Ptochocracy
Government by beggars, the rule of paupers; a governing body consisting of the poor; loosely, the poor as a class.
Origin:
1774 BURGH Pol. Disquisitions I. II. iv. 50 The British government..is neither absolute monarchy nor limited monarchy, nor aristocracy, nor democracy,..but may be called a ptochocracy (the reader will pardon a new word) or government of beggars.
It's an interesting question but here's my argument as to why it would change nothing:
Premise: While individuals may make terrible economic decisions, groups make good economic decisions.
Factoid: The rate at which people vote in most democracies tends to increase with their wealth. In America, 13% are at the poverty line or below, and 3% make 100k per year or more, yet 75% of the 100k+ vote in every election, while only about 10% of those at or below the poverty line do. (all stats from wikipedia :P)
Conclusion: Since the poor view voting as essentially valueless (a decision with no economic cost that only 1 in 10 engage in? Therefore it could be said that the poor estimate the probability of benefit from voting having even marginal economic value is 10%), increasing the value of their votes is just multiplying zeroes... or near-zeroes.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-11 11:01
And, many voters don't care about their local politicians or even know who they are and what issues they have, especially among the young. It's easy to think all local politicians have the same attitude of proliferating signs and TV ads, lambasting their opponent, and generally doing their own job decently regardless of whether one or the other wins. This applies to local, state, and federal.
People need some way to be informed of who they're voting for, but not in a loud TV ad sort of way. They need an objective overview of the facts, without bias and manipulation. They need to care about issues, and understand that no vote means some rich lobby group will get its way. People believe that "everythign will balance out whether I vote or not," but with manipulative lobby groups this is no longer the case.
You've gone sort of off-topic which is unfortunate because I found the original post interesting and novel.
If you post this in a seperate thread I'll contribute, but I'll refrain from doing so in this thread so as to avoid the chance of this becoming a segue from something I've never heard discussed on this board into a topic that is so commonly rehashed (no offense).
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-11 15:12
Poor people are too ignorant to vote. Just saying.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-11 16:16
>>6
Just say it fag, instead of being all high and mighty.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-11 16:17
The whole idea of redistributing weath, narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor, equality - whatever you want to call it, it's bullshit. It boils down to taking away the reward for working hard to, say, start a business, and give it to people who do not work hard. With less incentive to start a business, less people start businesses and everyone is poorer. Hooray for socialism! Destroyer of economies!
I love it when semi-literate /b/tards come to visit us.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-11 19:54
Finding out who the poor people are is a problem in itself.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-12 0:04
>>9
But not redistributing wealth can be equally as bad. An extreme gap between rich and poor encourages social tensions, and can destabilize the society.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-12 0:18
Lobby Groups
Lobster Groupies
Lobotomy Gropes
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-13 8:22
>>11
That is indeed true. Lets say the govt puts a mark that everyone earning below $1million a year are poor, then what? everyone is poor?
Well... I think that the U.S. government's solution of adding up the average cost of the bare necessities of life in a district, and anyone who doesn't accrue that much in the given period of time is impoverished.
I disagree. If you accept the U.S. government's description of impoverished (and I think it's an excellent one) then all you have to do is make sure no-one lies on their tax returns. A very hard task to be sure; but since the government has such a strong vested interest in it, I would say that on the balance of things, the "house always wins", eventually.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-15 3:15
Ptochocracy
Government by beggars, the rule of paupers; a governing body consisting of the poor; loosely, the poor as a class
Wut? like parliament run by uneducated street bums?
In fact, in >>4, I supplied the etymology for the word, and you'll notice that the word was coined to refer to the British House of Commons, which the author (a snooty aristocrat) considered to be a bunch of uneducated street bums.
That *might* work, but only if you made voter education mandatory. :P
Lets say that on election day when you turned on your TV, or your car, or your computer, you had to vote before it let you use those devices, which is probably a good mechanism to ensure everyone voted.
Now lets also assume, human nature being what it is, that not a single more person cared about politics than does now. So what does that 75% of people who don't give a fuck do? Hit whatever button is closest until they get back to what they wanted to do. In effect, you'll probably have created a system wherein either a tremendous amount of statistical randomness is inserted into a perfectly good system, or a system wherein whoever's name is at the top of the list wins (resulting in a huge glut of people changing their name to Aarnold Aanderson).
You can force people to vote, but you can't force them to give a fuck.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-18 13:43
If you force people to do something then you become a fascist.
I believe the closest you'll get to a free world is anarchism, and anarchism could never possibly work, so...
By your definition, then every government is fascist in almost everything it does.
And anarchism works just fine, go visit Somalia where anarchism has been in place for years. It just sucks worse than almost every government man has ever inflicted on himself.
Grow up. :P
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-19 8:24
>>23
Anarchism isn't as good for its own citizens, but doesn't go around bombing every other country they can for profit. I think you underestimate the number of people governments kill by acting out their foreign policies. My point was is that anarchism is the _closest_ you'll get to a true utopia, which isn't freedom at all because freedom and goodness are myths. And anarchism only has ever existed while powerful countries let it exist.
Your reply completely mirrors what I've said, except you thought that you completely disagreed with me, so if I have any growing up to do, one has to assume that you must also grow up in the same areas.
LOL yeah you forgot one point (the only point that actually matters :P) a country is ruled for the benefit of its citizens not for the ephemeral international community (that should be looking after it's self).
"Castration isn't as good for men, but they don't go around raping everyone they can for the fun of it. I think you understimate the number of people that men rape by acting out their social dysfunctions. My point was that castration is the _closest_ you'll get to a true utopia, which isn't freedom at all because freedom and goodness are myths. And castration only has ever existed while people with sharp knives have allowed it to exist
You are the weakest link. Good bye".
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-19 10:03
>> a country is ruled for the benefit of its citizens
Amen. Praise the lord. Politicians don't do it for the power or the fame, but for that overwhelming desire to help the common man.
No. Governments rule for their own benefit. Citizens getting benefits is only a consequence.
Castration eh? That's very clever. I see what you've done there. I can do that too, you know. Lets see how it turns out when I substitute in "DUMB FUCK":
"DUMB FUCK isn't as good for men, but they don't go around DUMB FUCK everyone they can for the fun of it. I think you understimate the number of people that DUMB FUCK by acting out their social dysfunctions. My point was that DUMB FUCK is the _closest_ you'll get to a true utopia, which isn't freedom at all because freedom and goodness are myths. And DUMB FUCK only has ever existed while people DUMB FUCK have allowed it to exist
Lets say I agree with you that governments rule for their own benefit; there is nothing in my argument which benefits from my own statement that governments rule for their citizens. But I am sure that goverments do not govern for the benefit of non-citizens, and apparently you agree... in which case your previous suggestion that the impotence of an anarchism to invade and massacre the citizens of other countries is in some sense a benefit. But now you've admitted that that's not even how how or why governments work. Huzzah, I'm glad we've discovered that we both agree.
Hey hey hey I won an internet fight!
"it's been a pleasure" =)
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-20 8:19
>>27
I "admitted" nothing. You misunderstood. I was saying that we agree in the first place and you were very insistent that we weren't, so I continued the argument in that vain.
I hate to get arsey about who won the argument, but I obviously won. I am especially proud of the DUMB FUCK. I hope you liked it.
In 26 you said that "Governments rule for their own benefit. Citizens getting benefits is only a consequence." while in 24 you said "Anarchism isn't as good for its own citizens, but doesn't go around bombing every other country they can for profit."
Therefore anarchism "sucks worse than almost every government man has ever inflicted on himself." as I said in 23.
I win. It couldn't possibly be any more clear cut.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-20 9:50
both of you are retards => both of you lose. GAME OVER.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-20 11:40
>>29
In >>22 I said this: "I believe the closest you'll get to a free world is anarchism, and anarchism could never possibly work, so..." I am saying if you desire to have a free world, this is your best bet. Also in the sentences immediately after the one you've quoted I said this: "My point is that anarchism is the _closest_ you'll get to a true utopia, which isn't freedom at all because freedom and goodness are myths." My point couldn't be any clearer.
What have we learned? That you don't read an entire post; that you manipulate what people say for your own purposes, namely a claim to a decidedly hollow victory.
If you can't support a statement, then don't make it.
I've not manipulated anything you've said, I've merely quoted it. If your quote is untruthful out of context, then it was untruthful in context too. If a statement can't stand on its own, then it deserves to be singled out for ridicule.
It doesn't make one iota of difference what your point is. People use statements made to serve a different purpose to support their arguments all the time; its the entire fundament of journalism and academia.
I never even argued against your point that anarchism is the closest yadda yadda to a free world, because I don't even care. =)
You're just changing the subject. Loser.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-20 15:05
>>32
If I were you, I would consider dental insurance, because even the cleanest teeth can have the mishap of crashing into the car steering wheel.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-20 17:50
this "discussion" would have been better with names, no?
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-20 18:02
I don't have a name that anyone on 4chan recognises me by and I don't come on IRC etc. So having a name would be pointless. I would prefer to disappear back into obscurity after this debate is over.
with all the niggers voting the straight D ticket we already have this pretty much
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-26 14:01
>>1
Poor already get more votes, because in most countries majority is poor.
Representative Democracy is a fraud: you pick among several pro-Israel politicians, who spent budget helping Israel and moving jobs to Indian sweatshops, instead of creating opportunities at home.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-26 19:19
>>44 Poor already get more votes, because in most countries majority is poor
That's the theory. In practice, however, the mass media are busy brainwashing the people into voting against their own best interests.
The people needs some real education. Fat chance they'll ever get it, tho, cos that would change the system. Can't have that.
>>2,3
To me, it first sounded like "ruled by Ptah"… :-P >>43
If you're gonna bump an 8 year old thread, how'bout having something intelligent to say?
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-26 21:26
>>45 mass media are busy brainwashing the people into voting against their own best interests.
Voting is an illusion. In practice all candidate were approved and nominated by economic elites. I doubt you personally know Obama or Bush, so you are voting for a blackbox.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-27 0:41
>>46
Isn't there this invention called "voting history"? Last I heard, it was sufficiently public to be somewhat usable; for starters, it confirms why I wouldn't vote Republicrat anytime soon.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-27 10:53
>>47
Any history won't make you to personally know candidate and those behind him.
Consider a bottom-up scheme when you nominate candidate from your neighborhood into the district government, which in effect nominates a mayor from it's members.
Here Mafia can go to district level government and bribe enough of your candidates to nominate their own mafia boss as a mayor, and your city is now mafia run.
In top-bottom, multi-party party representative democracy, bribery is even easier.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-04 20:02
>>48
Ahem, knowing a candidate's voting history shows what kind of decisions he (or, realistically, his paymasters) has made in the past;
- If consistent, it gives a clue as to where his heart (or rather, purse) is, and where he's likely to be in the future.
- If inconsistent, take another look. He may well be a flip-flop, but he may also have reconsidered the political terrain as it changes. Or he changed sponsor. It's which it is, that decides how trustworthy he's likely to be.