Democracy in Action?

So, in Western Michigan, on Monday, there were elections, or calls to voters anyway, for the children of course, because the issues presented to the voters had to do with funding schools, buildings, busses, and a school official or two.  Let’s consider just one article regarding this event, and some information presented within.

When I first unrolled The Grand Rapids Press last night, the headline which jumped out at me was this, “A victory for the city." But it was the secondary headline, as presented in the dead tree copy, that really caught my eye.  "Voters give GR schools $165 million; officials say hard work just beginning." When I read those headlines, I wondered just who was “giving” $165 million to the GR schools, and why it was a victory.  Let’s look.

From the article linked above, we are informed that,

"The 17 percent voter turnout was among the highest in the region." So, 17 percent of eligible voters “gave” GR schools $165 million.  Now, what does that 17 percent figure represent?  According to the numbers presented in the paper, though not available online, the 17 percent represented 11,723 yes votes, and 7,063 no votes, for a total of 18,786 voters.  Thus, those 18,786 voters, are supposedly speaking for 110,505 voters, which is the total eligible 100 percent.  Working off of those numbers, we can determine that the 11,723 yes voters represent 10.6 percent of the total eligible voters, so 10.6 percent of the voters are coercing the 89.4 percent total eligible voters, into “giving” GR schools $165 million.

When I think about those numbers, I fully appreciate the violence of political action, and why the vote represents a “victory” to the coercers.

Posted by on 06/16 at 06:06 AM

  1. Don’t forget about those who have to pay the tax but aren’t eligible to vote, too.

    Posted by Andy Stedman  on  06/16  at  08:37 AM

  2. True enough, Andy.

    Posted by  on  06/16  at  08:46 AM

  3. John Venlet: so 10.6 percent of the voters are coercing the 89.4 percent total eligible voters, into “giving” GR schools $165 million.

    I mean no offense, but this sounds like word-mangling to me.

    How is it that the 10.6% is “Coercing” anyone?

    They chose to vote (via “free will”?), and they will suffer the consequences or reap the rewards of their actions.

    Similarly the 89.4% chose not to vote (via their “free will” also I would assume?) and they will suffer the consequences or reap the rewards for their action (or lack of action).

    You seem to want to imply that the 10.6% are initiating violence against the 89.4%, but I don’t see how you can make that case.

    By the same logic aren’t people who drive cars polluting the planet (and coercing individuals?) who do not drive cars and don’t want the planet polluted?

    If I catch a fish have I “coerced” all of the Individuals who did not catch a fish?

    Posted by  on  06/16  at  09:57 AM

  4. By John’s logic, the Holocaust is the Jews’ fault for not winning the 1932 German elections.

    John? Where do you get the *right* to decide who steals from whom for how much?

    Elections are called by *thieves*, and ALL voters are abject *imbeciles*.

    Every single one of them.

    Posted by  on  06/16  at  11:52 AM

  5. Mike Schneider: By John’s logic, the Holocaust is the Jews’ fault for not winning the 1932 German elections.

    You mean that the Germans voted to have the Holocaust?

    And here I thought it was all Hitler’s idea originally?

    Or are you asserting that Nazi Germany was a Democracy?

    Mike Schneider: John? Where do you get the *right* to decide who steals from whom for how much?

    Are you saying that rapists become rapists by means of a vote?

    How much money do your children pay you for room and board? If the answer is zero does that mean they are “stealing” from you?

    Do you “coerce” (reward and punish) your children to action Mr. Schneider, or do you practice Anarchy at home for the sake of logical consistency?

    Mike Schneider: Elections are called by *thieves*, and ALL voters are abject *imbeciles*.

    Utter naiveity.

    So are animals more enlightened than homo sapiens according to you?

    After all animals are “Anarchist” they do not have governments (theives), and they do not vote (imbeciles).

    Posted by  on  06/16  at  12:01 PM

  6. I see that you couldn’t actually *answer* my question to John: “Where do you get the *right* to decide who steals from whom and how much?”

    That is precisely what governments do, and that is precisely what John imagines he has a right to determine when he attends a government’s elections.

    As for your gross equivalence fallacies (i.e., voters and children)...<flush>

    See here: http://home.mn.rr.com/meadowbrookhome/z/FALLACYS.HTM

    Posted by  on  06/16  at  12:15 PM

  7. Equivalence Fallacy example:

    Serpent weaseled: Mr. Schneider, or do you practice Anarchy at home for the sake of logical consistency?

    My “home” is my *property*, O nameless one. What I say goes there, and if they don’t like it, they get to leave.

    The government, otoh, does not rightfully own the landmass of the United States, so your attempt to impugn a logical inconsistency rests upon an equivalence fallacy.

    The real question here is: Why were you unable able to *recognize* this, which is immediately obvious at least to me?

    Posted by  on  06/16  at  12:23 PM

  8. BTW: The Nazi Party was elected into office via victory in a plurality in the 1932 German democratic elections. “Mein Kampf” had been in print for the better part of a decade, the book was handed out free, Hitler was recognized to head the party, and Hitler’s solution to the ‘Jewish problem’ was in the book.

    You could look it all up.

    Posted by  on  06/16  at  12:26 PM

  9. Mike Schneider: Where do you get the *right* to decide who steals from whom and how much?

    I never asserted that *right*.

    I merely pointed out that You are falsely trying to equate “debate, discussion and consensus” with “theft”. It sounds more like word-mangling to me.

    Serpent hissed: Mr. Schneider, or do you practice Anarchy at home for the sake of logical consistency?

    Mike Schneider: My “home” is my *property*, O nameless one. What I say goes there, and if they don’t like it, they get to leave.

    It’s funny you say that, because I was under the impression that you were free to leave the United States if you don’t like Democracy.

    Mike Schneider: The government, otoh, does not rightfully own the landmass of the United States, so your attempt to impugn a logical inconsistency rests upon an equivalence fallacy.

    In what way do you “own the landmass” that the United States does not “own the landmass”? I thought it was the Society that “owned” the landmass (and really we are just “borrowing” it temporarily while we are here).

    Mike Schneider: The real question here is: Why were you unable able to *recognize* this, which is immediately obvious at least to me?

    To be honest I am more interested in why Anarchists seem to get so upset when someone ask for a clarification on some point regarding Anarchy? I begin to wonder if it isn’t because Anarchy is a mystical religion with no logical basis or underpinnings?

    Mike Schneider: BTW: The Nazi Party was elected into office via victory in a plurality in the 1932 German democratic elections. “Mein Kampf” had been in print for the better part of a decade, the book was handed out free, Hitler was recognized to head the party, and Hitler’s solution to the ‘Jewish problem’ was in the book.

    Okay, so let me make sure I have this straight … the Majority of Germans decided that they were going to have a refurendum on exterminating all of the Jews, and the Jews didn’t bother to lobby against the initiative, and then once the initiative passed the Jews just waited around to be exterminated?

    Let me ask you a question … why do you think it is that so few Jews live in Saudi Arabia? Do you think it has more to do with “government policy” or does it have more to do with the actual people who live in Saudi Arabia (and the fact that many of them are rabidly anti-semetic)?

    Do you really believe that if the government of Saudi Arabia vanished by magic over night that the people of Saudi Arabia would suddenly love the Jews?

    Posted by  on  06/16  at  02:08 PM

  10. > I merely pointed out that You are falsely trying to equate “debate, discussion and consensus” with “theft”.


    Voting <> “debate, discussion and consensus”.

    Voting = authorizing *initiated force*.

    Posted by  on  06/16  at  02:25 PM

  11. Mike - I think you may have misunderstood what I hoped to express in this post, which, because of the brevity the post, may not have been adequately stated by myself. 

    I did not vote, and will not vote, and I encouraged as many individuals as I could, prior to this vote, to NOT vote.

    Posted by  on  06/16  at  02:57 PM

  12. How do you see the peaceful act of voting as a hostile act of force?

    Democracy is merely a systematic mechanism for individuals to administer Rewards and Punishments to other individuals.

    You seem to be advocating a non-systematic (“random”, or mystical) mechanism.

    But let me ask you this, suppose that we live in a primitive tribal society that doesn’t have an officially recognized “government” or “leader”. And suppose that suddenly we begin to have some crime. So some of the people start proclaiming that if anyone is robbed, they will cut off the hand of the person who robbed them, and if anyone is murdered, they will kill the murderer.

    You are saying that the murderers and thieves are the true victims here? Are you saying that the majority has no right to proclaim their intentions?

    Posted by  on  06/16  at  02:58 PM

  13. John> How do you see the peaceful act of voting as a hostile act of force?

    ALL votes are votes FOR government.
    ALL votes are an “I approve!” rating.
    ALL votes LEGITIMIZE mob-rule as CONCEPT.
    ALL votes are PROMISES to ABIDE by the outcome.

    Voting exists solely because it is more efficient for tyrants to rule when they can point to a sector of support and claim that as a basis for authority to initiate force. “Democracy” is the opiate of the masses.

    The ETHICALLY PROPER response to ANY call for an election is: “Your election is immoral; and I will neither participate in it nor be bound by its outcome.”

    Posted by  on  06/18  at  08:50 AM

  14. There is *nothing* “peaceful” about voting.

    Posted by  on  06/18  at  08:50 AM

  15. Mike Schneider: ALL votes are votes FOR government.

    Actually I believe it would be more accurate to state that ALL voting are votes for DEMOCRATIC government. Not ALL governments use voting at the mechanism for decision making. But in any event, isn’t that like saying:

    ALL consensus implies conversation (dialogue)?

    Let me guess ... you prefer brute force (law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, “Anarchy”)?

    Mike Schneider: ALL votes are an “I approve!” rating.

    Is thievery immoral … unethical? What makes thievery immoral and/or unethical?

    Wait, don’t tell me, because if I agree with you that would be a “vote” and “voting” is apparently more evil than “thievery”.

    Suppose that you got your wish and tomorrow when you woke up the government had magically vanished. Would that mean that thievery was now legal and moral?

    Do animals (“anarchists”) consider thievery and murder immoral?

    Are you a vegetarian by any chance?

    Look Mr. Venlet originally seemed to imply that 10.6% of the population is responsible for 89.4% of all his troubles. But that sounds more like Mr. Venlet is just looking for a scapegoat for his problems. He doesn’t want to take responsibility for his own actions (or lack of action) and his own situation, and instead he wants to blame his “poor” Fate on another (or others). The fact is there is only ONE individual responsible for ALL of Mr. Venlet’s troubles, and that individual is Mr. Venlet himself.

    Posted by  on  06/18  at  09:28 AM

  16. Mr. Venlet implied no such thing in regards to his so called troubles, Serpent.  I simply was pointing out the numbers, and the futility of adding to the count.

    Posted by  on  06/18  at  10:04 AM

  17. Snake: What makes thievery immoral?

    If you have to ask a question like that, you’re in *no* shape to handle any discussion involving ethics. (No sentient entity which has ever lived has desired to be assault or robbed—that is the basis of objectively- determinable morality, not mob- or king- issued edicts [i.e., “laws"].)

    Oh, and votes don’t represent “consensus”, because only those who *do* vote CONCEDE to the winner.

    I do not consent to being ruled by a mob.

    Posted by  on  06/18  at  10:14 AM

  18. John Venlet: Mr. Venlet implied no such thing in regards to his so called troubles, Serpent.  I simply was pointing out the numbers, and the futility of adding to the count.

    I was really just using your name for purpose of example Mr. Venlet. I was speaking metaphorically, I meant no offense, and I apologize if you perceived any.

    Posted by  on  06/18  at  01:17 PM

  19. The Serpent: What makes thievery immoral?

    Mike Schneider: If you have to ask a question like that, you’re in *no* shape to handle any discussion involving ethics.

    Sounds to me like you don’t really believe that theivery is all that immoral.

    Which means I guess you won’t mind if I rob you?

    Maybe you want me to “rob” you???

    Is “rob” even a word? What does it mean? (remember we can’t “vote” on it).

    Mike Schneider: (No sentient entity which has ever lived has desired to be assault or robbed—that is the basis of objectively- determinable morality, not mob- or king- issued edicts [i.e., “laws"].)

    If no sentient entity has ever desired to be “assulted” or “robbed” (whatever those words mean???) then how do you account for people who are into S&M? … Body piercing, tatoos? What about people who smoke cigarettes or don’t take care of themselves? What about people who like to wrestle, box, or play football? How about people who jump out of airplanes, or drive too fast? What about people who don’t vote? Or what about people who commit suicide? Are you saying such individuals are not actually sentient?

    Does that mean we don’t have to treat them like they are “sentient”?

    Is a cow “sentient”? If the answer is “Yes”, does that mean you can’t kill a cow and eat it?

    Mike Schneider: Oh, and votes don’t represent “consensus”, because only those who *do* vote CONCEDE to the winner.

    Are you asserting that the people who don’t vote didn’t choose not to vote?

    Isn’t that kind of like someone who’s house is broken into, but who refuses to shoot back claiming that the reason he didn’t shoot back is because there are other people who do shoot back when their house is broken into?

    Mike Schneider: I do not consent to being ruled by a mob.

    If that were truly the case then why do you *choose* to live amongst a Society of Individuals who embrace Democracy?

    Why not live amongst a society of fellow Anarchists?

    Posted by  on  06/18  at  01:30 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Not Exactly What Comes to Mind

Previous entry: Checking the Numbers

<< Back to main