If Hitler is voted, are you responsible?

This is a forum for discussing philosophical theories of government and social structure. It is not a venue for partisan rants or plugging favored candidates.

Re: If Hitler is voted, are you responsible?

Postby Lomax on February 13th, 2017, 6:39 pm 

I'll concede something to you: sometimes a party has to lose. Ther's very little about Hillary Clinton which leans to the Left. An overlooked positive of the US election is that it might encourage the Democrats to change strategy. But even so, they'd have a better idea of how - in what direction - to change, if people had at least gone in and spoiled the ballot, or for a minority party which represents them better. For years I voted Green in order to try and drag Labour to the left; now that Labour has a Leftist in charge its membership has soared, and Green membership has plummeted. Meanwhile UKIP shifted rightwards to clean up the BNP vote, and had a large effect on the EU referendum. So as I now realise Eclogite suggests, a vote for an obscure party has a better effect on the mainstream than a non-vote does.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3653
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: If Hitler is voted, are you responsible?

Postby wolfhnd on February 13th, 2017, 10:33 pm 

There are too many possible variables to generalize how voting would effect real world outcomes. There are too many possible outcomes to have any certainty that your vote meets a consequentialist's criteria for ethical behavior.

What if you voted for Hitler and then killed him after Germany got back on track and before the worst atrocities were committed? I could think of a million more scenarios but all we know is not what could have been but what was.

Historians have debated for years if Germans voted for genocide and war or were duped. I'm happy to assume that whatever position you take on that question you will be at least partially right.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4525
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: If Hitler is voted, are you responsible?

Postby Lomax on February 13th, 2017, 11:32 pm 

wolfhnd » February 14th, 2017, 3:33 am wrote:There are too many possible variables to generalize how voting would effect real world outcomes. There are too many possible outcomes to have any certainty that your vote meets a consequentialist's criteria for ethical behavior.

Then I guess we must settle for uncertainty. C'est la vie.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3653
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: If Hitler is voted, are you responsible?

Postby edy420 on February 14th, 2017, 1:13 am 

Growing Public Interest in the Political System

➢ By the 1860s, there was growing public interest in the political system. Despite the lack of compulsory education, education levels were growing steadily. Linked to this, was the growth of national newspapers, encouraged by the railway system. These papers focused on national issues such as politics and they were also the main reading materials for many in society.

➢ Through the newspapers, the public learnt of the defects and flaws in the political system. Newspapers triggered interest in events in Europe and the USA, whilst also allowing some comparison between Britain’s system and that of other countries. All of this combined to cause people to realize that there was much wrong with the political system and that change was needed.



Influences from Abroad

➢ The American War of Independence, 1775-1783, The French Revolution of 1789 and the revolutions in Europe in 1848 all influenced the formation of reform societies and pressure groups in Britain. Radical, political ideas such as those of Thomas Paine, set out in his book, ‘The Rights of Man’, were discussed and written about.

➢ In the 1860s, popular enthusiasm for democracy and desire for political reform grew with support for the Northern cause in the American Civil War and the struggle for Italian liberty.
Pressure Groups outside Parliament

➢ Following the Great Reform Act of 1832, demands for further reform continued into the 1840s. The prominent reformist group at this time was the Chartists who believed that only by extending democracy to working class people could living and working conditions be improved. They presented a series of petitions to parliament but failed to persuade the government to agree to their demands (see page 5 of textbook).

➢ The writings of John Stuart Mill in his books, ‘On Liberty’ (1860) and ‘Representative Government’ (1861), served to underline the principles of democracy with the educated classes.

➢ In 1864, the National Reform Union was founded to promote the idea that the middle and working classes had similar political aims and should work together. The radical, John Bright, organized large public meetings. Also formed in 1864, the Reform League, a more radical body, gained support from trade unionists, socialists and former Chartists in its campaign for manhood suffrage and a secret ballot. By 1866, the London Trades Council was beginning to campaign actively for manhood suffrage.

➢ In 1866, the demand for reform intensified, leading to marches, demonstrations and even rioting in Hyde Park. This convinced some politicians that it was better to grant some change rather than to try and hold back the demand for reform.


http://www.millburnacademy.co.uk/wp-con ... -notes.doc

On Liberty, and representative Government, by John Stuart Mill.

Skim reading a few websites doesn't help me qualify as a historian on English Government, but I think there's grounds to argue that there is historical evidence of change coming after public awareness.

The public became aware that their Governement didn't meet their needs.
They demanded change, and they were given democracy.
Before they heard of democracy, I'm sure many made your argument that there is no viable alternative.

Before democracy, there was plenty of non-voters who helped the Government evolve.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: If Hitler is voted, are you responsible?

Postby wolfhnd on February 14th, 2017, 1:51 am 

I'm arguing that we need to be willing to make adjustments based on results and not fall into the trap of thinking that there are magic bullet ideologies. I'm not all that big a fan of democracy in fact. While I could be considered a fan of liberal democracies they were at their conception limited democracies. I fear the tyranny of the majority as much as I fear an actual tyrant at the moment. We have experimented with extending voting rights and basicly we have gotten circus and bread. What else we may have expected I have no idea. Democracy works well in small homogenous groups that by force of community standards are made up of responsible citizens. The reason the U.S. is a republic and not a democracy is because even 250 years ago history had already experimented with democracy and found it wanting. I'm not suggesting we restrict voting rights but we do need to ponder the lessons of history.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4525
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: If Hitler is voted, are you responsible?

Postby Lomax on February 14th, 2017, 2:26 am 

Edy420 - I think I follow. You're taking the Representation of the People Act (as opposed to the establishment of English parliament) as being the beginning of democracy, I'm guessing. These things exist on a sliding scale so it can be hard to pinpoint when exactly we went from "not democracy" to "democracy". I mean strictly speaking we're still only an anocracy - Queen Elizabeth II is not just head of the monarchy, but head of state, head of church, and head of military. So there's work to be done for types like me.

Wolfhnd - agreed about majoritarianism. It's one of the reasons I hold the US constitution in such high regard.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3653
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: If Hitler is voted, are you responsible?

Postby edy420 on February 14th, 2017, 2:38 am 

Wolfhnd,

How else can we find an improved form of Government without experimenting?

The problem with a republic is its static.
The constitution doesn't include internet piracy or copyright.
If changes need to be made, who gets to make them?
Preferably someone (or a group) without self interest and immune to corruption..

Lomax,

What do you think of this assumption..
Even the monarchy had to go through a democratic process.
The people decided to fight for King and country, but I'm sure they wouldn't fight for a King who they preferred less than another.
I'm guessing they fought for a king who benifit them the most.

Back to your point about a consistent vote.
If I were to be consistent with my vote, I would pick Bernie as the leader of America.
But from a strategic point of view, voting for Bernie is a wasted vote.
The TPP is a big factor in helping me determine who gets my vote.
Hillary can't make up her mind so for me it's between Bernie and Trump.
Considering the Mexican wall, it's an easy pick.
But Bernie can't deliver on my desire to stop the TPP, simply because he didn't come close to being leader.
This is due to the flaws in democracy.

My choice is not between Trump, Hillary and Bernie.
Mostly because Bernie doesn't tweet about his problems, nor does he have an ex President husband, so he doesn't get the media coverage he needs to be noticed.

By voting Bernie I am technically giving half a vote to Trump and Hillary, because it's between them two.
This means for a better guarantee at stopping the TPP I have to go with Trump.
That's why I say my vote is between the devil and Hitler,, a big problem IMO.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: If Hitler is voted, are you responsible?

Postby wolfhnd on February 14th, 2017, 2:46 am 

Hitler wasn't restrained by courts, don't worry to much just make sure you get a better candidate next time.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4525
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: If Hitler is voted, are you responsible?

Postby edy420 on February 14th, 2017, 2:48 am 

Lomax » 14 Feb 2017, 15:26 wrote:Edy420 - I think I follow. You're taking the Representation of the People Act (as opposed to the establishment of English parliament) as being the beginning of democracy, I'm guessing. These things exist on a sliding scale so it can be hard to pinpoint when exactly we went from "not democracy" to "democracy". I mean strictly speaking we're still only an anocracy - Queen Elizabeth II is not just head of the monarchy, but head of state, head of church, and head of military. So there's work to be done for types like me.

Wolfhnd - agreed about majoritarianism. It's one of the reasons I hold the US constitution in such high regard.


Different websites give different dates on when democracy was born.
I went with the easiest to follow.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: If Hitler is voted, are you responsible?

Postby Lomax on February 14th, 2017, 3:05 am 

edy420 » February 14th, 2017, 7:38 am wrote:The problem with a republic is its static.
The constitution doesn't include internet piracy or copyright.
If changes need to be made, who gets to make them?
Preferably someone (or a group) without self interest and immune to corruption.

I did my dissertation on internet piracy and intellectual property. Changes tend to be made by the judiciary rather than the legislative branch. They do usually turn out to benefit some powerful commerical group or another, because those groups (such as EMI, Time/Warner, Universal) can afford the best legal representation, to make the best arguments. Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture is probably the best accessible read on the history of this. Cory Doctorow's Content makes a great case for giving up the legal and technological battle against piracy.

In some ways the war is being won (by the pirates) by means other than the legal and technological. There are so many of us that it's impossible for the companies' legal teams to keep track (although Warner is known for trying very hard). It's also very bad PR, because to make legal action cost-effective they end up having to sue a teenage Dido fan for thousands of dollars for downloading a single track. (That actually happened, but the backlash ensured that it doesn't happen so much anymore.)

I don't see that Republics are altogether static by the way. I think they (and democracies) survive by allowing the small changes to occur naturally, preventing larger convulsions from developing in the long term. In other words political differences don't get so bottled up. Nassim Nicholas Taleb argues well for this idea in his famous essay, The Black Swan of Cairo.

edy420 » February 14th, 2017, 7:38 am wrote:Back to your point about a consistent vote.
If I were to be consistent with my vote, I would pick Bernie as the leader of America.
But from a strategic point of view, voting for Bernie is a wasted vote.

I don't see how it's any more wasted than voting for somebody who you feel represents you much less than he does. The irony is that he probably lost purely because of everybody thinking that - in other words, it was another Nash Equilibrium, "tragedy of the commons" situation. But at any rate I think people need to take a longer historical lens. Everybody's fixation on voting for the parties and candidates nearest the center - whether they themselves are at all centrist or not - so that they'll "win" is what has made the US so nearly a one-party state in the first place. In other words it's why both candidates were so extremely unctuous, and agreed on far too much. The UK has had the same problem.

Either way, when choosing to vote "strategically" (I put this in scare-quotes because it is an arrogant assumption that only one's own strategy is, in fact, a strategy. The same goes for "tactically") it's a choice between a small chance of a big difference (Bernie) or a big chance of a small difference (Clinton). If, like Brand, you feel the mainstream doesn't represent you enough to arguably worth voting for at all, the former option seems obviously preferable to me. And we should not fall into the trap of thinking voting is purely about election results - parties with higher vote-share get much more air-time (here, on the BBC, that is an official policy; in other outlets it is just a natural consequence), more credibility, more chance of "local" level control, and more chance of receiving the honest vote - instead of being dismissed for "strategic" reasons - next time around.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3653
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: If Hitler is voted, are you responsible?

Postby wolfhnd on February 14th, 2017, 3:16 am 

How else can we find an improved form of Government without experimenting?

The problem with a republic is its static.
The constitution doesn't include internet piracy or copyright.
If changes need to be made, who gets to make them?
Preferably someone (or a group) without self interest and immune to corruption.


The more diverse your society is the harder it is to make changes when they are needed. If you got rid of the rich and the poor then interests of the people would more or less align. That is never going to happen and their is no just way to make it happen.

Some rich people deserve to be rich and lots of poor people deserve to be poor. The middle class are the people that may have earned what they have but increasingly are just a bit smarter than the poor. There is in other words no way to make socialism work in this variety of diversity.

In any case the U.S. is bankrupt, not just morally but literally. I would not kick myself for not voting for social justice when there is about to be no society to be just. Not voting for Clinton was just voting against the worst case scenario of thermonuclear war.

Give yourself a break you did not create the mess and you sure as hell can't fix it. If you prioritize differently than other people then maybe you consider things they didn't. Don't let people tell you your a bad person because you have a mind of your own.

Maybe you and I could create our own socialist utopia but we would have to keep most of the social justice warriors out.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4525
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)
edy420 liked this post


Re: If Hitler is voted, are you responsible?

Postby edy420 on February 14th, 2017, 3:18 am 

Lomax,

As I've mentioned before, some people's strategies include, who's the most handsome or who do my friends like.

We all have our own strategies but as a person of the land, the TPP is a big deal.
To me stopping it, is worth crippling a neighbouring economy.

Why make the "right vote" (Bernie) when I know that's going to undermine my needs?
Ie. saying no to the TPP and thermonuclear war.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: If Hitler is voted, are you responsible?

Postby Lomax on February 14th, 2017, 1:17 pm 

edy420 » February 14th, 2017, 8:18 am wrote:Lomax,

As I've mentioned before, some people's strategies include, who's the most handsome or who do my friends like.

We all have our own strategies but as a person of the land, the TPP is a big deal.
To me stopping it, is worth crippling a neighbouring economy.

Why make the "right vote" (Bernie) when I know that's going to undermine my needs?
Ie. saying no to the TPP and thermonuclear war.

Well I just don't understand why you think it's the right vote, if it's undermining your needs. Vote for who you like, based on whatever aims you like. I see no reason why simply abstaining from the vote furthers those aims, nor any reason it absolves your responsibility if the one you don't like gets in.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3653
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: If Hitler is voted, are you responsible?

Postby Lomax on February 14th, 2017, 1:28 pm 

Actually I'm not convinced we have any disagreement left. I started off by arguing you should vote for the greater good and accept the consequences. You're now saying that you'd be willing to vote for the crippling of the Mexican economy if it averted the world from a nuclear war. Who am I to argue?
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3653
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: If Hitler is voted, are you responsible?

Postby edy420 on February 14th, 2017, 5:37 pm 

Agreed.

There's one party leader I follow on Facebook.
I think he'd make the right decisions for the people, probably not for the economy but I agree with a lot of what he says.
If he could just change his views on cannibis prohibition then im willing to give him my support 100%

I had a feeling John Key would win.
TBH I don't really care who runs the country, my focus is on what policies can and will be implemented.
During John Keys election campaign, he didn't mention the fact that he wanted to change the New Zealand flag or that he was going to sign the TPPA.
If he did mention them, then I would have "gotten my hands dirty" and voted the opposition, even though there was someone else's I favoured.

I think education is key.
We need a politics subject in high school where we learn about the political process and how to study up on who we want to lead the country.
In an environment where people are making educated decisions, then yours and Eco's voting strategy becomes ideal.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: If Hitler is voted, are you responsible?

Postby Eclogite on February 15th, 2017, 1:12 am 

I see much gnashing of teeth, wringing of hands and lamentations in the wilderness in this thread. Despair and angst and indecision revolving around the desired political outcome and how to achieve it without conflicting with ones personal ethics.

Forgive me for taking a more upbeat view. Equipped with only the social skills that evolved for living in tribes of one or two hundred members we are able to sustain a global economy of over seven billion people, in which a smaller percentage of the population meet violent deaths than was the case many millenia ago.

So things are not perfect. There is a long way to go, but let's give ourselves a pat on the back for what we have achieved against the odds.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about
Lomax liked this post


Previous

Return to Political Theory

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests