"throw capitalism at it" ad absurdum

[Loren Pechtel]

No. Every single person gets one representative from their state.

Everybody has the same amount of representation.

Only to those who can't count.

You have claimed to have been a pharmacist. It would be impossible to do this with your level of ignorance. Were you really just a pharmacist's assistant?

Some representatives have more voices than others to consider, that is true.

I don't buy this "time of crisis" crap. If it is a real time of crisis and there is definitely something that needs to be done then 50 people can do it as easily as 1.

It takes longer. When time really matters 50 are paralysis. That's why the military is such a strict dictatorship.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And how will that prevent rape?

How is it prevented now?

Anarchism is not a utopian plan. It does not claim to end all problems.

Just the many problems associated with dictatorship in the workplace.

You said no anarchist society would allow rape. The only societies that allow rape are the strict Sharia ones. (And that because of the technicality that the you can't convict the rapist, not because it's actually legal.)

If your assertion has any value you are saying it would do better at preventing rape.

Oops--that requires police and a penal system. Those are most certainly within their scope dictators.

 

[untermensche]

How is it prevented now?

Anarchism is not a utopian plan. It does not claim to end all problems.

Just the many problems associated with dictatorship in the workplace.

You said no anarchist society would allow rape. The only societies that allow rape are the strict Sharia ones. (And that because of the technicality that the you can't convict the rapist, not because it's actually legal.)

If your assertion has any value you are saying it would do better at preventing rape.

Oops--that requires police and a penal system. Those are most certainly within their scope dictators.

Police are not dictators. They can be used by dictators or be given limited powers through democratic consent.

Courts are not dictators.

Convicting people of crimes is not dictatorship.

Stopping crime is not dictatorship.

Dictatorship is a human power structure where those at the top have all power.

 

[untermensche]

Only to those who can't count.

You have claimed to have been a pharmacist. It would be impossible to do this with your level of ignorance. Were you really just a pharmacist's assistant?

I can count to one.

Every person has ONE representative. Nobody has two.

What don't you understand?

 

[bilby]

Only to those who can't count.

You have claimed to have been a pharmacist. It would be impossible to do this with your level of ignorance. Were you really just a pharmacist's assistant?

I can count to one.

Every person has ONE representative. Nobody has two.

What don't you understand?

I think he is struggling to grasp how you can't tell the difference between a person and a state. (Hint: A state contains a number of people, and that number is not the same for each state).

If there is one representative per state, then the representative from Wyoming has 582,658 people to represent; while the representative from California represents 38,332,521 people*.

By simple arithmetic, this implies that each vote in Wyoming is worth 65.789 times what a Californian's vote is worth. Each person in Wyoming has 0.000001716 representatives; Each person in California has 0.000000026 representatives.

Or, put another way, assuming that the representative votes the way the majority of the people in his state want him to, then if a person in Wyoming who wants his representative to vote 'Yes' on an issue, has only to persuade 291,329 of his neighbours to agree. A person in California need to talk around 19,166,260 of his neighbours.

Or, put another way, you are too incompetent to be part of this debate if you think that one representative per state gives every citizen equal representation; and if you really are a pharmacist, I fear for the safety of your patients, as basic arithmetic seems to be beyond you.











* Figures based on 2013 census population data

 

[untermensche]

I can count to one.

Every person has ONE representative. Nobody has two.

What don't you understand?

I think he is struggling to grasp how you can't tell the difference between a person and a state. (Hint: A state contains a number of people, and that number is not the same for each state).

Are you saying that some people have two representatives?

Because I assure you all people would only have one. All people are equal in their number of representatives.

ONE.

If there is one representative per state, then the representative from Wyoming has 582,658 people to represent; while the representative from California represents 38,332,521 people*

Yes, and each person in each State has one representative.

Everybody has the same number of representatives. Small State and large.

...By simple arithmetic, this implies that each vote in Wyoming is worth 65.789 times what a Californian's vote is worth...

Votes are not worth something.

They are the way representatives are chosen. They are a means to an end.

...Each person in Wyoming has 0.000001716 representatives...

No they each have one.

You are really off a deep end here.

 

[bilby]

I think he is struggling to grasp how you can't tell the difference between a person and a state. (Hint: A state contains a number of people, and that number is not the same for each state).

Are you saying that some people have two representatives?

Because I assure you all people would only have one. All people are equal in their number of representatives.

ONE.

If there is one representative per state, then the representative from Wyoming has 582,658 people to represent; while the representative from California represents 38,332,521 people*

Yes, and each person in each State has one representative.

Everybody has the same number of representatives. Small State and large.

...By simple arithmetic, this implies that each vote in Wyoming is worth 65.789 times what a Californian's vote is worth...

Votes are not worth something.

They are the way representatives are chosen. They are a means to an end.

...Each person in Wyoming has 0.000001716 representatives...

No they each have one.

You are really off a deep end here.

Oh, OK.

I was worried that you had misunderstood the situation, but now I am convinced that you simply don't have a clue about how any of this stuff works.

I will leave you to your usual pointless claims of competence that fool nobody but yourself.

But seriously, don't dispense medications to anyone. This level of competence could easily be lethal.

"What do you mean, they got different doses? Every patient got the same number of tablets, so they all got the same dose".

Perhaps a career in janitorial services would be safer, and more in keeping with your mathematical aptitude.

 

[untermensche]

Oh, OK.

I was worried that you had misunderstood the situation, but now I am convinced that you simply don't have a clue about how any of this stuff works.

I will leave you to your usual pointless claims of competence that fool nobody but yourself.

But seriously, don't dispense medications to anyone. This level of competence could easily be lethal.

"What do you mean, they got different doses? Every patient got the same number of tablets, so they all got the same dose".

Perhaps a career in janitorial services would be safer, and more in keeping with your mathematical aptitude.

So you have abandoned trying to defend your absurdity and now want to talk about different things.

"Their votes are worth less". That's a good one, as if a vote has any value except as a means to make a decision.

If you can demonstrate how every person does not have one representative do it.

Your stupid insults just make you look like an asshole.

 

[iolo]

I don't think I'm controlled by doctors - I can get up and go unless I'm drugged, and the traffic regulations are something we all agree on. I was once in the RAF: I spent most of my time making escape plans, and I shall never, never, never put myself in such a position again. I was warned, but thought I was the master of my fate. I learned my lesson: all power stinks, everywhere and always.

But that has been the argument we've made for any job. So if you don't like the conditions working at McDonalds you get up and go.

You can't get up and go from the military - only escape abroad. And wage slavery is wage slavery in all jobs.

 

[Harry Bosch]

But that has been the argument we've made for any job. So if you don't like the conditions working at McDonalds you get up and go.

You can't get up and go from the military - only escape abroad. And wage slavery is wage slavery in all jobs.

Sigh. It's not slavery if you have the choice of working or leaving. I know that I'm pissing in the wind trying to debate this issue with you. But as an aside, it bothers me. I work with a non-profit that tries to free actual slaves. There are more slaves today in the world than at any time in history. These people can work 7 days a week, 16 hours a day for no pay. They are beaten. Their children are also enslaved. They have no hope. It's an insult to them to compare your situation to theirs.

 

[iolo]

You can't get up and go from the military - only escape abroad. And wage slavery is wage slavery in all jobs.

Sigh. It's not slavery if you have the choice of working or leaving. I know that I'm pissing in the wind trying to debate this issue with you. But as an aside, it bothers me. I work with a non-profit that tries to free actual slaves. There are more slaves today in the world than at any time in history. These people can work 7 days a week, 16 hours a day for no pay. They are beaten. Their children are also enslaved. They have no hope. It's an insult to them to compare your situation to theirs.

It was a normal comparison here throughout the Nineteenth Century, especially when we got rid of chattel slavery and you kept it. If you can't eat without obeying orders you are a slave: there are, undoubtedly, better and worse versions of the condition, which is kept in being by the economic system you support. I am glad you are working against the worst elements in your traditional system however. Every success!

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If you can demonstrate how every person does not have one representative do it.

Small nitpick here:
1) what difference does that even make? Everyone has exactly ONE representative in a dictatorship too (to wit: the dictator).

2) It's being pointed out that having fewer representatives for larger territories is far from ideal in empowering the populace, and actually creates a power imbalance when some territories have a far larger population but still the same number of representatives.

3) Actually, most people in America have at least four representatives: Two senators, a district congressman, a State Senator, and a State Congressman. Some have more, once you start counting school boards, local town/city legislatures and the like.

 

[untermensche]

If you can demonstrate how every person does not have one representative do it.

Small nitpick here:
1) what difference does that even make? Everyone has exactly ONE representative in a dictatorship too (to wit: the dictator).

2) It's being pointed out that having fewer representatives for larger territories is far from ideal in empowering the populace, and actually creates a power imbalance when some territories have a far larger population but still the same number of representatives.

3) Actually, most people in America have at least four representatives: Two senators, a district congressman, a State Senator, and a State Congressman. Some have more, once you start counting school boards, local town/city legislatures and the like.

In terms of present conditions, do people get more or less representation with this plan?

And of course the quality of democracy is as important as the amount of representation.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Small nitpick here:
1) what difference does that even make? Everyone has exactly ONE representative in a dictatorship too (to wit: the dictator).

2) It's being pointed out that having fewer representatives for larger territories is far from ideal in empowering the populace, and actually creates a power imbalance when some territories have a far larger population but still the same number of representatives.

3) Actually, most people in America have at least four representatives: Two senators, a district congressman, a State Senator, and a State Congressman. Some have more, once you start counting school boards, local town/city legislatures and the like.

In terms of present conditions, do people get more or less representation with this plan?

And of course the quality of democracy is as important as the amount of representation.

How many people actually feel they have a say in the democracy? To me I have much more of a say in my supposed dictatorship then I do my democracy

 

[untermensche]

In terms of present conditions, do people get more or less representation with this plan?

And of course the quality of democracy is as important as the amount of representation.

How many people actually feel they have a say in the democracy? To me I have much more of a say in my supposed dictatorship then I do my democracy

True.

The US has a non-functional democracy.

Removing the costs of campaigning would make it better, but the way the system works now is those in the nation with the most money have the most say, the powers that be have no desire at all to change it. They are in effect in charge of a quasi-dictatorship.

A dictatorship of wealth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You said no anarchist society would allow rape. The only societies that allow rape are the strict Sharia ones. (And that because of the technicality that the you can't convict the rapist, not because it's actually legal.)

If your assertion has any value you are saying it would do better at preventing rape.

Oops--that requires police and a penal system. Those are most certainly within their scope dictators.

Police are not dictators. They can be used by dictators or be given limited powers through democratic consent.

Courts are not dictators.

Convicting people of crimes is not dictatorship.

Stopping crime is not dictatorship.

You can't punish without something akin to a dictatorship.

Dictatorship is a human power structure where those at the top have all power.

Once again, you're using your own dictionary.

- - - Updated - - -

Only to those who can't count.

You have claimed to have been a pharmacist. It would be impossible to do this with your level of ignorance. Were you really just a pharmacist's assistant?

I can count to one.

Every person has ONE representative. Nobody has two.

What don't you understand?

The guy from California is representing 38M people. The one from Wyoming is representing 580k. That gives the one from Wyoming a far louder voice.

 

[untermensche]

Police are not dictators. They can be used by dictators or be given limited powers through democratic consent.

Courts are not dictators.

Convicting people of crimes is not dictatorship.

Stopping crime is not dictatorship.

You can't punish without something akin to a dictatorship.

I don't know about punishment. I see no use in punishment.

But if people are a danger to others you can prevent them from hurting others, even with force.

As long as the limits and circumstances of force are enacted through democratic consent there is no dictator.

Dictatorship is a human power structure where those at the top have all power.

Once again, you're using your own dictionary.

Hardly. That is a very common description of dictatorship.

The guy from California is representing 38M people. The one from Wyoming is representing 580k. That gives the one from Wyoming a far louder voice.

Not how it works. Voters don't have voices in representative bodies. Their representatives do.

Voters can try to influence their representative but every individual has the same opportunity to influence representatives if they can get others to join them.

As long as money is removed from the process.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You can't punish without something akin to a dictatorship.

I don't know about punishment. I see no use in punishment.

Ok, call it locking them up so they don't rape again.

But if people are a danger to others you can prevent them from hurting others, even with force.

As long as the limits and circumstances of force are enacted through democratic consent there is no dictator.

The application of the force is by dictator.

Dictatorship is a human power structure where those at the top have all power.

Once again, you're using your own dictionary.

Hardly. That is a very common description of dictatorship.

A dictator has a guy at the top giving the orders. That does not preclude power existing elsewhere.

The guy from California is representing 38M people. The one from Wyoming is representing 580k. That gives the one from Wyoming a far louder voice.

Not how it works. Voters don't have voices in representative bodies. Their representatives do.

Voters can try to influence their representative but every individual has the same opportunity to influence representatives if they can get others to join them.

As long as money is removed from the process.

If enough people scream they listen anyway. Note, however, that it must be a large number of people. A small number screaming loudly doesn't work--which is why you see it as useless.

 

[untermensche]

The application of the force is by dictator.

Ridiculous. On the level of a third grader.

It all depends on where the orders to apply force come from. If the orders are part of a democratic expression and the rules apply equally and the manner and circumstance of force is outlined ahead of time then that is not a dictatorial application of force.

Using police and courts to deal with crime is not dictatorship.

A dictator has a guy at the top giving the orders. That does not preclude power existing elsewhere.

In a dictatorship those exercising power elsewhere do it at the consent of the dictator. All power is ultimately in the hands of the dictator or dictators.

If enough people scream they listen anyway. Note, however, that it must be a large number of people. A small number screaming loudly doesn't work--which is why you see it as useless.

So one person representing everybody in the nation is fine, but one person representing a state is worse?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Small nitpick here:
1) what difference does that even make? Everyone has exactly ONE representative in a dictatorship too (to wit: the dictator).

2) It's being pointed out that having fewer representatives for larger territories is far from ideal in empowering the populace, and actually creates a power imbalance when some territories have a far larger population but still the same number of representatives.

3) Actually, most people in America have at least four representatives: Two senators, a district congressman, a State Senator, and a State Congressman. Some have more, once you start counting school boards, local town/city legislatures and the like.

In terms of present conditions, do people get more or less representation with this plan?

More than they'd get in a dictatorship.
Less than they'd get with proportional representation.

Is representation a good thing or not? If it's a good thing, than having less representation because you live in a more populace state is NOT a good thing.

And of course the quality of democracy is as important as the amount of representation.

I'm not sure those two things are mutually exclusive. All things being equal, a democracy where everyone in the country only gets to vote for "Who will be the next dictator?" is inferior in quality to a democracy where the people don't even bother with representatives and decide everything by referendum. The only reason the latter option isn't already in place is because it has often proven impractical to break democracy down to that degree and representation is a means of streamlining that process. It seems to me that the extent to which the voters have to rely on proxies to carry out their will is exactly the extent to which a democracy falls short of its purpose.