Nevertheless, from what I've read on selectorate theory, the people tend to do best in democracies. Democracies require sufficient supporting institutions (checks on power and whatever) though.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems considerably more plausible that the purpose of elections is to select a representative. — Isaac

In American elections, we vote for representatives but also many propositions and such. In any case, it seems to me that making a decision about who represents my interests is an act of will.

Why would it need to be a 'great sin' to warrant a counter argument. — Isaac

I was referring to your rhetorical question about the potential consequences of the absence of your vote. Sorry I mentioned it though, be as dramatic as you want.

Talk of one risking the very existence of democracy strikes me as the more 'dramatic' stance. — Isaac

If you're saying that I've expressed such talk would you mind pointing it out?

I think the purpose of an election is essentially to express the will of the community. Abstainers are part of the community but fail to express their will via voting and therefore the election is less successful.

A hair drier can still function, for example, with many failed parts but its performance will suffer.

Your drama is unwarranted because no one has claimed, as far as I've seen, that abstaining from an election is any great sin.

The election that you neglect in situation 2 lacks a vote, obviously. Elections require votes in order to fulfill their purpose.

Sorry for the pain this simplicity must be causing you, btw.

I choose not to subject you or myself to further tedium or torturous simplicity, Isaac.

So, if you believe voting is a duty, explain why.
Because I value or benefit from democracy, does that mean I have a duty to vote? — Yohan

I wouldn’t describe it as a duty but rather an acceptance of responsibility. Selfishly failing to contribute to a cooperative effort is freeloading. Neglecting an election is a minor instance of freeloading, in my opinion. It seems to me that it’s most inline with the spirit of a “free country” to take responsibility rather than it being dictated to you. This is what I find curious about the libertarian. They should be the first in line to take responsibility, assuming they actually value freedom.

If you were a figment of my imagination I would know more about you then you do. Do you think that I know more about you then you do? I don’t know the color of the shirt you’re currently wearing, assuming you’re wearing one. You most likely do.

They are representations. My mind models a representation of you, for instance.

Idealism and solipsism are derived from the simple fact that a world external to mind or self respectively can't be known to exist. As you can see, these philosophical stances are predicated on possibility (metaphysics) and agnoiological (epistemological) concerns. — Agent Smith

Prove it.

I'm having trouble following you. I'd rather not repeat myself, actually.

Now I can only speculate that your interest is about freeloading, what moral sense it may be based on or something. I can only guess at this point. Oops, just repeated myself again.

Having just taken a peek, the turnout rate has been around 90% for the last few years in Australia, if I looked at it right and not too briefly. Hugely better than US elections. The quality of US voters is also rather poor considering the recent decisions we’ve made.

If you live in a democracy, benefit from and value that democracy, and you're able to participate in the voting process without an unreasonable burden but choose not to, then in my opinion you're freeloading to some degree. One ought not to freeload.

I haven't made that assumption. I don't even know if you live in a democracy, though I think you live in the UK. Do you live in a democracy? and if so, do you value and benefit from living in that democracy?

Even though an individual is able and has the time they choose not to participate in a cooperative group effort that they value and benefit from.

Definition of freeload
intransitive verb
: to impose upon another's generosity or hospitality without sharing in the cost or responsibility involved

Again, my essential argument is that we generally don’t neglect what we value. If we value life, for instance, then we ought to not neglect it. If we are indifferent to life then there would be no basis or inclination for neglect or support. If we hate life then we ought to neglect or destroy it.

If an individual doesn't value their society and feels that it doesn't benefit them in any way then they may justifiably feel no responsibility to support it. If they benefit but choose not to support then they're basically a freeloader, a parasite to some small or large degree.

The point is simply that you value your local fire service but you do not take part in it. You're glad it's there, but you don't feel the need to train as a fireman and join in. — Isaac

I wanted to be a fireman when I was a kid, if that counts.

But seriously, if fire service was structured more like democratic elections where there was an expectation of public participation, something like all able adults in a particular age range train and make themselves able to serve for brief periods or whatever, then the curtain of responsibility would fall over a wider swath of the community and not just career firefighters. If it were not compulsory or incentivized in some way, the decision to serve or not would express one’s values… though not necessarily the value of fire service in this particular case because an individual may actually want the town they live in to burn. On the other hand, if that were the case the fire station may also burn.

Idealism: Other minds exist! — Agent Smith

Prove it.

Solipsism: Other minds don't exist! — Agent Smith

Prove it.

Do you value your fire service?

Do you take part in your fire service? — Isaac

If your point is that voters should require qualification in order to vote, that’s beside the point. Though if that’s at all a viable idea it expresses a concern for democracy in that there’s the intent to improve it.

So your argument is that because some things require involvement, democracy does? — Isaac

Not at all. My argument is essentially that we generally don’t neglect what we value. Of course we may take things for granted, not consciously realizing how much we value something until neglect reaches a point of crises. If we don’t value something, like democracy or the fruitcake that you were gifted five years ago but remains in your pantry, then it’s hardly neglectful to let it rot.

I can't see why this is at all controversial. One need not participate in everything one values. That seems pretty straightforward. — Isaac

One need not participate in their childs upbringing, particularly if there are no laws restricking irresponsible neglect of that kind.

If a libertarian truely values freedom they will take responsibility themselves, otherwise they prove themselves to be paracites.

Would you accuse those who don't vote (assuming they could get away with not voting) as opposing democracy? — Yohan

I question how much democracy is valued by someone who argues against participation in democracy, simply. I assume that a pseudo-democracy may be valued by the ruling class and should probably not be valued by the ruled, but they may value it even if it doesn’t serve them well, due to ignorance.

On a related note, Trump appears to be intent on weakening the institutions that support American democracy, given the chance. Clearly he would love a pseudo-democracy and his ignorant base would love to hand it to him on a silver plate.

I’m grasping for an answer. How can someone who is not against democracy honestly argue against participation in democracy?

I do understand that this may be a difficult question for you so please, if it’s too much just ignore or blow past it once more.

No. — NOS4A2

You're not against democracy but you argue against participation in democracy. Are you sure that you're not a Russian troll? I know that I've asked you that before.

We were talking about not voting and you said it was an irresponsible political position. Why? — NOS4A2

Now that I put more thought into it, about three minutes, it occurs to me that I may consider it responsible if the non-voter is against democracy. Are you against democracy? If so, what would be a better option?

What does that even mean?

Your endless support of a politician, namely Trump, belies the sentiments expressed in the OP. Apparently, you enjoy the thought of having you neck under his boot golf shoe.

I’d just like to understand the disagreement, but I suppose it’s too much of a bother and that’s :ok:

What can I say, irresponsibility rubs me the wrong way.

Both Xtrix and I are trying to figure out your objection and he gets the okay sign and I get a show of contempt. That’s not fair. :sad:

After your endless displays of Trump boot-licking you would have us believe that you’re some sort of anarchist? I suppose it’s good that you recognize your lack of responsibility though, very Trumpian.

So formulating goals and making plans to achieve those goals -- A and B -- are important. How often do they lead to real action -- which is what I emphasize? I'd say it depends on how hard B is. Take losing weight. Plenty of diet plans one can follow, and most will give results -- *IF* one follows them. The fact that some people don't follow the plan doesn't necessarily invalidate the plan itself, right? — Xtrix

I think if a plan isn't followed or is ineffective it indicates that there's a problem with A and/or B. If a plan isn't followed it suggests that there may be an issue with motivation or with correctly evaluating desires. Perhaps the pleasure of eating outweighs the desire to weigh less and improve health. In any case, I would say that A is far more challenging than B. For one thing, we live with so many false assumptions. I have a recent personal example.

Getting older, I've been experiencing in the last few years what are generally considered age-related health issues. Chronic inflammation, with soreness, aches and pains after vigorous activity, arthritis in fingers, increasing eczema, pre-diabetes, and brainfog. This with a lifelong "healthy diet", plenty of exercise, and I've never been overweight. All that changed within a month of being on what is actually a healthy diet, or rather, a diet that our species is adapted to, a diet that is low in lectins.

I know that I'll never willingly go off this diet because the cost of doing so is too high. Also, because of the nature of the diet, I don't crave unhealthy foods and don't get hungry like I used to.

I like to think that if I knew what I know now that I would have eaten better in the past, but not having experienced the cost of a "healthy diet", I doubt that I would have changed.

So false assumptions and motivation play a significant role, I would say.

From my brief review of it this morning, the problem of criterion seems to center on an impossibility of validation.

Assumption: I'm too stupid to be an advanced chess player.

Result of assumption: I never develop to be an advanced chess player.

ABC Framework to the rescue!

Application of A: Hmm, maybe, just maybe, I'm not to dumb to be an advanced chess player. A stupid computer can be advanced, after all.

If B is sound then C validates A and advanced chess playing could not have been achieved without A.

C is part and parcel of the framework and I don't see how it could reasonably be considered external.

There is no plan, no need for a plan. Make an improvement, then see where you are, and then go again. — Srap Tasmaner

How is the plan of making an improvement, reviewing the results, and then adjusting based on the results, not a plan?

If I wanted to improve my chess game I have a pretty good idea of how to go about it and I could develop a plan to do so. An important part of that plan would include coaching from an advanced player. They could offer feedback about my performance that I may not be able to notice myself, my being an intermediate player.

They say that chess is largely about pattern recognition so one of the best ways to improve is to study master games. Simply playing chess in order to improve would actually be a bad or slow plan for improvement.

So there are good plans and bad plans, and also the question of if we want to improve or want to enough to invest the effort. Personally, I would like to improve my chess game but I'm not willing to invest the effort, I have other priorities.

I am not accusing you of being a capitalist. — unenlightened

He said the topic has nothing to do with capitalism, not that you were accusing him of being a capitalist.

Nevertheless, your psychology as described is highly individualist as distinct from social in emphasis... — unenlightened

Second to last paragraph of the OP:

After a lot of talk on the Forum about politics, climate change, capitalism, unions, collective action, etc., I find that so many of our problems are largely due to the fact that public pressure isn't there to change them. There's a multitude of reasons -- we're polarized, heavily propagandized, poorly educated, misinformed, warped by media, etc. But whatever the reason, in order to change this scenario we need to change ourselves and how we relate to others. — Xtrix

Hmm :chin: , sounds rather socially oriented to me.

... materiallist [sic]... — unenlightened

How so?

... pragmatic... — unenlightened

Good to see that you haven't missed that at least.

... entirely directed to an endless succession of wants and needs... — unenlightened

Clearly false so no need to bother trying to explain.

Bateson — unenlightened

Otrix's framework isn't the least bit opposed to a holistic look, as far as I can tell, and has nothing to do with technology.

It's funny, incidentally, that Bateson took a fancy to Buddhism in his later years, being that it's a belief system that only allows art that is supportive of its rigid structure and social hierarchy, and which is therefore lacking an avenue to self-correction. It's also prone to the abuses of an imbalance of power as any other social hierarchy, more so in that it's based on faith rather than reason.

So the question remains, is refusing to vote a viable political position? — NOS4A2

It’s an irresponsible political position, or in a word: libertarian.

I don’t understand your criticism. If I’m following it right, in Xtrix’s framework A & B are validated by C. If C (practice) is ineffective then something must be amiss in A and/or B.

Both Buddhism and stoicism have the same basic framework and are goal based. Buddhisms goal is the cessation of suffering and eudaimonia is the goal of stoicism.

I was hoping to one day see Jack’s artworks. Now it shall never be.

Remember when Trump promised to build a wall on the southern border and make Mexico pay for it?

Biden secures deal whereby Mexico agrees to provide $1.5 billion to help U.S. manage migrants on southern border

I mean, we can imagine consciousness without reason, so why not reasoning without consciousness? — Gregory

Don’t we already have this with computers? The device that I’m using to send this message can easily beat me in chess, for instance, and its not conscious.

“I believe consciousness is simply what it feels like to have a neocortex.”

― Jeff Hawkins