone who is in favor of corruption isn't one of them"
So can I. But not any that we can actually get away with. Since they all involve organizing in some way or other that is designed to get rid of corruption.
The rulers will make damn sure we can't organize anything of that nature and will do ANYTHING including killing us to make sure we can't do it.