First compulsory healthcare. Now compulsory voting?

[Twilight Hue]

Under our Americastanian system of capitalism, violence is not a legal option.
If you don't make your credit card payments, you'll just ruin your credit.
Only if government gets involved is violence the ultimate hammer.
In fact, debtor's prison still exists for those who can't pay fines.
But if you borrow money from a guy named Guido, & have to pay 50% interest per week, you might find otherwise.

Uh oh.

You forgot to say, "Capisce?"

 

[Revoltingest]

Uh oh.

You forgot to say, "Capisce?"

Maybe that's why I'm no good at the lending business, eh.

 

[Aquitaine]

I wouldn't mind if the election days were national holidays, and that there was a 'None of the above' option available; there would also have to be some sort of political action/revolution taken if the 'None of the above' percentage exceeded a certain number e.g 75%.

Fines not paid are ultimately backed up with violence.

Isn't practically everything humans do backed up with violence; what ultimately happens when someone trespasses on to your property and refused to leave?

 

[Milton Platt]

Like instituting compulsary healthcare
Obama likes the idea to again force people by gunpoint.

Here:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/politics/obama-mandatory-voting/

Article under a couple of years old, but I wouldn't put it past some people to petition to force the citizenry to vote or get fined or community service. Aka getting arrested for noncompliance.

Seems 22 countries already right now force people to vote.

I'm against the idea. This is supposed to be a free country dammit far as I'm concerned, but it seems already freedom is on its way out imo anyways.

But some others might think compulsory or forced voting is a good thing citing reasons like patriotism and duty to country, so I'm posing the question if you would support forced voting system in the U.S. like healthcare is, and why or why not?

Would rather not have a forced vote,because those votes would be done without thought. As to "forced health care", it is not forced. But perhaps it should be. Who do you think picks up the tab for those without insurance??? Look in the mirror.....

 

[Revoltingest]

Isn't practically everything humans do backed up with violence; what ultimately happens when someone trespasses on to your property and refused to leave?

Unlike government, many things in the private sector aren't backed up by violence.
Let's say I pay you to sign a contract to vote, but you don't.
There's not much I can do.
Let's say government orders you to vote (by some law).
They can take this to extremes.

Some people say capitalism controls us, so there's no problem with giving government ever more control over us.
To that I say.....
Poppycock!
Pish posh!
Barsh flimshaw!
Rats!
Balderdash!

 

[tytlyf]

Who do you think picks up the tab for those without insurance??? Look in the mirror.....

Yep, people already pay for those not insured. Which is why the profit minded insurance corporations have raised rates to ridiculous levels. The government has to step in to prevent greed and corruption. There's nothing wrong with capitalism, but it turns into greed when it gets to a certain level. Look at the capitalistic country of Mexico, there is no middle class. America is turning into that.

The problem with the republican party is that it is controlled by very few. Corrupt corporations buying up the government (citizens united). You won't find democrats doing that.

 

[Aquitaine]

Unlike government, many things in the private sector aren't backed up by violence.
Let's say I pay you to sign a contract to vote, but you don't.
There's not much I can do.
Let's say government orders you to vote (by some law).
They can take this to extremes.

Some people say capitalism controls us, so there's no problem with giving government ever more control over us.
To that I say.....
Poppycock!
Pish posh!
Barsh flimshaw!
Rats!
Balderdash!

The private sector doesn't resort to violence domestically only because the government has the monopoly on it. If government didn't then we'd see plenty of mercenary groups enforcing contracts. Imagine Blackwater in the US, or the early East India Trading Company et al.
Plus, the private sector relies on the government to handle enforcement anyway (police, courts, military etc).

 

[Revoltingest]

The private sector doesn't resort to violence domestically only because the government has the monopoly on it.

This is a sort of truism, ie, government backs up its authority with the threat of violence because it has the monopoly on it.

If government didn't then we'd see plenty of mercenary groups enforcing contracts. Imagine Blackwater in the US, or the early East India Trading Company et al.
Plus, the private sector relies on the government to handle enforcement anyway (police, courts, military etc).

But the private sector has limited ability to get gov to do such things.
I can use the sheriff to evict tenants, but I can't use gov to collect debts.
On top of that, before the sheriff will do this, there is a long & spendy (for me) due process (a year, plus or minus).
Gov can inflict violence upon us upon a whim (eg, angry cops, motivated IRS agents).
We (business) don't have debtor's prison, but gov still does.
No question....government has the violence market all sewn up.

The real issue is whether we want to expand its authority over us.
Compulsory voting doesn't offer sufficient benefit......or any demonstrable benefit.

 

[Aquitaine]

This is a sort of truism, ie, government backs up its authority with the threat of violence because it has the monopoly on it.

Right, and if there was a "market opportunity" for the monopoly on violence, do you honestly believe the private sector wouldn't try to capitalize on said opportunity?
Authority will always resort to using violence - and the threat of it - if it can, whether that authority is State, Corporate or Religious.

But the private sector has limited ability to get gov to do such things.
I can use the sheriff to evict tenants, but I can't use gov to collect debts.
On top of that, before the sheriff will do this, there is a long & spendy (for me) due process (a year, plus or minus).
Gov can inflict violence upon us upon a whim (eg, angry cops, motivated IRS agents).
We (business) don't have debtor's prison, but gov still does.
No question....government has the violence market all sewn up.

I absolutely agree that power-tripping police are a serious problem, no arguement there. Debtor's Prisons are also a bad idea in my opinion.
However, didn't you say you'd actually want the government to enforce contracts?

The real issue is whether we want to expand its authority over us.
Compulsory voting doesn't offer sufficient benefit......or any demonstrable benefit.

Honestly, I don't know. Maybe there is potential, if the compulsive element of it worked within a specific set of stipulations and guidelines; hence my earlier post.
Given that I'm rather significantly further Left on the political scale to you, it shouldn't come as a surprise that we may just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Revoltingest]

Right, and if there was a "market opportunity" for the monopoly on violence, do you honestly believe the private sector wouldn't try to capitalize on said opportunity?
Authority will always resort to using violence - and the threat of it - if it can, whether that authority is State, Corporate or Religious.

I don't see the significance of a hypothetical situation relative to Americastan.
Government has violence to back up everything.
The private sector doesn't.
If you're trying to make them equivalent, it just ain't work'n.

I absolutely agree that power-tripping police are a serious problem, no arguement there. Debtor's Prisons are also a bad idea in my opinion.
However, didn't you say you'd actually want the government to enforce contracts?

Contract enforcement by government still typically doesn't have violence as the ultimate option.

Honestly, I don't know. Maybe there is potential, if the compulsive element of it worked within a specific set of stipulations and guidelines; hence my earlier post.
Given that I'm rather significantly further Left on the political scale to you, it shouldn't come as a surprise that we may just have to agree to disagree.

Hmmm....one of those rare RF moments when there is mutual understanding,
Stop that!

 

[Aquitaine]

I don't see the significance of a hypothetical situation relative to Americastan.
Government has violence to back up everything.
The private sector doesn't.
If you're trying to make them equivalent, it just ain't work'n.

The private sector has had violence to back it up, historically in different countries. The potential is there, just like the potential for State violence is there. The private sector in the US currently doesn't use violence domestically simply because the Government prevents it.

Contract enforcement by government still typically doesn't have violence as the ultimate option.

So. . . you agree that the Government can perform its duties without the threat of violence?

 

[Revoltingest]

The private sector has had violence to back it up, historically in different countries. The potential is there, just like the potential for State violence is there. The private sector in the US currently doesn't use violence domestically simply because the Government prevents it.

Things are different at different times & places.
I don't argue against that.

So. . . you agree that the Government can perform its duties without the threat of violence?

I agree, but ultimately any command is backed up by.......well, you know where this is going.
I can't tell if you disagree or not, or if you're trying to justify more things gov can order us to do.
This seems a rather foggy disagreement.

 

[Aquitaine]

Things are different at different times & places.
I don't argue against that.

I agree, but ultimately any command is backed up by.......well, you know where this is going.
I can't tell if you disagree or not, or if you're trying to justify more things gov can order us to do.
This seems a rather foggy disagreement.

It appears that we ultimately disagree on two fundamental points: that the private sector cannot resort to violence and on what is considered an "acceptable" amount of government involvement.

Finally, we disagree on mandatory voting: I think there is potential for it to work if done so under my aforementioned stipulations.

 

[Revoltingest]

It appears that we ultimately disagree on two fundamental points: that the private sector cannot resort to violence and on what is considered an "acceptable" amount of government involvement.
Finally, we disagree on mandatory voting: I think there is potential for it to work if done so under my aforementioned stipulations.

I never said the private sector cannot use violence as the ultimate threat.
I've been pretty clear that it's just far more limited in the number of cases where it's possible, eg, the sheriff evicting a tenant.
With government, virtually every command has the threat of violence behind it.
This distinction of number & degree seems lost on many, who see equivalence instead.

Mandatory voting can of course work.
Government will punish those who don't, so it'll be worth their while to comply to avoid a fine, loss of benefit or other sanction.
More authoritarian folk will laud this as a great success, even though we'll still lament the lousy politicians we elect.

 

[metis]

The private sector has had violence to back it up, historically in different countries. The potential is there, just like the potential for State violence is there.

And we saw that happen when some companies tried to prevent the formation of unions by using goon squads to bust heads, often with the police just standing by and watching. Remember the history behind the G.M. Flint and the U.S. Tire & Rubber Company in Detroit, whereas the goons did their "thing". Fortunately, those days have long gone.

Unfortunately, unions are not doing well here in the States largely because politicians and CEO's more prefer the dictatorial or oligarchical models over the democratic model within the business world when it comes to whether workers will also have at least some say about their working conditions.

 

[Aquitaine]

I never said the private sector cannot use violence as the ultimate threat.
I've been pretty clear that it's just far more limited in the number of cases where it's possible, eg, the sheriff evicting a tenant.
With government, virtually every command has the threat of violence behind it.
This distinction of number & degree seems lost on many, who see equivalence instead.

Mandatory voting can of course work.
Government will punish those who don't, so it'll be worth their while to comply to avoid a fine, loss of benefit or other sanction.
More authoritarian folk will laud this as a great success, even though we'll still lament the lousy politicians we elect.

I absolutely agree that domestically the private sector have almost no avenues to enforce things using violence, but the point I'd like to emphasize is that they only cannot do so because the state has the monopoly on violence.
If they could - as in if the government didn't have said monopoly - private companies absolutely would fill that void. We can predict this based on historical behaviour from private companies all over the world.

And we saw that happen when some companies tried to prevent the formation of unions by using goon squads to bust heads, often with the police just standing by and watching. Remember the history behind the G.M. Flint and the U.S. Tire & Rubber Company in Detroit, whereas the goons did their "thing". Fortunately, those days have long gone.

Unfortunately, unions are not doing well here in the States largely because politicians and CEO's more prefer the dictatorial or oligarchical models over the democratic model within the business world when it comes to whether workers will also have at least some say about their working conditions.

I didn't know about these two cases, thanks for bring them to light.
Though with police complicity, such cases sadly show a sort of fascist co-operation between the worst elements of both State and Corporate authority. Indeed let us hope those days are over.

 

[Revoltingest]

I absolutely agree that domestically the private sector have almost no avenues to enforce things using violence, but the point I'd like to emphasize is that they only cannot do so because the state has the monopoly on violence.
If they could - as in if the government didn't have said monopoly - private companies absolutely would fill that void. We can predict this based on historical behaviour from private companies all over the world.

And you tell me this because.....
Does it somehow defeat my claim that governmental power is a dangerous thing, & shouldn't be blithely expanded?

I didn't know about these two cases, thanks for bring them to light.
Though with police complicity, such cases sadly show a sort of fascist co-operation between the worst elements of both State and Corporate authority. Indeed let us hope those days are over.

Funny thing about his claims though.....they don't hold up in the modern world.
He's a much older geezer than I.
The tables have turned
In my work experience, unions committed violence & sabotage with impunity.
Unions violate the law (eg, school teachers "sick out" form of striking).
Other than Reagan firing the illegally striking air traffic controllers, they never see sanction.
Two former workers of mine openly spoke of being union enforcers.
One merely slashed tires & such. The other gave beatings.
Contractors have had to pay off union officials to be able to work jobs.

 

[metis]

I didn't know about these two cases, thanks for bring them to light.
Though with police complicity, such cases sadly show a sort of fascist co-operation between the worst elements of both State and Corporate authority. Indeed let us hope those days are over.

Thanks, as you may guess, these were not isolated incidents. Up here in da U.P., in Calumet, mine-owner goon
squads at a worker Christmas party earlier in the 1900's created a panic through scare tactics but locked the doors so people couldn't get out, and scores died, mostly women and children. The mine owners up here used to hire children, strap dynamite around their waist, and have them crawl into crevices to set the charges. So many on the right especially seemingly forget their history or just prefer to ignore it.

Union violence is never justified, imo, but at the least unions offer a check on the dictatorial-type of authoritarianism that all too often is found in the business world. Under federal law, union activity, including elections, can be, and should be imo, monitored by the fed, and state and local officials have some oversight as well.

Here's where I much prefer Canadian law on this, namely that workers have the full right to unionize, and the province cannot set up any roadblocks to that, including passing so-called "right-to-work laws" that many states here in the States have passed that are simply a dishonest way of trying to weaken unions. And then we wonder why middle-income wages have not kept up with economic growth.

 

[ThirtyThree]

Just digitize the whole process and make it mandatory to participate. Digitization would also make it possible to exclude the possibility of "none of the above" or nonsense type ballots.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

On the subject of trade unions, what about the close shop, where people are compelled to join a union? It's legal in most of the USA, although illegal in Europe.

It's funny how so many in the USA are selective in what they want to be compulsory.
Seat-belts, car insurance, union membership, business licences -- yes
Voting (even voter registration), health insurance, proof that you're sane and honest before you own a gun -- no