**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

Raising the minimum wage is probably the most anti-science idea in political economics.

[wufwugy]

Wuf, do you believe the Electoral College is a good institution? What purpose does it serve and what are it's downsides?

It was probably a better idea back when electors were chosen by state governments. But really, I don't know. I don't like democracy but I don't have any better ideas of how to determine governments. Probably the way to make democracy great is to limit the vote to net taxpayers. This wouldn't be perfect, but it would provide for much better results.

[wufwugy]

The important word here is 'votes'. Note how it is different that 'a vote'. You're conflating the two.

Looking at it this way doesn't tell much of the story. If the reasoning that the individual vote doesn't matter was correct, it would also be correct to say that voting itself doesn't matter, yet that is clearly not the case. If somebody wants to understand the vote, they can't just do a couple bits of arithmetic and call it a day.

How you do you know that? They could have dumped ten billion dollars into ads, hired people to go door to door, used all kinds of tricks, and changed the vote decisively. But not because they influenced one person, because they influenced thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions.

The causality those things have with influencing the vote is weak.

We've mostly been taught that history is about big men, but academia has been coming around to the better explanation that history is about movements and ideas.

But if you think it's because you've got a good chance of making a difference with your one vote, you're just deluded and nothing more.

I don't think that, but the cool thing is that "does your vote count" is not the question. Nobody's vote counts and yet voting counts. Square that circle.

[Poopadoop]

Probably the way to make democracy great is to limit the vote to net taxpayers.

It would be ironic if this meant Trump couldn't vote in his own election.

I don't know American history very well but I thought the original principle of the union was to devolve a lot of the power to the individual states, and I assumed the electoral college was one way of doing this. Is that right?

[wufwugy]

It would be ironic if this meant Trump couldn't vote in his own election.

I don't know American history very well but I thought the original principle of the union was to devolve a lot of the power to the individual states, and I assumed the electoral college was one way of doing this. Is that right?

Yes it was. State governments chose US senators and president at that time. Only congresscritters were chosen by popular vote. IIRC

[wufwugy]

It would be ironic if this meant Trump couldn't vote in his own election.

I don't know American history very well but I thought the original principle of the union was to devolve a lot of the power to the individual states, and I assumed the electoral college was one way of doing this. Is that right?

Trump probably wouldn't, but as it is now, it would mean that a very small percentage of people vote. I forget the numbers exactly, but on average the middle class doesn't even pay tax by net. It's only like the top 2% that pay net taxes on average.

The masses voting is the path to civilization doom. The majority vote to take more and more money from the productive. We've seen the great damage this causes. If I were God and I were to engineer the destruction of the greatest civilization in the universe, I would turn it into a democracy with few limits on voting. People are good at stopping obvious disasters, but the disaster we don't stop is the one we don't see rotting our core.

[Poopadoop]

I don't think that, but the cool thing is that "does your vote count" is not the question. Nobody's vote counts and yet voting counts. Square that circle.

It's not a circle and it doesn't need squaring. I've already explained why one vote out of a large number of votes means a very small amount. Add a whole lot of very small amounts together and you get a big amount. That doesn't mean any one of those little small amounts is meaningful on its own; only their sum is meaningful.

Here's another way of looking at that might make you happier. If America lasts for a million years, there is a good chance that a POTUS election will be decided by a single vote one or two times. If that happens to be this election and you don't vote, then you'll be kicking yourself because you let the bad guys win. So you should go vote.

[wufwugy]

It's not a circle and it doesn't need squaring. I've already explained why one vote out of a large number of votes means a very small amount. Add a whole lot of very small amounts together and you get a big amount. That doesn't mean any one of those little small amounts is meaningful on its own; only their sum is meaningful.

Here's another way of looking at that might make you happier. If America lasts for a million years, there is a good chance that a POTUS election will be decided by a single vote one or two times. If that happens to be this election and you don't vote, then you'll be kicking yourself because you let the bad guys win. So you should go vote.

We're ultimately talking about two different things. I think that whether or not my vote counts is irrelevant to the question of whether or not voting matters. This may sum up what I'm getting at: my vote doesn't count, but the vote counts, which means my vote counts even when it doesn't.

[JKDS]

In 1984, Ronald Reagan lost Minnosota's 10 electoral votes by a mere 4,000 popular votes.

He also lost DC's 3 electoral votes by over 100,000 popular votes.

If not for these occurrences, Reagan would have got 100% of the electoral votes.

Aint that neat?

Bill Clinton also lost Arizona in his first election, but won Arizona in his second by approximately 30,000 popular votes.

The vote does matter. Sure, the electors could decide to rebel and go against the popular vote, but they rarely do.

[Poopadoop]

We're ultimately talking about two different things. I think that whether or not my vote counts is irrelevant to the question of whether or not voting matters. This may sum up what I'm getting at: my vote doesn't count, but the vote counts, which means my vote counts even when it doesn't.

Ya we are definitely talking about two different things.

[MadMojoMonkey]

There is no direct connection between my vote for POTUS and how my electors vote. It is ultimately their own personal decision whether or not to act as the majority. Whether or not there is precedent for them to go against this is irrelevant. It's not my vote that counts, and I didn't get any vote on who is representing me in the electoral college. It's not democratic.

It is the case that electors can vote before the election polls are closed. That's not democracy.

I see no point is participating in a farce of democracy.
What more need I say?


Also... did poopadoop just offer to school me on the binomial distribution?



Good one.

[Poopadoop]

Also... did poopadoop just offer to school me on the binomial distribution?



Good one.

I'm sure you don't need it since you're a physicist. But if your argument is that what person X didn't say is completely wrong, that's a pretty thin argument.

[JKDS]

Cutting out the electors, but keeping the elector votes, would probably be a fairer system.

I like that we have a defense against a popular Hitler though.

[boost]

Trump probably wouldn't, but as it is now, it would mean that a very small percentage of people vote. I forget the numbers exactly, but on average the middle class doesn't even pay tax by net. It's only like the top 2% that pay net taxes on average.

The masses voting is the path to civilization doom. The majority vote to take more and more money from the productive. We've seen the great damage this causes. If I were God and I were to engineer the destruction of the greatest civilization in the universe, I would turn it into a democracy with few limits on voting. People are good at stopping obvious disasters, but the disaster we don't stop is the one we don't see rotting our core.

It seems like, if we're going down this road, the system that makes the most sense is a correlation between dollars donated and votes allocated. Having it be binary, as you propose, gets the worst result as you both need a massive beurocracy to determine whether someone is net + or -, and you incentivize the gaming of the system where people gain full citizenship by paying a net $0.01 in taxes.

Also, I'm pretty sure I'm not in the top 2% of American earners, yet I think I pay net + in taxes. What am I missing? My paycheck has stuff taken out of it, and I typically get a very small tax return or owe a small amount (because lol@ loaning the government free monies.)

[OngBonga]

In 1984, Ronald Reagan lost Minnosota's 10 electoral votes by a mere 4,000 popular votes.

He also lost DC's 3 electoral votes by over 100,000 popular votes.

How is the problem with the system not obvious here? Regan lost MN by 4k votes and loses ten seats, but loses DC by 25x more while only losing three seats. MN was a much bigger hit regarding his chances of winning the presidency, even though it was very close indeed.

If MN split the ten seats based on the popular vote, well we're getting closer to something resembling democracy.

[OngBonga]

I don't like democracy but I don't have any better ideas of how to determine governments.

I'm curious why you don't like democracy. I'm no fan of what we call democracy, and it seems worse in the States than it does here in the UK, but at its roots democracy is surely the only civilised way to ensure the people accept the government.

What other options are there? What makes you think that the masses would accept a different system?

[Savy]

I'm curious why you don't like democracy. I'm no fan of what we call democracy, and it seems worse in the States than it does here in the UK, but at its roots democracy is surely the only civilised way to ensure the people accept the government.

What other options are there? What makes you think that the masses would accept a different system?

Why should my life be governed by other peoples stupid opinions? It should be governed by my stupid ones.

[OngBonga]

Why should my life be governed by other peoples stupid opinions? It should be governed by my stupid ones.

Good answer, that really explains why democracy is bad.

Why should anyone else be governed by your stupid opinions?

I can accept no democracy if you want to talk about anarchy, but that is a lack of government, rather than a government without a popular mandate. Where a government exists, well I don't see how it can be considered fair, and thus be respected by the masses, if it's not the result of a common vote.

Why should I abide by law if the lawmakers are placing themselves into a position of power, instead of being put into place by the commoners?

[Savy]

Why should anyone else be governed by your stupid opinions?

They shouldn't.

For example say you're part of a weird group that thinks wearing shoes is against some imaginary creatures will and that group just happens to be 75% of the population. Should that mean no one can wear shoes? Probably not.

I'm clearly just still angry from when I last walked to the shop on Sunday to find it was closed.

[Poopadoop]

It's hard to think of a better alternative than democracy for keeping the citizenry reasonably happy. When you give the people what they've (collectively) asked for, there's little room for them to dispute the process of selecting a government. That of course assumes a true democracy where all votes contribute equally.

Also, I acknowledge politicians are capable of mispresenting their intentions, so to say people get what they ask for is a bit too simplistic. But generally, you should have a pretty good idea of what kind of things (say) Trump vs. Clinton are likely to do if they get elected.

Anarchy would just be primitive chaos. Sure it might be fun for the first couple weeks until someone decides to stick a bullet in you because they don't like your haircut. There has to be some kind of law and order, we can't just let people run amok.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It seems like, if we're going down this road, the system that makes the most sense is a correlation between dollars donated and votes allocated. Having it be binary, as you propose, gets the worst result as you both need a massive beurocracy to determine whether someone is net + or -, and you incentivize the gaming of the system where people gain full citizenship by paying a net $0.01 in taxes.

Why all the hate against gamers?

This came up in a meeting the other day. Some of the TAs (grad students) are looking for ways to punish their undergrad students who are only interesting in accomplishing the bare minimum to receive full credit.
A) Our role as graders is not punishment, it's feedback.
B) What is even wrong with learning the actual requirements and meeting them efficiently?

The notion that if you're not overachieving, you're somehow disrespecting your fellows is absurd.

It reminds me of being an ambitious young carpenter who wastes time sanding the inside of a wall. No one is ever going to see or touch that surface once I seal the wall, so what advantage is gained by sanding it?

I see a lot of students sanding the inside of a wall, is all I'm saying, and it's just them making busywork for no advantage.

***
The minimum standard is still the standard. Gaming to meet the minimum is simply a life-scale optimization.
What's the problem with that?

[Poopadoop]

It seems like, if we're going down this road, the system that makes the most sense is a correlation between dollars donated and votes allocated. Having it be binary, as you propose, gets the worst result as you both need a massive beurocracy to determine whether someone is net + or -, and you incentivize the gaming of the system where people gain full citizenship by paying a net $0.01 in taxes.

Wouldn't you need a massive bureaucracy to enact your system too?

Also, I'm pretty sure I'm not in the top 2% of American earners, yet I think I pay net + in taxes. What am I missing? My paycheck has stuff taken out of it, and I typically get a very small tax return or owe a small amount (because lol@ loaning the government free monies.)

I'm guessing by 'net' he means the people who pay more tax than the average amount paid by a taxpayer? However it's calculated it would amount to giving only the wealthy people the vote, and so seems not so good in principle.

[OngBonga]

Anarchy would just be primitive chaos. Sure it might be fun for the first couple weeks until someone decides to stick a bullet in you because they don't like your haircut. There has to be some kind of law and order, we can't just let people run amok.

I disagree completely. Anarchy would not be fun to start with, that's the period where bullets are getting sprayed around for stupid reasons. But let's say someone does indeed put a bullet in me because I have long hair (more a lack of haircut), well how long is that dude gonna survive in the world he now resides in? Not very long at all. Not only would my friends and family want to deal with him, but also the community as a whole would feel that this person who shot me is a problem.

Sooner or later, it all settles down, because the dickheads out there realise that the punishment for their actions is now a great deal more severe that it was before. Vigilante justice is feared more than police justice.

For example say you're part of a weird group that thinks wearing shoes is against some imaginary creatures will and that group just happens to be 75% of the population. Should that mean no one can wear shoes? Probably not.

But this isn't how democracy works. It's not a case of "let's vote for every single law", because doing so will take a very long time indeed. It's a case of voting in a bunch of people to deal with all that shit.

If a bunch of weirdos gets into power saying they will ban shoes, well done to them. I'll ignore their stupid law because I'm a stoner who doesn't give a flying fuck about law, my behaviour is based on my own sense of morality.

What I'm doing there is rejecting law, not democracy. I'm not saying these crazy fuckers shouldn't be in power, they got voted in. I'm saying that their laws don't apply to me because I'm an anarchist.

[Poopadoop]

Why all the hate against gamers?

This came up in a meeting the other day. Some of the TAs (grad students) are looking for ways to punish their undergrad students who are only interesting in accomplishing the bare minimum to receive full credit.
A) Our role as graders is not punishment, it's feedback.
B) What is even wrong with learning the actual requirements and meeting them efficiently?

The notion that if you're not overachieving, you're somehow disrespecting your fellows is absurd.

It's the idea that the slackers are somehow devaluing the keeners' hard work. In fact it's the opposite. The slackers are making the keeners look even better by comparison. They should be thanking the slackers, not trying to punish them.

[Poopadoop]

I disagree completely. Anarchy would not be fun to start with, that's the period where bullets are getting sprayed around for stupid reasons. But let's say someone does indeed put a bullet in me because I have long hair (more a lack of haircut), well how long is that dude gonna survive in the world he now resides in? Not very long at all. Not only would my friends and family want to deal with him, but also the community as a whole would feel that this person who shot me is a problem.

Sooner or later, it all settles down, because the dickheads out there realise that the punishment for their actions is now a great deal more severe that it was before. Vigilante justice is feared more than police justice.

The problem with a system of vigiliante justice is that everyone is deciding for themselves what the rules are and what the appropriate punishments are for breaking them. That's why people fear it, because some dick can decide you deserve to pay for something silly. And since he's rightly afraid of what might happen in such a situations, he's going to arm himself more strongly and take refuge in a gang for protection.

If you look at countries where effective government has broken down and anarchy runs rampant they're basically just dens of crime. Colombia in the time of Escobar (and probably to a similar extent today) is one example that springs to mind.

[Savy]

But this isn't how democracy works. It's not a case of "let's vote for every single law", because doing so will take a very long time indeed. It's a case of voting in a bunch of people to deal with all that shit.

If a bunch of weirdos gets into power saying they will ban shoes, well done to them. I'll ignore their stupid law because I'm a stoner who doesn't give a flying fuck about law, my behaviour is based on my own sense of morality.

What I'm doing there is rejecting law, not democracy. I'm not saying these crazy fuckers shouldn't be in power, they got voted in. I'm saying that their laws don't apply to me because I'm an anarchist.

I dunno why I bother with analogies on here they never go well. There are lots of such groups that influence policy much more than people would be comfortable with, even on a much more simple level like old people vote more therefore policies try to appease the old more than others. Then you have the fact that if you give a select group of people power then all that happens is the people with money and power just need to influence those select few.

The idea you can just pick and choose the laws you follow is ridiculous too. Probably wouldn't have the same attitude if they decided to clamp down on weed and starting putting people in jail for long periods of time. Not least because it'd at the very least put a hole in your pocket.

[OngBonga]

The problem with a system of vigiliante justice is that everyone is deciding for themselves what the rules are and what the appropriate punishments are for breaking them.

Yup, which is why at first it would be horrible. But, over time, there will be a gernally common consensus of what kind of behaviour is acceptable, and what isn't. I would like to think that, over time, those of high morality would dominate those of low morality, based purely on numbers. I guess that's the key... there will be a battle of dominance between those who are civil, and those who are not. Who wins? I think, and hope, that civility wins.

If you look at countries where effective government has broken down and anarchy runs rampant they're basically just dens of crime. Colombia in the time of Escobar (and probably to a similar extent today) is one example that springs to mind.

But what you see here is the beginning of anarchism, before order is restored. What we haven't seen is anarchy allowed to flourish to see if the long term effects are positive. You're also looking at countries which were torn apart by war, hence the collapse in order. If a country like the UK suddenly turned to anarchy, it would be very different.

Don't get me wrong, of course I'm aware that I can't be sure that anarchism can work for humans in this day and age. But it's the deafult setting for the entire animal kingdom, and it's not something I would personally have a problem with because I consider myself to be of high morality, and would value community very highly, and protect it at all costs, in such a system. I think I'd be in the majority, and hopefully the dominat, group.

[OngBonga]

The idea you can just pick and choose the laws you follow is ridiculous too. Probably wouldn't have the same attitude if they decided to clamp down on weed and starting putting people in jail for long periods of time. Not least because it'd at the very least put a hole in your pocket.

Well the idea that someone can punish me for inhaling smoke is ridiculous. I'm never going to accept ridiculous laws.

If they started jailing people like me for smoking weed, I'd protest along with lots of other people.

[Savy]

Protest all you like mate, the people you voted for* did the law and that's democracy. Like with most things people wouldn't give a fuck if it didn't effect them & with the issue of drugs most people are against it so you'd struggle to get anything done.

*Well more likely didn't vote for as 66.1% of people voted & of that vote the conservatives only got 36.9% meaning that a solid 22.4% of the electorate decided who runs the country.

[Poopadoop]

*Well more likely didn't vote for as 66.1% of people voted & of that vote the conservatives only got 36.9% meaning that a solid 22.4% of the electorate decided who runs the country.

But it's not like the others weren't given the opportunity to vote, they just couldn't be bothered or realised the futility of it. So the 66 % that did vote get to decide. Totally fair.

[OngBonga]

Protest all you like mate, the people you voted for* did the law and that's democracy. Like with most things people wouldn't give a fuck if it didn't effect them & with the issue of drugs most people are against it so you'd struggle to get anything done.

I think you'll find that if students start getting banged up for smoking spliffs, even non-smokers would have something to say about that.

I really don't think we'll be talking about a bunch of hippy stoners waving "free the herb" placards about. It would no longer be about legalisation, and be much more to do with the state abusing its position to ruin people's lives for their smoking habits.

And yes, you're quick to point out that what we have isn't democracy. It's a sham. But still, if the law says you're not allowed to have anal sex with your wife, does that mean those who ignore the law should be sent to jail? What right has the law got to say what you and your wife can't do behind closed doors? Same with weed. If those we voted in decided to ban tea, I would continue to drink tea.

[OngBonga]

But it's not like the others weren't given the opportunity to vote, they just couldn't be bothered or realised the futility of it. So the 66 % that did vote get to decide. Totally fair.

The Tories got just over 30% of the population voting for them. Even counting those who don't vote, or can't, they're way off majority.

[OngBonga]

In fact those numbers are wrong. I dunno why I was thinking 30%, maybe that's relative to how many CAN vote.

They got 11.3 million votes, the population is around 65 million, so it's around 17%.

Democracy is a beautiful thing.

[Poopadoop]

Yup, which is why at first it would be horrible. But, over time, there will be a gernally common consensus of what kind of behaviour is acceptable, and what isn't. I would like to think that, over time, those of high morality would dominate those of low morality, based purely on numbers. I guess that's the key... there will be a battle of dominance between those who are civil, and those who are not. Who wins? I think, and hope, that civility wins.

But what you see here is the beginning of anarchism, before order is restored. What we haven't seen is anarchy allowed to flourish to see if the long term effects are positive. You're also looking at countries which were torn apart by war, hence the collapse in order. If a country like the UK suddenly turned to anarchy, it would be very different.

Don't get me wrong, of course I'm aware that I can't be sure that anarchism can work for humans in this day and age. But it's the deafult setting for the entire animal kingdom, and it's not something I would personally have a problem with because I consider myself to be of high morality, and would value community very highly, and protect it at all costs, in such a system. I think I'd be in the majority, and hopefully the dominat, group.

I think you're being a little optimistic in suggesting that all of the good parts of human nature will somehow rise to the top if we just let everyone do what they want.

That's why we have law and order in the first place, to discourage people from following their inner demons, and protect them from others who do so anyways. You can argue a better outcome would happen in anarchy, but it seems unlikely to me.

Basically I think you just want the man off your back so you can do whatever you want without fear of arrest. And that's fine with me as long as all your crimes are victimless. But not everyone is a good, moral person in the sense of respecting the rights of others.

[OngBonga]

We had 45.3m eligible votes in 2015, last election, and the Tories got 11.3m, which is 25%.

Wow.

[Poopadoop]

In fact those numbers are wrong. I dunno why I was thinking 30%, maybe that's relative to how many CAN vote.

They got 11.3 million votes, the population is around 65 million, so it's around 17%.

Democracy is a beautiful thing.

So you're for extending the franchise to infants and children? Cause otherwise you need to adjust those numbers.

Anyways, they got a majority (barely). That's the rules, it's not that they have to get > 50% of the population, including people who don't or can't vote. If that were the case we'd never have a government...oh wait, I get what you're on about.

[OngBonga]

That's why we have law and order in the first place, to discourage people from following their inner demons, and protect them from others who do so anyways. You can argue a better outcome would happen in anarchy, but it seems unlikely to me.

No, we have law and order to control the masses. Stopping people from smoking weed, while allowing the same people to drink alcohol, or even drink paint if they want, is not protecting people. It's control.

Basically I think you just want the man off your back so you can do whatever you want without fear of arrest. And that's fine with me as long as all your crimes are victimless. But not everyone is a good, moral person in the sense of respecting the rights of others.

I don't live in fear of arrest. And yes my crimes are victimless, even if I grow and sell cannabis it is victimless because smoking weed does not make you a victim. That's not what the law says, of course, that's me being guided by my own sense of morality. If I sell weed, which I have done in the past, it is to people who want it. Supply and demand. If my customers were victims, so too is my Dad a victim of beer companies.

[OngBonga]

So you're for extending the franchise to infants and children? Cause otherwise you need to adjust those numbers.

Anyways, they got a majority (barely). That's the rules, it's not that they have to get > 50% of the population, including people who don't or can't vote. If that were the case we'd never have a government...oh wait, I get what you're on about.

They didn't get a majority. I think you're not entirely aware of what majority means. If they got 49% of the vote, then they didn't get a majority, because more people didn't vote for them than did.

[OngBonga]

Cause otherwise you need to adjust those numbers.

I did. We're up to 25% when counting all eligible voters, and 37% when considering just those who voted.

[Poopadoop]

Re: Colombia. But what you see here is the beginning of anarchism, before order is restored. What we haven't seen is anarchy allowed to flourish to see if the long term effects are positive. You're also looking at countries which were torn apart by war, hence the collapse in order. If a country like the UK suddenly turned to anarchy, it would be very different.

It wasn't torn apart by war. It was a poor country with a corrupt government that allowed people like Escobar to gain tremendous wealth (and thus power). When they tried to contain him, for example by kicking him out of congress or threatening him with extradition to the US (since a Colombian prison was so corrupt a jail sentence there amounted to a holiday), he retaliated in extreme ways, like killing ministers, presidential candidates, and just for good measure, innocent people. The government didn't have the resources to combat him effectively (he was arguably richer than the government) and he only got his comeuppance because the US government got involved.

He was, like you, an anarchist. But his set of rules weren't anything like yours.

[Poopadoop]

I did. We're up to 25% when counting all eligible voters, and 37% when considering just those who voted.

Ok I get you. They didn't get a majority of the popular vote but they got a majority of seats because of the first past the polls system. I agree, it's not proper.

[Poopadoop]

No, we have law and order to control the masses. Stopping people from smoking weed, while allowing the same people to drink alcohol, or even drink paint if they want, is not protecting people. It's control.

Just because the system of law has flaws (according to you and me and probably everyone, though there'd be a wide range of views on which parts are flawed) doesn't mean it's some invention whose sole purpose is to make people submit to outside control. Surely you can see it has another motivation?

I don't live in fear of arrest.

I didn't mean that in the sense that you're constantly hiding or looking over your shoulder, but rather that your life would be easier if the laws jibed with your own sense of right and wrong.

[Keith]

I don't live in fear of arrest. And yes my crimes are victimless, even if I grow and sell cannabis it is victimless because smoking weed does not make you a victim. "

really? do you pay for all the electric your canabis enterprise would/does consume or do you follow the lead of the majority of cannabis farms who bypass the meter and steal the electric. The stolen electric cost is passed onto the rest of the electricity companies customers in a higher tariff making us all victims.
Secondly , when one of your customers gets in his car having smoked some of your product and loses control and crashes, anyone injured also becomes a victim.

That's not what the law says, of course, that's me being guided by my own sense of morality. If I sell weed, which I have done in the past, it is to people who want it. Supply and demand. If my customers were victims, so too is my Dad a victim of beer companies.

where do you draw the line ?weed is illegal and selling it it is illegal.you are happy to flout the law there
how about heroin , same thing are you happy to sell that as well?
how about sex slaves , you happy to supply to that demand as well with the slaves just victims of the condom makers

[Poopadoop]

Don't think people who've smoked some weed are worse drivers. It's certainly not anywhere near as bad as being drunk. So by that logic, owning a distillery should be a crime too.

About the power: He could argue that if we had anarchy growers wouldn't have to steal the power cause there'd be no law against growing.

Of course there'd possibly be no power either but that's not the point.

[Savy]

I like how I gave ong the official figures and he proceeded to make up his own ones in his later posts.

[Poopadoop]

I did. We're up to 25% when counting all eligible voters, and 37% when considering just those who voted.

But wait, why should they need >50% when there's more than two options? If you give people a choice from among ten options and get them to vote, do you only accept their decision if more than half of them agreed on it? Or would you take the choice with the most votes, and if so, how is that not democratic?

[Savy]

But wait, why should they need >50% when there's more than two options? If you give people a choice from among ten options and get them to vote, do you only accept their decision if more than half of them agreed on it? Or would you take the choice with the most votes, and if so, how is that not democratic?

It should be proportional representation, it's a simple as that.

The ohh no we don't get a government line is just funny, doesn't stop most european countries functioning.

Don't think people who've smoked some weed are worse drivers. It's certainly not anywhere near as bad as being drunk. So by that logic, owning a distillery should be a crime too.

What are you on about? Being high is terrible for your driving.

[Poopadoop]

I like how I gave ong the official figures and he proceeded to make up his own ones in his later posts.

Its just that he kept changing what counted as a voter. First it was the entire population, then it was eligible voters, then people who actually voted.

Then ya, he still ended up with different numbers than you. It is a bit funny.

[Poopadoop]

What are you on about? Being high is terrible for your driving.

Really? As bad as being drunk? Not what I heard. Mind you I don't follow the research on this.

[Savy]

Really? As bad as being drunk? Not what I heard. Mind you I don't follow the research on this.

Well it depends on what you mean because you don't really have measurements of how high you are like you do for how drunk you are & there is no regulation on strengths or amounts of weed really.

So in the same way a pint or two isn't going to make you into a terrible driver (although still over the legal limit) the same is true of a bit of weed. Having 5-6 pints then driving home is probably about as dangerous as being high and driving, being completely wrecked is probably worse than being really high but both are so far past the point of where you should be in a car it doesn't matter.

[Poopadoop]

My point is the same either way. If you want to say selling marijuana should be illegal 'cause someone could use it irresponsibly and crash their car, then you have to say the same about selling alcohol. It can't be ok to sell one but not the other on those grounds, right?

[Savy]

It was never implied one was victimless just that one is a crime.

[Poopadoop]

It was never implied one was victimless just that one is a crime.

If you go back and read what Keith said, it was implied that marijuana was not a victimless crime because it impairs people's driving.

But it's not selling the drug that causes the victims, it's the people using it irresponsibly. If you want to argue marijuana should be illegal because someone could get hurt by using it irresponsibly, logically you'd have to also ban not just alcohol, but pretty much everything from power tools to food processors to cars for the same reason.

Ergo, whether or not marijuana is victimless or victimfull (resulting in victims) by such a categorisation is irrelevant, since such a categorisation, if applied across the board, would be absurd as a means of determining law.

Conversely, if you use a more reasonable standard of victimfull that requires an action that causes direct harm to another, such as rape or murder, marijuana would not fall into that category and thus would be considered a victimless crime.

[Savy]

I think you think that I think it's bad, I don't.

See my bit about your own stupid rules governing your own life, if you want to smoke weed have fun. I'm all for people doing all the drugs they want to do. Something democracy directly inhibits.

[Poopadoop]

I think you think that I think it's bad, I don't.

Ok fine.

It was never implied one was victimless just that one is a crime.

But this sounds to me at least like you were disagreeing with what I'd just said. So I wanted to clarify what I meant by it and elaborate my point.

Edit: Either that or you're just arguing for any old reason 'cause you enjoy it. Which is fine as well.

[Savy]

And I can't be arsed having a conversation about the definition of words so thought I'd just leave it, feel free to continue on without me.

[Poopadoop]

And I can't be arsed having a conversation about the definition of words so thought I'd just leave it,

Haha, but you didn't just leave it did you? You came back with some comment suggesting that i was missing the point.

[Poopadoop]

feel free to continue on without me.

Don't be snide. It's not a good look on anyone.

[Keith]

If you go back and read what Keith said, it was implied that marijuana was not a victimless crime because it impairs people's driving.

But it's not selling the drug that causes the victims, it's the people using it irresponsibly. If you want to argue marijuana should be illegal because someone could get hurt by using it irresponsibly, logically you'd have to also ban not just alcohol, but pretty much everything from power tools to food processors to cars for the same reason.

WHy don't you actually read what i said instead of trying to put a spin on it. Weed impairs your judgement , reaction speed so that if you smoke weed or have some alcohol your driving is impaired. If you have a crash as a result it may result in victims. All of my points were directed at Ong assertion that growing and selling cannabis was a victimless crime. I pointed out where that action of growing and selling cannabis could result in victims. In the uk drug driving is taken just as seriously by traffic police as drink driving and the cops now have a test for it.If the drugs weren't grown/sold originally , the purchasers wouldn't have caused those victims.

Everyone knows that they shouldn't drink and drive, even though alcohol is legal, not many realise that they shouldn't drive under the influence of drugs and thats where your logic falls down .People using power tools , food processors would typically be using them without their judgement being impaired through drink and/or drugs.

whats surprised me is that there's been no comments directed at the second part regarding supplying heroin because there's a demand , or keeping sex slaves to satisfy the demand for sex

[wufwugy]

It seems like, if we're going down this road, the system that makes the most sense is a correlation between dollars donated and votes allocated. Having it be binary, as you propose, gets the worst result as you both need a massive beurocracy to determine whether someone is net + or -, and you incentivize the gaming of the system where people gain full citizenship by paying a net $0.01 in taxes.

Also, I'm pretty sure I'm not in the top 2% of American earners, yet I think I pay net + in taxes. What am I missing? My paycheck has stuff taken out of it, and I typically get a very small tax return or owe a small amount (because lol@ loaning the government free monies.)

Good points. I meant that something along the liens of the top 2% "on average." Lots of middle class people (and even some poor) pay net taxes, but then there are lots in those income groups that get huge subsidies. It's also possible it was just in federal income tax. I saw the data a while back and don't remember the details much.

[wufwugy]

I'm curious why you don't like democracy. I'm no fan of what we call democracy, and it seems worse in the States than it does here in the UK, but at its roots democracy is surely the only civilised way to ensure the people accept the government.

What other options are there? What makes you think that the masses would accept a different system?

I don't know of any better system of determining government. I do, however, know of a better system at determining the makeup of society: less/no government.

[wufwugy]

I see a lot of students sanding the inside of a wall, is all I'm saying, and it's just them making busywork for no advantage

I'm very interested in some examples.

[wufwugy]

It's the idea that the slackers are somehow devaluing the keeners' hard work. In fact it's the opposite. The slackers are making the keeners look even better by comparison. They should be thanking the slackers, not trying to punish them.

Good point.

This is part of what I was getting at earlier when I said I'll never have an accurate understanding of reality; instead it matters what I believe. In your example, reality is one way, but how it affects one is dependent on their perspective.

[wufwugy]

The problem with a system of vigiliante justice is that everyone is deciding for themselves what the rules are and what the appropriate punishments are for breaking them. That's why people fear it, because some dick can decide you deserve to pay for something silly. And since he's rightly afraid of what might happen in such a situations, he's going to arm himself more strongly and take refuge in a gang for protection.

If you look at countries where effective government has broken down and anarchy runs rampant they're basically just dens of crime. Colombia in the time of Escobar (and probably to a similar extent today) is one example that springs to mind.

There is a third option: anarcho-capitalism. It's more or less about not creating monopolies and letting civilization form with the absence of the cultural sensibility that government is god.

[Poopadoop]

I did read what you said Keith and while I appreciated the point you're trying to make, I also wanted to point out what I thought was the flaw in one bit of your reasoning, specifically here:

If the drugs weren't grown/sold originally , the purchasers wouldn't have caused those victims.

If you're going to define a producer's responsibility for their product as being dependent on what the purchaser does with the product, selling anything can be argued to be potentially dangerous and to cause victims. By your logic, if I sell a steak knife to someone who then goes and stabs someone, I'm responsible for the victim of that crime because it wouldn't have happened if I hadn't sold him that steak knife. Never mind that I didn't tell him to do that with it, he did and so now it's my fault for facilitating his behavior. Similarly, if I sell a power tool to some fool who cuts his arm off with it, I'm responsible for that too cause he wouldn't have cut his arm off if i hadn't sold him the tool.

It's not Ong's fault if someone abuses what he's selling them or is ignorant of its effects. And if it is, it's equally the shopkeeper's fault for selling me wine if I go out and run someone over while pissed on it. Or the hardware store owner's fault for selling me the power saw, etc. etc.

[wufwugy]

I think you're being a little optimistic in suggesting that all of the good parts of human nature will somehow rise to the top if we just let everyone do what they want.

Any good that government does is also dependent on this. It happens to be a much less efficient way to get the good results.

[Poopadoop]

whats surprised me is that there's been no comments directed at the second part regarding supplying heroin because there's a demand , or keeping sex slaves to satisfy the demand for sex

I'd have to say selling heroin is a victimless crime too by my definition, whereas keeping sex slaves is not since the slaves themselves are people being directly harmed in the transaction.

[Poopadoop]

I'm very interested in some examples.

For my part, I would say it's not realising there's a diminishing return with increased effort, to the point where the effort would better be expended elsewhere.

Making sure every little thing is just right in an essay like there's not a single typo or the references are formatted perfectly, or putting pretty designs on the cover page. Memorizing a textbook word for word instead of just getting a solid grasp of the material. Shit like that.

In my view, the smartest ones are still diligent in their approach to their schoolwork, but they also understand what really matters and focus on getting that right. A lot of overachievers actually manage to be both diligent and attentive to irrelevant detail. They still get a top mark but it's kind of like 'fuck me, here's your 95, get a life'.

[Poopadoop]

Good point.

This is part of what I was getting at earlier when I said I'll never have an accurate understanding of reality; instead it matters what I believe. In your example, reality is one way, but how it affects one is dependent on their perspective.

Ya, everyone has a different perspective. Thinking anyone who sees things differently from you is wrong doesn't make you right, it just makes you closed-minded.

[wufwugy]

For my part, I would say it's not realising there's a diminishing return with increased effort, to the point where the effort would better be expended elsewhere.

Making sure every little thing is just right in an essay like there's not a single typo or the references are formatted perfectly, or putting pretty designs on the cover page. Memorizing a textbook word for word instead of just getting a solid grasp of the material. Shit like that.

In my view, the smartest ones are still diligent in their approach to their schoolwork, but they also understand what really matters and focus on getting that right. A lot of overachievers actually manage to be both diligent and attentive to irrelevant detail. They still get a top mark but it's kind of like 'fuck me, here's your 95, get a life'.

Interesting. I tend to do the really nitty things you describe, and here's my explanation for why: I hate being graded down. It just feels bad. Like real bad. A 100 on an essay can make my day and a 92 will have me agitated for a while and questioning the Professor's understanding of how to teach/grade.

[wufwugy]

Don't get me started on the education system. Subsidies are ruining it. Even though I'm not a fan of the Prussian system ethos, it tends to work reasonably well, yet the mass subsidies are approximating it to a joke.

[wufwugy]

Right on schedule, the media-politician complex polls are showing Clinton with an enormous lead coming out of the debate.

[Poopadoop]

Interesting. I tend to do the really nitty things you describe, and here's my explanation for why: I hate being graded down. It just feels bad. Like real bad. A 100 on an essay can make my day and a 92 will have me agitated for a while and questioning the Professor's understanding of how to teach/grade.

Well I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that, but it's not like it sways me one way or the other if I see a typo. That said, different markers are sensitive to different things and some of the stuff that makes me see red doesn't seem to bother others and vice-versa. I can imagine there being someone out there who sees a reference formatted wrong and thinks 'minus 5 for that'. But I think (hope) they're pretty rare, cause honestly, what does it have to do with how strong your paper is?

[OngBonga]

really? do you pay for all the electric your canabis enterprise would/does consume or do you follow the lead of the majority of cannabis farms who bypass the meter and steal the electric. The stolen electric cost is passed onto the rest of the electricity companies customers in a higher tariff making us all victims.
Secondly , when one of your customers gets in his car having smoked some of your product and loses control and crashes, anyone injured also becomes a victim.


where do you draw the line ?weed is illegal and selling it it is illegal.you are happy to flout the law there
how about heroin , same thing are you happy to sell that as well?
how about sex slaves , you happy to supply to that demand as well with the slaves just victims of the condom makers

ugh do you really have to press that button.

When I have grown... yes I paid for my electricty. Stolen electric is not my concern. I am not a thief, I acknowledge theft is wrong, and I acknowledge stealing electricty is theft. Merely thinking this is an issue is stupid. Yes, some people steal leccy to pay for their grow. Some people also steal cheese from Tesco. That also has nothing to do with me, even though I too eat cheese. For fuck's sake.

Secondly , when one of your customers...

...does whatever, it is not my responsibility, just as it is not the responsibility of Fosters when someone drinks their piss and then drives into a bus stop. The crash vitcim is indeed a victim... but of the individual's poor judgement and reckless behaviour. Are those who have died to drink drivers victims of alcohol, or victims of the driver? You're passing the buck here. If you apply this to weed, then so too must you do for alcohol. While being stoned is obviously not optimal driving mental condition, it's nowhere near the same league as drink driving in terms of lack of judgement and recklessness, reaction times etc.

where do you draw the line ?

Weed. That's where I draw the line. I'm totally in favour of decriminalising all drugs, but I would only ever get involved with weed, because I'm not stupid and understand that it is less harmful than the two dangerous and destructive drugs that we can buy from Tesco.

I have no interest in the sex slave, why is that relevant to your argument?

[OngBonga]

I like how I gave ong the official figures and he proceeded to make up his own ones in his later posts.

You did? I got my figures from wikipedia.