Queensland Election 2009

[Conza88]

As one of the many that "scrutineered" the count, we laughed at the idiots that are incapable of understanding the electoral process and prefer to spoil their ballot. Informal votes outnumbered total votes for 2 of the candidates at the booth I attended.

Haha that's good. Please don't rope me in with those fools thanks.

I understand it extremely well, which is why I indirectly chose to vote against it.

Maybe the scrutineer will google Ron Paul?

Most of the people that spoiled their votes would also have failed a spelling test. Micky Mouse and Goofey (sic) got votes, again. So did Pauline Hansen (sic) despite not being on the ticket.

Haha, democracy - yep, it's a joke.

Next time you don't want to vote, just don't come along, and provide your legitimate excuse for not voting to the electoral commissioner. That way you save your time and money, plus the $1.54737 that eligible candidates receive per primary vote.

I'd prefer not to lie, although that would be morally acceptable. i.e You are justified in lying to a robbber / your overlords, when they ask you to tell them where your children are hiding.

24. The Moral Status of Relations to the State

The Ethics of Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard - Audiobook

Better still, if you think you can do a better job, nominate as a candidate and have a crack at exploring what democracy is actually about. It's damned hard work, irrespective of whether or not you run as an independent, or for one of the major parties. Candidates have to have a view on everything thrown at them, and be able to defend what they say.

Possibly in the future, but probably not. At the moment I'll Abstain from Beans. Thanks

"When we place voting into the framework of politics, however, a major change occurs. When we express a preference politically, we do so precisely because we intend to bind others to our will. Political voting is the legal method we have adopted and extolled for obtaining monopolies of power. Political voting is nothing more than the assumption that might makes right. There is a presumption that any decision wanted by the majority of those expressing a preference must be desirable, and the inference even goes so far as to presume that anyone who differs from a majority view is wrong or possibly immoral."​

 

[Wysiwyg]

"When we place voting into the framework of politics, however, a major change occurs. When we express a preference politically, we do so precisely because we intend to bind others to our will. Political voting is the legal method we have adopted and extolled for obtaining monopolies of power. Political voting is nothing more than the assumption that might makes right. There is a presumption that any decision wanted by the majority of those expressing a preference must be desirable, and the inference even goes so far as to presume that anyone who differs from a majority view is wrong or possibly immoral."​

I didn`t vote until I was 28 because I stayed in one place for too long and they found me.

Anyway I`m older now and I once thought like you.Anti-establishment, no nukes, no wars but I grew out of it and came to understand the way of the world and the need for hierarchy and order within a society.Without order there is chaos.Compare the governance of Zimbabwe with Australia and your mind could expand to see the need for order and stability for ALL citizens.

`Your` intent to bind, assumptions, presumptions, inferences and morals are yours for as long as you want.Maybe some specifics as to a better way would be useful to help society become a better place to live in.All `your` preferences of course.

 

[rederob]

Haha that's good. Please don't rope me in with those fools thanks.

That was your choice. You think it makes a difference because you wrote something clever? The "Goofey" voters at least put a smile on our faces.

I understand it extremely well, which is why I indirectly chose to vote against it.

Your choice was hardly "indirect". You made a conscious decision to not vote for a candidate. You thought you were making some kind of a point, or statement.
In reality you chose to be a "nobody" - someone who in this instance just didn't matter.

Maybe the scrutineer will google Ron Paul?

We might have taken you more seriously if you suggested Richard Epstein.

Haha, democracy - yep, it's a joke.

No. Those that chose to waste their votes rather than try and make a difference were the joke.

 

[Julia]

Haha that's good. Please don't rope me in with those fools thanks.

I understand it extremely well, which is why I indirectly chose to vote against it......................

etc/
So, Conza, I'm sure you won't mind giving us a detailed account of the sort of alternative system you must have in mind for running our society?

 

[Conza88]

That was your choice. You think it makes a difference because you wrote something clever? The "Goofey" voters at least put a smile on our faces.

It makes a difference to me. I stood by my principles. I would have chosen not to vote, if that was an option. Pity the state says otherwise. I'm glad you got enjoyment out of others being FORCED to do something.

Your choice was hardly "indirect". You made a conscious decision to not vote for a candidate. You thought you were making some kind of a point, or statement.

I am forced to vote. The threat of violence is and coercion are used. They give me a fine. I am indifferent to their bs. Then what? Goal etc. It has happened before. But that's right, I made a conscious decision to not vote in someone who is going to be my overlord. And instead I chose to write in someone who represents Liberty, Peace and Prosperity. Principled stand.

In reality you chose to be a "nobody" - someone who in this instance just didn't matter.

My vote wouldn't have mattered regardless. And none of those who voted for evil, mattered either. You definition of "mattered" isn't the same as mine.

Being "counted", doesn't "matter" to me. Being counted, as someone who doesn't want to impose my will on others, does matter to me though.

We might have taken you more seriously if you suggested Richard Epstein.

No. Those that chose to waste their votes rather than try and make a difference were the joke.

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. – John Adams (1814)

Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. – James Bovard (1994)

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. – Alexander Tytler

Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. – H.L. Mencken

Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. – Helen Keller

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. – Thomas Jefferson

A democracy is a place where numerous elections are held, at great cost, without issues, and with interchangeable candidates. – Gore Vidal

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy. – US House Congressional Resolution 48 "A Republic; not a Democracy", sponsored by Ron Paul, 3/6/01.

"Democracy – A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic – negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard for consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy." – 1928 U.S. Army Training Manual

Democracy is indispensable to Socialism. – V.I. Lenin

Democracy is the road to Socialism. – Karl Marx
​

I could go on....

 

[rederob]

I could go on....

You did go on.... and on... .
There is not a scintilla of logic to your position, so it's yours for the keeping.
You might think you are smarter than the other informal voters but, when it all boils down, you just don't count.

 

[Julia]

It makes a difference to me. I stood by my principles. I would have chosen not to vote, if that was an opt
[/INDENT]

I could go on....

Well, why don't you? I'm still waiting for your plan of how we can otherwise run our society.

It's very easy to be critical of what we have, and I'm sure many of us would agree that it's far from perfect, but your criticism is hollow if you can't offer an alternative.

 

[Trevor_S]

It's very easy to be critical of what we have, and I'm sure many of us would agree that it's far from perfect, but your criticism is hollow if you can't offer an alternative.

It's unfortunate that democracies are so steeped in the past. Imagine if we evolved our way of living at the same pace democracies evolved, we'd still be living by candle.

There is no need to throw it out but the democracy as we want it to be is dead and is badly in need of reformation to bring it into the modern arena. They were formed at a time when education was a non issue, transportation and communication where primitive at best and warfare was a bow and arrow.

I would suggest, for Australia, a modicum of political reform would be.
1. Removal of states
2. Removal of the Senate
3. Outlaw political parties
4. Considerable reformation of tort law
5. Massive reformation of social security (it will cripple us eventually), as Thomas Jefferson suggested)
6. Massive reformation of the tax act
7. Massive reformation of the the justice system (even the judiciary have admitted the law is beyond understanding anymore)
8. Have the public directly vote on issues, once a month, on line.. bang, you have your answer (non compulsory)


as a very simple start.

Will it engage many more citizens ? perhaps not but for those of us that are concerned, we can at least see the cess pool getting clearer instead of more murky.

Government is oibviusly unabel to do just that, they rely on the passive subjugation of citizens to comply with their nonsense, and that's all they ever come up with, nonsense or a singular good idea takes decades. Super was conceptualised in Australia by Menzies for example.

Fundamentally I believe in the principle of liberty over democracy, not the other way round.

 

[Conza88]

etc/
So, Conza, I'm sure you won't mind giving us a detailed account of the sort of alternative system you must have in mind for running our society?

Well, why don't you? I'm still waiting for your plan of how we can otherwise run our society.

It's very easy to be critical of what we have, and I'm sure many of us would agree that it's far from perfect, but your criticism is hollow if you can't offer an alternative.

I don't think a society needs to be RUN or MANAGED by anyone... bar individuals following the non aggression axiom and Lockean homesteading private property rights. I follow Individualism not collectivism.

I follow the Austrian School of economics. That should be enough to understand where I am coming from but yeah:

I've just come home from a night out.. I'd love to expand on it tomorrow.

Sleeeeeeeeeep awaits.

 

[rederob]

......
as a very simple start.

Will it engage many more citizens ? perhaps not but for those of us that are I believe in the principle of liberty over democracy, not the other way round.

Your reforms would place power in the hands of the wealthy - no more, no less.

 

[rederob]

I don't think a society needs to be RUN or MANAGED by anyone... bar individuals following the non aggression axiom and Lockean homesteading private property rights.

In other words you do believe societies need to be RUN and MANAGED by certain people.

I follow Individualism not collectivism.Your "individual" rights are supported by the collective will of the people to protect them. I follow the Austrian School of economics. That should be enough to understand where I am coming from but yeah:

A quote from the von Mises site a few week ago: "The majority of the voters are just dull and mentally inert people who dislike thinking and are easily deceived by the enticing promises of irresponsible pied pipers."
Von Mises views are totally at odds with modern day politics.
At last week's State elections the Electoral Commission booth chief (where I attended) estimated that about half the voters entered without a wad of polling propaganda from the Party's manning the gates: The first time he had seen such a large number who knew exactly how they would vote.

 

[grace]

Grace, the LNP didn't lose just on this point. In fact, it was one of the reasons I voted for the LNP. The reasons for their losing were otherwise and have already been discussed.

So what do you all want now? Do you actually want the Bligh government to tolerate excesses on the part of the public service, or do you want the most efficient use of your tax dollars by seeing unnecessary fat trimmed from said public service?

The ALP has won the election. Not much point in continuing to criticise everything they do, even when it exactly equates to what you liked in the LNP.

Although I didn't vote for her, I'm prepared to have an open mind about Anna Bligh and think she's off to a good start.

Yes, it is what I wanted - cutting the waste, but Anna should have been honest enough to say that in the campaign, instead of after! (rather than bagging the LNP for the idea during the campaign). Full of lies the Labor party. As I've said before, the only way to win an election is to be dishonest in your campaign.

But I will concede, she has one thing going for her, she is female (had better start running at this point before I get shot down)....

 

[Conza88]

8. Have the public directly vote on issues, once a month, on line.. bang, you have your answer (non compulsory)

Fundamentally I believe in the principle of liberty over democracy, not the other way round.

You believe in the principle of Liberty over democracy? But wish to impose a Pure Democracy?

The joke goes:

"What are the two most historically important people to Western Civilization? Arguably, but agreeably - Socrates and Jesus Christ.
Who killed Socrates and Jesus Christ?

Democracy did."​

In other words you do believe societies need to be RUN and MANAGED by certain people.

In otherwords, no. You can't RUN or MANAGE an economy. To understand that, you need to question your premises. What is an economy? It's essentially the market. And the market is made up from individual, human action.

That is the fundamental premise of the Austrian School / free market supporters. Human action which is axiomatic (self evident). Humans exist. They act. Using a priori reasoning (deductive), other axioms can be discovered. (And have been).

Human Action: A Treatise on Economics is the magnum opus of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises. It presents a case for laissez-faire capitalism based on Mises' praxeology, or rational investigation of human decision-making. It rejects positivism within economics. It defends an a priori epistemology and underpins praxeology with a foundation of methodological individualism and laws of apodictic certainty. Mises argues that the free-market economy not only outdistances any government-planned system, but ultimately serves as the foundation of civilization itself.​

Mises Media Section, Mises Literature section - free Audiobooks, lectures, full books in PDF form, amazingly wealth of knowledge.

But to get back on track:

Those who abide by the non aggression axiom and private property rights don't impose themselves on others.

The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism by Walter Block

The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another. That is, in the free society, one has the right to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreeable terms. Thus, there would be no victimless crime prohibitions, price controls, government regulation of the economy, etc.

If the non-aggression axiom is the basic building block of libertarianism, private property rights based on (Lockean and Rothbardian) homesteading principles are the foundation. For if A reaches into B’s pocket, pulls out his wallet and runs away with it, we cannot know that A is the aggressor and B the victim. It may be that A is merely repossessing his own wallet, the one B stole from him yesterday. But given a correct grounding in property rights, the non-aggression axiom is a very powerful tool in the war of ideas. For most individuals believe, and fervently so, that it is wrong to invade other people or their property. Who, after all, favors theft, murder or rape? With this as an entering wedge, libertarians are free to apply this axiom to all of human action, including, radically, to unions, taxes, and even government itself.​

A quote from the von Mises site a few week ago: "The majority of the voters are just dull and mentally inert people who dislike thinking and are easily deceived by the enticing promises of irresponsible pied pipers."
Von Mises views are totally at odds with modern day politics.

At last week's State elections the Electoral Commission booth chief (where I attended) estimated that about half the voters entered without a wad of polling propaganda from the Party's manning the gates: The first time he had seen such a large number who knew exactly how they would vote.

Haha, so your contention is: they have not been influenced by the mainstream media at all, and that they have all critically analysed the politicians policies and promises, in relation to their previous actions?

You also contend that, because someone hasn't taken those pamphlets - that means something? It means they've made their mind up? You can't seriously believe, whether someone takes a pamphlett or not - that it means they THINK.

The propaganda didn't start at the gate of the school, it'd been going for the last month.

And furthermore: I TOOK those pamphlets, and I didn't vote for anyone. Essentially they were all shoved into my hand, but that doesn't change the fact - you're thesis is wrong.

 

[rederob]

And furthermore: I TOOK those pamphlets, and I didn't vote for anyone. Essentially they were all shoved into my hand, but that doesn't change the fact - you're thesis is wrong.

My thesis was that, in wasting your opportunity to vote, you are no different to the fools who spoiled their votes and were not part of the formal count.
Your foolishness was further compounded by taking voting pamphlets, despite knowing your vote would be informal: Were you going from dumb to dumber?

Unfortunately your other points have little to do with the theme of the Queensland election. And von Mises point about the free-market economy outdistancing any government-planned system is total bunkum. It has unravelled yet again, and is being frantically bailed out by governments around the world, as we write.

 

[Curlz31]

Conza is 100% correct.

I find it funny that on a forum where people should be knowledgable about the market, people dont support its superiority in allocating resources and raising standards of living for poor people.

What we have now is not a market. The basis of the monetary system is a socialist central bank and a banking system which allows fractional reserves.

This is not capitalism. In fact, central banks are the reason we have a business cycle. The idea that the business cycle is inherent in the market is total nonsence. Ludwig Von Mises and Friedrich Hayek were 100% right and Keynes is a lunatic, witchdoctor.

If we had commodity standards and a banking system with 100% reserves for demand deposits. We would have sustainable growth WITH NO BUST.

You all support this fiat Keynesian system and yet you ignore the fact that IT ALONE causes the business cycle and the huge recessions and depressions.

 

[Conza88]

My thesis was that, in wasting your opportunity to vote, you are no different to the fools who spoiled their votes and were not part of the formal count.

There was nothing worth voting for. Thus there was no waste.

Your foolishness was further compounded by taking voting pamphlets, despite knowing your vote would be informal: Were you going from dumb to dumber?

It required less effort of me to accept them, than it would have taken for me to refuse them. And believe it or not, I didn't want to offend the fools who sat outside all day, trying to beat the other supporters in forcing a piece of paper into a strangers hand, in the vein hope they'll acknowledge it, and follow the instructions outlined, so that hopefully enough of these people will do it, their candidate will get elected, they'll remain or obtain power, and then proceed to fck **** up even more.

Tweedle dumb or tweedle dee? Better yet:

Unfortunately your other points have little to do with the theme of the Queensland election. And von Mises point about the free-market economy outdistancing any government-planned system is total bunkum. It has unravelled yet again, and is being frantically bailed out by governments around the world, as we write.

They are related. Political philosophy.

But seriously, lmao @ blaming the financial system failing on Capitalism.

Last time I checked, the banking system and monetary policy of the entire US and every country around the world - was run by a Central Bank.

The 5th plank of the Communist Manifesto.