Corporation Socialism

[Age]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christmas- ... magdeburg/

they are spreading Muhammed's love to a neighborhood near you soon

-Imp

Well, ya know, it's news across the world if a Muslim in Europe kills or injures multiple innocent civilians. In the USA, very few of the mass murderers, despite their best efforts, make the national headlines. There's just too much competition:

(BBC etc MSM never report their ethnicity when a violent crime is committed by them --- even if they bother to report it at all..that's Y you have to watch actual unbiased reporting news media - courtesy of internet)

Will, Y attempt to equate USA typical gun crime with that of the influx of an ideology (due to open borders) where STABBINGS and RAPE are now rampant within Western """CIVILISED""" society - this influx of 'asylum' seekers ...hold (little to none) of our ethical values ...our societal values are being eroded by OTHER "cultures".



OI! Dont argue against such RATIONAL LOGIC - you will be a RACISTS FFS..

The "british", and their religion, race, and culture have probably MURDERED WAY MORE 'people', and committed FAR MORE violent crimes, around the world when they were INVADING and 'immigrating' to other places, than anyone else every has, and LOL that was in days when the number of people on earth was probably not even a 10th of what it is 'now', when this is being written.

That the "british" and those from "united states" are being PUT in THEIR PLACE is ABOUT TIME, and WELL OVER DUE.

[Will Bouwman]

What counts as "counts". If Alice and Charlie vote for x, and Bob votes for y, does Bob's vote 'count'?

Let's put it more globally: in any democratic system, what "counts" as a vote? What do you think the answer is?

I vote we start with the simple question I asked. Does my vote not count?

[Impenitent]

it is never the vote

it is always the counter

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

What counts as "counts". If Alice and Charlie vote for x, and Bob votes for y, does Bob's vote 'count'?

Let's put it more globally: in any democratic system, what "counts" as a vote? What do you think the answer is?

I vote we start with the simple question I asked. Does my vote not count?

Do you mean "counts democratically"? Then you should say what you understand by "democratically counting." Nobody can read your mind, so nobody can be sure what you're actually asking.

[Will Bouwman]

Let's put it more globally: in any democratic system, what "counts" as a vote? What do you think the answer is?

I vote we start with the simple question I asked. Does my vote not count?

Do you mean "counts democratically"? Then you should say what you understand by "democratically counting." Nobody can read your mind, so nobody can be sure what you're actually asking.

It is your own mind you need to read. The question is not complicated:

If Alice and Charlie vote for x, and Bob votes for y, does Bob's vote 'count'?

It's a simple yes or no. You can qualify your answer as you see fit.

[Immanuel Can]

I vote we start with the simple question I asked. Does my vote not count?

Do you mean "counts democratically"? Then you should say what you understand by "democratically counting." Nobody can read your mind, so nobody can be sure what you're actually asking.

It is your own mind you need to read. The question is not complicated:

If Alice and Charlie vote for x, and Bob votes for y, does Bob's vote 'count'?

It's a simple yes or no. You can qualify your answer as you see fit.

What do you consider a "democratic vote that counts." That's the question. You won't answer it, because you can't do so without answering your own question for yourself.

[Will Bouwman]

If Alice and Charlie vote for x, and Bob votes for y, does Bob's vote 'count'?

It's a simple yes or no. You can qualify your answer as you see fit.

What do you consider a "democratic vote that counts." That's the question. You won't answer it, because you can't do so without answering your own question for yourself.

As I said, it's a simple yes or no.
Yes, because Bob's vote was worth exactly the same as Alice's and Charlie's.
No, because his vote made no difference to the result.
My own view is yes, for the reason given. I understand that you think no, from what you say here:

Bob has to be capable of a vote that counts, in the case of the people making decisions about his life. If he's not able to have any say about what happens to him, then no political arrangement is "democratic," by definition. It's autocratic or even totalitarian.

Do I understand you correctly?

[Immanuel Can]

It's a simple yes or no. You can qualify your answer as you see fit.

What do you consider a "democratic vote that counts." That's the question. You won't answer it, because you can't do so without answering your own question for yourself.

As I said, it's a simple yes or no.

I'll answer as soon as you answer my question, and I'll say "yes" or "no." But until you tell me what your conception of demcratic "counting" is, it's not even possible for anybody to know what you mean by your question.

And once you answer that question, you won't even need to ask.

[Will Bouwman]

Perhaps you missed this:

Yes, because Bob's vote was worth exactly the same as Alice's and Charlie's.
No, because his vote made no difference to the result.
My own view is yes, for the reason given.

It seems to me that you believe for a system to be democratic, everyone has to get their way, or their vote didn't count. If that is not your position, it shouldn't trouble you to disabuse me.

[Immanuel Can]

It seems to me that you believe for a system to be democratic, everyone has to get their way, or their vote didn't count. If that is not your position, it shouldn't trouble you to disabuse me.

Well, then, no system is ever democratic, obviously. Because there has never been a system in the world that meets your definition of "democratic."

So the system you're talking about is one in which votes are used, but is not (by Bowmanly definition) democratic?

However, I must take issue with your definition of "democratic." I think it's sufficient for everybody to get the opportunity to influence the outcome by way of their vote, whether they get their candidate in or not. Indeed, a basic supposition of democratic systems is that some people WILL NOT get their candidate in, but their voice will still be heard through the official opposition, and through the fact that their vote was not cast for the incumbent party...and to the extent that many votes were not, the incumbent's mandate also remains limited and checked thereby. A party with a narrow democratic mandate has less latitude to act, and less public legitimacy, than one that achieved a large number of votes. That's how democratic voting works, in all cases.

Furthermore, in a democratic polity, people have additional freedoms...to speak their minds, to influence other voters, to rally the public, to elicit the media, to petition the legal system for redress, to wait for term limits to expire, and if all else fails, to run for office against those they oppose. All these are additional democratic measures afforded within a democratic system.

And that's what every democratic system in history has also taken to be the case, so I think I'm on pretty good footing there.

But I can't even imagine how your definition of "democratic" would be expected to work: it would require that the people have no vote but for one thing...and that, by definition, would not be democratic, unless they all did so voluntarily and without exception. And where does that ever happen?

[Will Bouwman]

It seems to me that you believe for a system to be democratic, everyone has to get their way, or their vote didn't count. If that is not your position, it shouldn't trouble you to disabuse me.

Well, then, no system is ever democratic, obviously. Because there has never been a system in the world that meets your definition of "democratic."

Is there something wrong with your device? It is now twice that this hasn't registered:

Yes, because Bob's vote was worth exactly the same as Alice's and Charlie's.
No, because his vote made no difference to the result.
My own view is yes, for the reason given.

[Immanuel Can]

It seems to me that you believe for a system to be democratic, everyone has to get their way, or their vote didn't count. If that is not your position, it shouldn't trouble you to disabuse me.

Well, then, no system is ever democratic, obviously. Because there has never been a system in the world that meets your definition of "democratic."

Is there something wrong with your device? It is now twice that this hasn't registered:

Yes, because Bob's vote was worth exactly the same as Alice's and Charlie's.
No, because his vote made no difference to the result.
My own view is yes, for the reason given.

Which one is your view? Is it the one you falsely tried to attribute to me, or the one you tried to express below? It's so hard to see what you're committed to...it's like nailing Jell-o to a wall.

You have my own answer. It was what you asked for.

[Will Bouwman]

Well, then, no system is ever democratic, obviously. Because there has never been a system in the world that meets your definition of "democratic."

Is there something wrong with your device? It is now twice that this hasn't registered:

Yes, because Bob's vote was worth exactly the same as Alice's and Charlie's.
No, because his vote made no difference to the result.
My own view is yes, for the reason given.

Which one is your view? Is it the one you falsely tried to attribute to me, or the one you tried to express below? It's so hard to see what you're committed to...it's like nailing Jell-o to a wall.

I have told you bluntly:

My own view is yes, for the reason given.

If you can't understand that, it is little wonder you struggled to appreciate precisely what my position is from my saying this:

At a general election, Bob has the opportunity to vote for a candidate for member of parliament for his constituency. His preferred candidate may or may not win. Even if his choice of candidate does win, the party he or she is a member of may not win a majority and Bob ends up with a ruling party he did not want. Like it or not, Bob has been part of a democratic process that has elected a Prime Minister...

As for trying to falsely attribute a view to you, that too appears to be a failure of comprehension. You said this:

Bob has to be capable of a vote that counts, in the case of the people making decisions about his life. If he's not able to have any say about what happens to him, then no political arrangement is "democratic," by definition. It's autocratic or even totalitarian.

In response to which, I asked for clarification.

You have my own answer. It was what you asked for.

As I understand, we both agree that Bob's vote did count, even though he didn't get his way.

[mickthinks]

It's so hard to see what you're committed to…

It’s not hard at all. You are just trying to blame Will for your own failure to cooperate in the conversation.

...i t's like nailing Jell-o to a wall.
lol Project much?

[Immanuel Can]

As I understand, we both agree that Bob's vote did count, even though he didn't get his way.

Of course. But the key issue is surely not whether or not that vote was part of the winning side, but whether Bob's been given any vote that could even potentially be on the winning side, ever. And, of course, Bob has none of the other democratic recourses I mentioned, in the case of the EU Commission.

So what's your point?