Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Proportional Representation a compromise for Libertarians? Proportional Representation a compromise for Libertarians?

10-14-2009 , 01:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexM
We have a government right now that elects people that only represent a fraction of the population. Under PR, a majority of people would have representation. The only people who would oppose PR are people who are trying to pull a fast one over the rest of the country.
Uh, lol, no.

FPTP encourages moderation. I think you could understand why one might support moderation, at least with regards to most issues.

FPTP does suppress smaller political groups in many instances (though they generally learn to operate within the two major parties), but PR has the opposite problem, where smaller and frequently extremist groups are able to seize large amounts of power.
10-14-2009 , 01:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The flying-donkey
I'm a social libertarian, but believe in some sort of the welfare state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nielsio
So you're not a libertarian?
.
10-14-2009 , 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autocratic
FPTP encourages moderation. I think you could understand why one might support moderation, at least with regards to most issues.
No, it encourages polarization of political beliefs into 2 small and underrepresented groups. It is the furthest thing possible from moderation.

Quote:
PR has the opposite problem, where smaller and frequently extremist groups are able to seize large amounts of power.
Congrats on buying into the propaganda the Demopublicans need you to believe to maintain their stranglehold on power. PR does absolutely nothing of the sort. It does, however, bring moderation.
10-14-2009 , 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The flying-donkey
I'm a social libertarian, but believe in some sort of the welfare state.
Can you explain what you mean by social libertarian?
10-14-2009 , 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexM
No, it encourages polarization of political beliefs into 2 small and underrepresented groups. It is the furthest thing possible from moderation.
Yikes, no. Two parties will generally compete by playing to the center. In some instances where one party is vastly more numerous than the other this isn't the case, but PR would suffer from the same problem in that instance.

To call this the "furthest thing possible from moderation" is embarrassing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexM
Congrats on buying into the propaganda the Demopublicans need you to believe to maintain their stranglehold on power. PR does absolutely nothing of the sort. It does, however, bring moderation.
Wrong on both counts, but I'd like to see some hard evidence that it brings about moderation.

I could, if I were inclined to pretending that conspiracies were constantly afoot, just take this the other way and say that you are buying into third party nonsense about PR bringing moderation when all they want is a chance to seize more power than their numbers would deserve.
10-14-2009 , 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nielsio
Can you explain what you mean by social libertarian?
I can't write too much now but

"I believe the state should stay out of the bedroom, but has a legitimate place in the boardroom".
10-14-2009 , 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The flying-donkey
I can't write too much now but

"I believe the state should stay out of the bedroom, but has a legitimate place in the boardroom".
Maybe write some more when you have the time because I have no idea what this means in practice.

Legalize all drugs and it's production? Legalize prostitution?
10-14-2009 , 02:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The flying-donkey
I can't write too much now but

"I believe the state should stay out of the bedroom, but has a legitimate place in the boardroom".

So you want to be able to do whatever you want, but if someone else is doing something you don't like, you want to be able to stop them.

Sounds like you're a Democrat to me.
10-14-2009 , 02:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vhawk01
No, it isnt. Or at least, maybe it is their biggest fail logically or philosophically, but it is absolutely not the reason that they are considered nutjobs or fringe. It doesnt even register, from a PR standpoint.

Do you seriously think that if anarchists just stopped doing this, all of a sudden they'd be mainstream? That THIS is seriously their biggest problem towards gaining acceptance? You are out of your mind.
Anarchism's biggest PR problem is its prescription of abandoning one of the most powerful tools available, i.e. the vote. Many more people might agree on the goal of a stateless utopia if they were given a practical means of getting there in the way of co-opting the state against itself (much like how the "powers that be" co-opt the institutions of the public), a maneuver the people are in just the position to pull off. Recommending a blanket "just say no" promotes the result of taking potentially effective opposition to evil in government out of the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nielsio
I think we have something like that in Holland. However, everybody still believes they have a right to everybody else's property. We also have higher taxes than in the U.S.

I'm one of those crazy anarcho-capitalists btw, and I don't vote because I believe democracy is collectivized and anonymised robbery. I believe they want my vote to get legitimacy; so that they can say "you voted, you agree with the system".
I appreciate your principled stand, even though we disagree on the principle. The problem I see however is that the state already considers you to have given consent in a hundred ways just by your living on their (or, more accurately, their employer the sovereign power's) territory. You have little to lose by making yourself heard and voicing your dissent against the system in a way that exploits evil government's biggest weakness: its need for a vote the people. The effect is amplified enormously by getting many like-minded people to the polls along with you.
10-14-2009 , 02:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concerto
I appreciate your principled stand, even though we disagree on the principle. The problem I see however is that the state already considers you to have given consent in a hundred ways just by your living on their (or, more accurately, their employer the sovereign power's) territory.
I know, that's precisely why I'm not participating.

Let's not try to derail this thread though. I gave him my opinion to show why an anarcho-capitalist wouldn't vote, unlike the example he gave in the OP.
10-14-2009 , 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autocratic
Yikes, no. Two parties will generally compete by playing to the center. In some instances where one party is vastly more numerous than the other this isn't the case, but PR would suffer from the same problem in that instance.

To call this the "furthest thing possible from moderation" is embarrassing.



Wrong on both counts, but I'd like to see some hard evidence that it brings about moderation.

I could, if I were inclined to pretending that conspiracies were constantly afoot, just take this the other way and say that you are buying into third party nonsense about PR bringing moderation when all they want is a chance to seize more power than their numbers would deserve.
Why don't you explain to me how exactly PR gives a third party more power than they deserve?
10-14-2009 , 02:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexM
Why don't you explain to me how exactly PR gives a third party more power than they deserve?
I will present the same hypothetical I did in the health care thread:

Three parties, two with an even split of 47% of the vote, the other with the remaining 6%. Guess which one of these parties is going to be flexing way more muscle than their numbers would deem fair?
10-14-2009 , 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The flying-donkey
I'm a social libertarian, but believe in some sort of the welfare state.
I'm an animal rights activist who drowns puppies for fun.
10-14-2009 , 03:12 PM
I do think that Libertarians would prefer a PR to the current first-past-the-post-system, but I acknowledge that it would be a "lessor of two evils" preference. The value of PR (from a libertarian standpoint) includes:

- the system naturally reduces the state's ability to impose on the minority by giving the minorities at least a proportional vote in theory
- the system grants more power to libertarians who, in the current world, are a severe minority who are provided with no representation
- the system naturally increases the barriers to new legislation if there are any libertarians at all - i.e., even if libertarians only get 10% of the vote, they can still cast a 10% "no" vote on all legislation, forcing the rest of the government to obtain 50/90 = 55% of the remaining vote to pass any new legislation
10-14-2009 , 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autocratic
I will present the same hypothetical I did in the health care thread:

Three parties, two with an even split of 47% of the vote, the other with the remaining 6%. Guess which one of these parties is going to be flexing way more muscle than their numbers would deem fair?
None of them.
10-14-2009 , 03:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexM
None of them.
Swing and a miss, sir.
10-14-2009 , 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nielsio
Can you explain what you mean by social libertarian?
It usually means someone who likes getting high.
10-14-2009 , 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autocratic
I will present the same hypothetical I did in the health care thread:

Three parties, two with an even split of 47% of the vote, the other with the remaining 6%. Guess which one of these parties is going to be flexing way more muscle than their numbers would deem fair?
In this hypothetical, assuming that the two 47% parties are opposing factions that don't cooperate (i.e. "the right" and "the left"), then the 6% would have the "deciding vote" on all issues, so given those assumptions you could view the 6% party as having "too much power". However, they couldn't actually pass any legislation without agreeing with either 47%-A or 47%-B, so they wouldn't really have "too much power" because they can't actually do anything unilaterally.
10-14-2009 , 03:29 PM
Tell me how getting to PR from where we are is any easier than getting to free market anarchism from here.
10-14-2009 , 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mosdef
In this hypothetical, assuming that the two 47% parties are opposing factions that don't cooperate (i.e. "the right" and "the left"), then the 6% would have the "deciding vote" on all issues, so given those assumptions you could view the 6% party as having "too much power". However, they couldn't actually pass any legislation without agreeing with either 47%-A or 47%-B, so they wouldn't really have "too much power" because they can't actually do anything unilaterally.
I don't see why anyone would define "too much power" as the ability to do something unilaterally. I am claiming that their ability to push their issues would in all likelihood be several times their numbers.
10-14-2009 , 03:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borodog
Tell me how getting to PR from where we are is any easier than getting to free market anarchism from here.
Ontario had a referendum on PR last provincial election. I haven't seen a free market anarchy referendum yet.
10-14-2009 , 03:40 PM
We are not Ontario.
10-14-2009 , 03:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autocratic
I don't see why anyone would define "too much power" as the ability to do something unilaterally. I am claiming that their ability to push their issues would in all likelihood be several times their numbers.
But they can't push "their issues" without getting buy in from one of the other parties. At best, they will have the "power" to compromise.

If you want a real life example of this, look at the current Canadian federal government. Neither the Conservatives or Liberals have a majority, but they would if they partnered with the Quebec separatist party. However, Quebec hasn't separated. They can't push through their main agenda point because it's not tolerated by any of the other parties. Even with the "deciding vote", you are severely limited in pushing your minority agenda.
10-14-2009 , 03:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borodog
We are not Ontario.
I am!

I guess the point was that PR has at least been on the radar of an actual modern society, whereas the word "anarchy" still gets you laughed out of the discussion in the "real world", so PR is much more viable at this point than anarchy.
10-14-2009 , 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mosdef
But they can't push "their issues" without getting buy in from one of the other parties. At best, they will have the "power" to compromise.
Obviously?

On contentious issues where the two major parties have a lot riding on the issue, the decisive third party basically holds all the power. So your separatist example is a little odd - the main issue would be that tiny third parties could decide which major party comes out on top, on top of getting a large amount of concessions in whatever form.

      
m