It's going to take more than voting [LWN.net]

It's going to take more than voting

Posted Feb 9, 2011 4:21 UTC (Wed) by drag (guest, #31333)
In reply to: It's going to take more than voting by nybble41
Parent article: Moglen on Freedom Box and making a free net

Democracy, they way it defined in a modern sense, is worthless at protecting freedom. Anybody who thinks otherwise is completely deluding themselves. The ability to vote is no guarantee or protector. Public opinion is far too easily manipulated. The politicians and major corporations are now far far far more sophisticated in their ability to manipulate then they ever were in the past.

True freedom for society at large will be realised when things like governments, laws, and taxes are voluntary. True democratic government means you, personally, choose. Not the majority, not your grandfathers, or founding fathers, or anybody else... But YOU. YOUR CHOICE. Your choice to belong, to pay your dues, to obey their laws or to just drop out completely and move some place else that has something more of your liking. THAT is true Democracy.

The reality, though, is that freedom is still to far of a radical concept for most people to accept in its entirety. People prefer to be ordered about by threat of the gun rather then depend on themselves and others in a society without strict controls. Other human beings being able to exist without external controls are far too frightening of a concept.

The internet is a good at helping progress, however. Human beings are now, for the first time in history, to be able to freely and cheaply communicate with one another without government intervention and censorship. Information and knowledge is becoming free. Educated populations are much more difficult to control. Knowledge and educational opportunities previously only accessible for only the richest people in the richest nations are becoming within reach of the rural poor of the world.

People will begin to realise that the governments and major corporations depend on them for existence. They will begin to understand that the ruler's goals are not to benefit individuals in society, but are primarily designed protect and benefit the people in power. They may even figure out that major international corporations can only exist because of government controls and regulations of the markets, not in spite of them.

Or maybe they won't. Hell if I know. Either way it's not going to happen in my lifetime.

to post comments

It's going to take more than voting

Posted Feb 9, 2011 8:30 UTC (Wed) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link] (15 responses)

True freedom for society at large will be realised when things like governments, laws, and taxes are voluntary. True democratic government means you, personally, choose. Not the majority, not your grandfathers, or founding fathers, or anybody else... But YOU. YOUR CHOICE. Your choice to belong, to pay your dues, to obey their laws or to just drop out completely and move some place else that has something more of your liking. THAT is true Democracy.

There is nothing preventing you from picking up your belongings and moving to some other country more to your liking. I think the problem is you don't actually like the other places any better than where you are now. So you already have the above situation, except you don't like the choices presented to you.

Also, find the use of the phrase "freedom for society at large" useless since it's completely vague what you mean by that. Governments by and large are accepted by people because they solve actual problems. Infrastructure simply doesn't get built out of the goodness of people hearts. Taxation is actually an extremely efficient way of paying for the million and one things the government does. If everything had to be individually calculated for each person, no actual work would ever get done.

Also, as pointed out elsewhere, this is an extremely American oriented view. ISTM the corporations are screwing you over far harder than the government ever will.

It's going to take more than voting

Posted Feb 9, 2011 9:29 UTC (Wed) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] (1 responses)

There is nothing preventing you from picking up your belongings and moving to some other country more to your liking.

Apart from the fact that most countries have immigration controls.

It's going to take more than voting

Posted Feb 9, 2011 18:57 UTC (Wed) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]

Not to mention that your belongings may include such items as land, a home, etc., which are kind of hard to pick up and take to another country.

Even so, it might be worthwhile *if* there was a place one could move to where your natural private property rights would actually be respected. Unfortunately, governments (even ones with a history of "freedom") have an even worse track-record regarding rights outside their borders than they have inside. Basically, if moving outside the country would solve the problem you probably wouldn't have to move in the first place, as your liberty would already be assured right where you are.

It's going to take more than voting

Posted Feb 9, 2011 21:35 UTC (Wed) by ofeeley (guest, #36105) [Link]

QUOTE: "ISTM the corporations are screwing you over far harder than the government ever will."

The corporations _use_ the governments to screw us over.

It's going to take more than voting

Posted Feb 10, 2011 0:47 UTC (Thu) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] (11 responses)

> There is nothing preventing you from picking up your belongings and moving to some other country more to your liking.

Hmm, some people would like to live by their own rules on their land. If the country doesn't like it, why doesn't the country pick up and move to land it actually owns (and did not steal from someone else) or where the country is more to people's liking?

If a person (instead of a group of people) were doing the bullying, would your first suggestion be that the victim pick up and leave? I would think that maybe you would feel for them and try to change the situation for them? Maybe you would deride the bully and even stand up for the victim? It sounds like you believe people should be happy with being bullied and never wish for a better environment, and if they do, that they are ungrateful.

> Governments by and large are accepted by people because they solve actual problems.

That is one possibility, I can think of many other possibilities. Perhaps it is habit, perhaps it is lack of imagination, perhaps it is acceptance of the status quo. Perhaps they are not accepted but are simply too strong to beat. Perhaps it is like evolution, survival of the fittest, the strong just get stronger and dominate the weak. I think both of us are just guessing.

> Infrastructure simply doesn't get built out of the goodness of people hearts.

Ironic that you should feel that way on a site for free software. :)

Surely, there are more than 2 ways of this being accomplished, no?
a) goodness of heart
b) theft
c)...

> Taxation is actually an extremely efficient way of paying for the million and one things the government does.

Yes, theft if very efficient. Hardly ethical though.

Not to mention that a large portion of those million and one things includes many things I wish they never did... fighting wars, enforcing horrible laws: copyright and patents..., creating/upholding monopolies, imprisoning people unjustly, supporting foreign dictators, being the largest polluters... I suspect that you would disapprove of some of them too.

Sadly many of those things tend to be the most expensive too. Eliminate them and perhaps one of the many less efficient ways than theft could fund the remaining ones we care about?

> ISTM the corporations are screwing you over far harder than the government ever will.

Funny, I can't think of anything else put together, corporations, sleezy salesmen, thieves, foreign dictators... that steal 30% of my income yearly.

Lots of people are evil, yes. But your claim is bold. What is your rationale? What is your evidence for this claim?

It's going to take more than voting

Posted Feb 10, 2011 8:32 UTC (Thu) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link] (2 responses)

Hmm, some people would like to live by their own rules on their land. If the country doesn't like it, why doesn't the country pick up and move to land it actually owns (and did not steal from someone else) or where the country is more to people's liking?

Your problem here is that you're seeing the country separately from the people living in it. It's not, you can't move a country without moving the people in it. So the choice becomes you moving or everybody else (who have just as many rights as you) moving. The choice seems pretty clear, don't you think?

Infrastructure simply doesn't get built out of the goodness of people hearts.
Ironic that you should feel that way on a site for free software. :)

The total value of all free software is peanuts compared to other infrastructure. For example: Total estimated value of software in Debian: $1.8B, Total cost of US highway system $425B. Which is but a tiny portion of the costs of all the infrastructure in America. Building software is also a somewhat different proposition to building roads.

Taxation is actually an extremely efficient way of paying for the million and one things the government does.
Yes, theft if [sic] very efficient. Hardly ethical though.

I'll think we'll have to disagree on that. Theft implies you get nothing in return, which is clearly not the case. Also, I said efficient. If you were sent an individual bill for every service the government provided, you'd spend your entire day paying them (or not) rather than doing any work. The only people happy would be the mailmen and the people visiting about unpaid bills. When you're talking about a system of hundreds of millions of people efficiency becomes extremely important.

Not to mention that a large portion of those million and one things includes many things I wish they never did... fighting wars, enforcing horrible laws: copyright and patents..., creating/upholding monopolies, imprisoning people unjustly, supporting foreign dictators, being the largest polluters... I suspect that you would disapprove of some of them too.

That, however, is a particularly American problem. That the US government is fairly broken is well known. It doesn't appear anyone is doing anything about it though. I just disagree that what you're proposing is the only alternative. There are plenty of governments that function better. There are none (AFAIK) that function like you appear to want it too, which indicates to me it's not practical in some way.

ISTM the corporations are screwing you over far harder than the government ever will.
Funny, I can't think of anything else put together, corporations, sleezy salesmen, thieves, foreign dictators... that steal 30% of my income yearly.

That 30% was agreed upon by your elected representatives. Clearly people think its important. (Also, given the budget deficit it doesn't appear to be enough).

The other 70% of your income is being spent on other stuff. Paying tax is just money, which you barely miss. Other than that, you barely interact with the government on a day-to-day basis. Businesses can screw you on a day to day basis. Overpriced crappy broadband. Providing loans to people they know they cannot pay. While a government in theory could screw you over, they're far to busy doing other things. There are more important things in the world than money.

It's going to take more than voting

Posted Feb 10, 2011 17:55 UTC (Thu) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]

> Your problem here is that you're seeing the country separately from the people living in it.

Actually, in this case "the country" refers to the government, not the people living under its thumb. The people can stay; *they* aren't the ones acting aggressively. If the government stops violating others' natural rights, i.e. effectively stops being a government at all, it is welcome to stay as well.

> So the choice becomes you moving or everybody else (who have just as many rights as you) moving.

False dichotomy. No one needs to move. All that is required is that everyone respect their neighbors' natural rights.

> Theft implies you get nothing in return, which is clearly not the case.

False. Theft is when someone deprives you of your property without your permission. It makes no difference whether they leave something in return--something, moreover, which you clearly value less than what was taken, since they resorted to theft rather than a mutually-voluntary exchange.

> That, however, is a particularly American problem. That the US government is fairly broken is well known.

The problems listed are common to all governments, not just the USA. Aggression and corruption are in their nature. Without aggression they wouldn't *be* governments, and the power to get away with "legitimate" aggression invites corruption on a grand scale. Some are certainly less corrupt or intrusive than others, but that isn't much to boast about.

> There are plenty of governments that function better. There are none (AFAIK) that function like you appear to want it too, which indicates to me it's not practical in some way.

It's more than impractical; it would be a contradiction. An organization which respected others' natural rights and did not practice aggression could not reasonably be called a government at all. It is the institution itself which is flawed, not any particular implementation.

It's going to take more than voting

Posted Feb 10, 2011 18:33 UTC (Thu) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]

> So the choice becomes you moving or everybody else (who have just as many rights as you) moving.

No, they do not have any rights over any land they don't own. Any claim that they do is illegitimate. A country is an abstract thing, it can move anytime the people controlling it want it to. And it does, it's usually called invasion or annexing. But, of course, it could move the other way too, but I forgive you for overlooking that since there is very little precedent in history for it. At any point, it could agree to stop exerting force over any place that it currently does. I am not asking anyone else to move (that is your suggestion), I am asking the country to move, to stop exerting force over any land which is owned by someone else.

>>> Infrastructure simply doesn't get built out of the goodness of people hearts.

>> Ironic that you should feel that way on a site for free software. :)

> The total value of all free software is peanuts compared to other infrastructure. For example: Total estimated value of software in Debian: $1.8B.

$1.8B? The linux kernel itself is likely worth close to that.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/24/linux_kernel_rand...

> I'll think we'll have to disagree on that. Theft implies you get nothing in return, which is clearly not the case.

From websters, theft:

"a: the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property"

Do you think that someone should be able to break into your house and take what they want? Do you think that if they decided to leave something behind as compensation, without agreeing with you what it is, that it would suddenly make it not theft?

> If you were sent an individual bill for every service the government provided, you'd spend your entire day paying them (or not) rather than doing any work.

I never was suggesting sending a bill for services that people did not request, you are. Being asked to pay for services you didn't request is called extortion, it is what the mafia does.

>> ...list of evil government undertakings...
> That, however, is a particularly American problem. That the US government is fairly broken is well known.

Say what? Everything that I mention is/was done by almost every nation's government in the world. Of course, it is broken, but it by no means is an American problem. Every organization which rules people by force is "broken".

> That 30% was agreed upon by your elected representatives.

Who the hell cares, I didn't agree to it. If the mafia bosses agree to extort you, does it make it OK? Under what weird (but obviously common logic) does an act become ethical simply because others agreed to it?

> The other 70% of your income is being spent on other stuff. Paying tax is just money, which you barely miss.

Believe me, I miss it. Your condoning of theft is abhorrent.

Not to mention that the simple 30% number was the real obvious IRS tax, but that every other bit of that 70% is likely taxed 10-100 times before I get any products out of it.

> Other than that, you barely interact with the government on a day-to-day basis.

Again, just because the mafia has such a tight control over the neighborhood, that people don't have to deal with them much (only when they pickup their extortion checks, or when they tell people to stay out of certain businesses) doesn't mean they aren't screwing people constantly. Just because most people learn to live with the problem and ignore it (they are sane, they realize it is not going away soon) doesn't mean it isn't there.

I suspect that people tend to get most angry at the problems they know that they could have avoided if they really cared. The bad deals you talk about below, that they could have been smarter about and simply not taken. On the other hand, the bad deals which they have lived under since birth, they are harder to acknowledge. Doing so is painful, and would likely lead to the realization that they might have to deal with them forever, and yet they did nothing to choose them.

> Businesses can screw you on a day to day basis. Overpriced crappy broadband. Providing loans to people they know they cannot pay.

No, sorry those are simply bad deals. People can choose to avoid them. Those are not criminal activities. The ones which are, of course, are the ones which are mandated by government, the ones people cannot avoid.

But, if you do the math and pretend that 30% is all I ever pay in taxes. For all the rest of the lot who get my 70%, to screw me over more than the government, they would have to screw me of more than %30 of my income, that would mean 30 out of 70, that's 42%. I can guarantee you that I do not pay more 42% than I am willing to on everything that I pay for, I am simply too cheap. Oh, believe me, there are plenty of people willing to take my money if I am not thrifty. It's just that I am not in a habit of entering voluntarily into horrible deals, but the government takes it, involuntarily, even when I am thrifty.

> While a government in theory could screw you over, they're far to busy doing other things. There are more important things in the world than money.

Of course, there are more important things than money. I listed plenty of very important evil, non monetary crimes, and governments have a pretty good monopoly on those violent/extortive things in most parts of the world. The list of things that corporations can do to screw me over, is almost purely financial. To go beyond the financial, they usually have to enlist the help (and protection) of a government.

It's going to take more than voting

Posted Feb 10, 2011 18:40 UTC (Thu) by jthill (subscriber, #56558) [Link] (7 responses)

and did not steal from someone else

Please find a piece of land not stolen from someone else. That would include your own.

It's going to take more than voting

Posted Feb 10, 2011 18:59 UTC (Thu) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] (6 responses)

> Please find a piece of land not stolen from someone else. That would include your own.

Of course, most land has been stolen form someone at some point. But, what is your point? That it is therefore OK to steal land at any point?

The relevant question, is, did the organization called a government legally purchase the land they are ruling over, with funds that they legally owned? Please find such land! Very little government ruled land was purchased legally, and the little that was, was likely purchased with stolen funds. That makes most land rightfully someone else's, certainly not rightfully owned by the government.

I purchased my land, and when I did, a land title search was done. At least some effort was made to say that the person I purchased it from legally owned it when I purchased it. As far back as is traceable, no one else has a claim to the land. This is normal, most people have to do this. Why can a government land on a continent and proclaim that they own all the land that they see (and can't see), while all the while it is obviously inhabited? Why, when land is purchased and sold on a daily basis from individual to individual, does some external agency still claim rights to this land? This is absurd logic, does the queen of England still own everyone in England?

It's going to take more than voting

Posted Feb 10, 2011 20:29 UTC (Thu) by jthill (subscriber, #56558) [Link] (5 responses)

I purchased my land, and when I did, a land title search was done

That title search was done in government records, tracing back to the original grantor, the government, which keeps the records. You know all this.

The relevant question, is, did the organization called a government legally purchase the land they are ruling over, with funds that they legally owned

Good question.

But, what is your point?

That you're living on stolen land, and you were aware it was stolen when you purchased it. That you're claiming title granted by the organization you name as the thief.

It's going to take more than voting

Posted Feb 10, 2011 21:19 UTC (Thu) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] (4 responses)

> That title search was done in government records, tracing back to the original grantor, the government, which keeps the records.

Who happens to be the entity keeping the registry of the land titles, has little relevance on ownership, as long as it was a trusted record keeping place. Most of the time land title's are registered at town halls, local places where people went to register local homesteaded or purchased land (not be granted land).

But, I think that you are confused. In the US, most land was likely homesteaded, not granted. Some of it was homesteaded before the government laid claim to it, some of it before the gov. existed. Either way most of it was not owned by any government to "grant". A grant is a gift, and was sometimes done, such as when the R&R companies were granted land for building the cross continental rail. But this is the exception not the rule. Either way, the land would no longer be owned by the gov. and likely any previous ownership of it would be hard to backup. Land which cannot be traced to a legitimate owner (even after theft) falls under the same terms as abandoned land and can naturally be re-homesteaded legitimately.

> That you're living on stolen land, and you were aware it was stolen when you purchased it.

When the record of ownership dies, so does the claim. Unless another record can be proven beyond it, at which point the land will gladly be given to them, that is after all why I paid for title insurance. But, baring that point, that last known owner was the most legitimate owner (not the gov.). And since then, it certainly has been sold many times. And none of those sales magically give the gov. ownership of it. I am not claiming that this stuff is clear after 100+years, but there is a fairly good chance that I am currently the most legitimately known owner of this land.

So, to claim that "I am living on stolen land" is disingenuous. I am living on land that was "likely once stolen, but that has since then likely been legitimately acquired". Those are two very different statements.

All this said, there is no evidence that this land should even remotely be considered owned by the U.S. gov.

> That you're claiming title granted by the organization you name as the thief.

Again, it was likely not granted to the last traceable owner, it was likely simply registered to that owner in a related organization's records. There is a big difference.

It's going to take more than voting

Posted Feb 10, 2011 21:42 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (2 responses)

it;s only the government that you claim is a thief that has defined 'legitimately acquired'

this same government is the organisation that defined 'legal' homesteading

so all your claims to legitimacy all boil down to 'the government says this is legitimate'

this is undermined by your claim that the government is not legitimate

Off-topic

Posted Feb 10, 2011 21:44 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (1 responses)

If the truth be known, I'm as interested in libertarian politics as anybody. But this discussion has gone rather off-topic for LWN, and there are plenty of other places where these issues can be talked about. Perhaps any further discussion could be moved somewhere else?

Thanks.

Off-topic

Posted Feb 17, 2011 18:54 UTC (Thu) by hozelda (guest, #19341) [Link]

To address the technological issues, we need to know context such as what it is we are trying to solve. There is quite a difference between virtually no central government where everyone must defend what they call "theirs" than if we have some sort of democratic collective body with very large military controls, and where the latter may be hostile to large groups of individuals to varying degrees.

As imitev's comments suggest (in a higher up subthread), we might face a much more tractable problem if we can focus situations where the dominant force is only likely to get very aggressive against the people it "serves" when it is a governmental unit of force small in relative size to the overall global community.

It's going to take more than voting

Posted Feb 10, 2011 21:52 UTC (Thu) by jthill (subscriber, #56558) [Link]

Who happens to be the entity keeping the registry of the land titles, has little relevance on ownership, as long as it was a trusted record keeping place

Please name some organization everyone in the area trusts regardless of who they work for or who they married or where or whether they worship, that isn't their government. If they didn't have such an organization, they'd have to invent one.

most land was likely homesteaded

as in, the government decided to grant them title based on them living on land that had somehow been cleared of competing claimants?

When the record of ownership dies, so does the claim

So we agree, then: ownership isn't some ineffable aura, not some magical bond between owner and owned, then, but just a matter of agreed rules and record keeping. And some handy pals to call on when thieves try to break those rules, of course. See paragraph (1) above.

It's going to take more than voting

Posted Feb 9, 2011 12:31 UTC (Wed) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]

>True freedom for society at large will be realised when things like governments, laws, and taxes are voluntary. True democratic government means you, personally, choose. Not the majority, not your grandfathers, or founding fathers, or anybody else... But YOU. YOUR CHOICE. Your choice to belong, to pay your dues, to obey their laws or to just drop out completely and move some place else that has something more of your liking. THAT is true Democracy.

No, that is anarchy, and it's the worst possible outcome. The only thing worse than government is no government.

It's going to take more than voting

Posted Feb 9, 2011 12:32 UTC (Wed) by Seegras (guest, #20463) [Link]

> True democratic government means you, personally, choose. Not the
> majority, not your grandfathers, or founding fathers, or anybody
> else... But YOU. YOUR CHOICE. Your choice to belong, to pay your
> dues, to obey their laws or to just drop out completely and move
> some place else that has something more of your liking. THAT is true
> Democracy.

Nope. This is called Anarchy (meaning "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)"). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

And yes, this is of course a desirable state, but terribly difficult to achieve, and even more difficult to maintain in presence of hostile foreign actors. In fact, all historically existing "anarchist states" have been invaded by (mostly dictatorship) neighbours.

In contrast to this, democracies are relatively easy to enact, can defend themselves against foreign agression, but on the other hand have a tendency to evolve into oligarchies and even fascism (as seen last century in Germany, and this decade in the USA and Europe).

It's going to take more than voting

Posted Feb 9, 2011 13:10 UTC (Wed) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] (2 responses)

Other human beings being able to exist without external controls are far too frightening of a concept.

In the late '90s the Albanian government collapsed. What was the first things its citizens started to do? They grabbed guns and started to kill each other. There is a reason we need those external controls. This is where most utopist get it wrong - humans by their nature are more than willing to settle differences by violence.

It's going to take more than voting

Posted Feb 9, 2011 20:05 UTC (Wed) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] (1 responses)

In what utopian world is a government not violent? That is after all, a very defining characteristic of a government, it is violent. Take that characteristic away and, it will cease to be a government, it will be nothing more than a committee, a steering group, a club.

Perhaps you have this perception because people are so unbelievably overwhelmed by the force of government, that they usually do what ever it takes to comply with it, to avoid the utterly complete and overwhelming threat of violence the government holds over their heads daily? In other words, a well controlled mafia neighborhood where no one dares to confront them, may seem less violent on the surface, than one where a new gang is attempting to takeover power by scaring people into submission. But I would hardly claim that perception to be an accurate assessment of the relative violence of the mafia.

Living with successful extortion (living in compliance to a real threat of violence to avoid it) is still living with violence.

It's going to take more than voting

Posted Feb 17, 2011 19:38 UTC (Thu) by hozelda (guest, #19341) [Link]

Like with the mesh technological concerns, the question is not of inefficiencies (violence) existing but of total inefficiencies when contrasting competing models. The ideal case includes cooperation at a high level, but cooperation in order to defend "good" principles.

It's going to take more than voting

Posted Feb 9, 2011 13:19 UTC (Wed) by job (guest, #670) [Link]

Democracy means a lot more than just a public vote, at least in the common academic sense of the word. There is also the criteria of open discussion and free media. Some definitions include the justice system, abscence of capital punishment etc.

Many of our western societies leave some things still to be desired, but there are people working on it. It may be a cliché, but everyone and anyone can make a difference.

It's going to take more than voting

Posted Feb 11, 2011 0:36 UTC (Fri) by ras (subscriber, #33059) [Link] (1 responses)

I have a slightly different view. Public opinion isn't that easy to shift, if you define the public as all people eligible to vote. The problem you have in most countries is that isn't who votes. Voting is optional, so only a self selected population votes. It appears to easier to influence voting patterns of that self selected population.

I am not sure how I would characterise the voting intentions of "all voting public" versus "people who choose to vote", except to say they are less likely to vote for radical ideas. Which isn't surprising I guess, as people who don't vote are probably happy with the status quo. If they weren't, they would vote.

Thus in Australia, where it is compulsory to go to the voting booth (although as a practical mater it is not compulsory to vote), there are far less "out there" politicians. Thus in the US a fundamentalist church group organising to political drive to get evolution cast out of schools has more of a hope, as they can get all their members to vote but only 50% of the opposition will vote. In Australia they have no hope, unless the anti-evolution mob truly has a majority. Naturally they don't, and almost certainly never will.

This is probably why the internet filter proposal in Australia failed to get up in the end. There were a lot of very noisy people supporting it. In the US, they might of had a hope. In fact many very poorly thought out internal censorship proposals in the US have made it into law, and would still be there were it not for your constitution. In Australia we don't have such a strong constitution. But such proposals have no hope because they are up against the silent majority, and that is because in Australia the silent majority are forced to make their opinions heard at the polling booth.

It's going to take more than voting

Posted Feb 11, 2011 1:32 UTC (Fri) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]

> Which isn't surprising I guess, as people who don't vote are probably happy with the status quo. If they weren't, they would vote.

That may be true of most, but it certainly isn't true of everyone. For example, I don't vote, not because I don't care about what those in power do, but because I dispute the legitimacy of the power itself. Voting would be an expression of support for the concept that *someone* should hold the office, and its power, regardless of who wins. There is no way to vote for eliminating the office, or even simply leaving it vacant, so I abstain in protest to avoid legitimizing it.

A candidate receiving X% of the vote means that approximately X% of those who voted thought that candidate was preferable to the other candidates listed on the ballot. That's all. It doesn't mean X% of the voters support most or (especially) all of that candidate's policies, or that X% of the population at large would make the same choice.