I'm going to set myself on fire

Quote:

---

someone summarise

---

I hate the government. That's pretty much it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

It was entirely peaceful and planned in full accordance with the government's increasingly draconian anti-protest legislation (how dare a government tell me that I can't protest within their earshot?). We followed all the rules. We played the game their way. They ignored us completely.

---

Perhaps if you had flames emanating from your torso, the establishment would have been less inclined to come near you and move you away ;)

FunkyDexter's post summary:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

Just to be clear, when I said he'd demonstrated the futility of protest, I really didn't want to detract in any way from the nobility of what Thic Quang Duc did. This was a guy who gave up his life in one of the most painful ways I can imagine to bring the plight of his fellow budhists (who were being horribly persecuted) to the attention of the world. He did this for the good, not of himself, but of others. Budhists at the time were being imprisoned and tortured for no greater crime than pursuing their religion. For him to make this sacrifice in the hope of bringing a stop to that situation is neither stupid nor selfish.

---

• He set himself on fire for the freedom of everyone else he was trying to prove his point for
• You'd need a lot of guts to do what he did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I also didn't want to imply that the act of protest was in any way invalid. In fact, I've been a political activist for most of my life. I was involved in the poll tax demonstrations (which sadly descended into rioting but I still hold the police responsible for that rather than the demonstrators - coraling thousands of people trafalgar square was only ever going to have one outcome), I marched against the removal of housing benefit eligibilty from students, I confronted Michael Howard over his immigration policies when he visited Winchester and made the local TV news calling him a hypocrite (he's only second generation himself), I've spent many a happy hour standing in Southampton city centre handing out leaflets for a variety of causes I felt were worthy of my time and I've lost count of the number of minor rallies and demonstrations I've attended over the years,

---

• I've been a troublemaker, like that buddhist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

Rather, I simply no longer believe that protest actually effects change. This is true in the UK and is far more true in the US. This was finally brought home to me in the 'Don't Attack Iraq' demonstration. This was the single biggest protest the UK has ever had... ever! It was world wide. It was attended, not by screaming extremists, but by the moderate, educated and erudite mass of our population. It was entirely peaceful and planned in full accordance with the government's increasingly draconian anti-protest legislation (how dare a government tell me that I can't protest within their earshot?). We followed all the rules. We played the game their way. They ignored us completely. We made no difference at all. OK, I didn't expect to change the way things were going and I was pretty sure the attack would go ahead no matter what I did, but you'd have thought we might have caused some discussion, at least.

---

• All that protesting didn't give me any cheezburger.
• Despite the Government laying down the rules to make a protest and educated citizens of the UK making a peace protest for Iraq, Tony Blair sent the people of Iraq to Basement cat. It didn't even cause a slight discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

Our governments have become so disconnected from us that they couldn't give a toss about our opinions except for a period of about 6 months every 5 years, and then only if you happen to live in a close run constiuency. Our voice no longer has any meaning or any weight. If you think you live in a meaningful democracy, you've already swallowed the opiate.

---

• The Government pretends to listen to us, but they really don't when it comes to the stuff we don't want

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

edit> Crypto, that tenpence is still up for grabs. Obviously, given your propensity for mugging old ladies I don't feel I can trust you with it until after you've burned to death. Will you be able to collect? I don't want to have to stump up for the postage.

---

• I'm suspicious of you... :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kregg

FunkyDexter's post summary:

• He set himself on fire for the freedom of everyone else he was trying to prove his point for
• You'd need a lot of guts to do what he did.

• I've been a troublemaker, like that buddhist.

• All that protesting didn't give me any cheezburger.
• Despite the Government laying down the rules to make a protest and educated citizens of the UK making a peace protest for Iraq, Tony Blair sent the people of Iraq to Basement cat. It didn't even cause a slight discussion.

• The Government pretends to listen to us, but they really don't when it comes to the stuff we don't want

• I'm suspicious of you... :confused:

---

Can someone summarise this summary?

Stand up, or ignite yourself, for what you believe in.

The more I think about it, the more I lay the blame at the feet of our system of voting. One person one vote dilutes the opinions of the individual and results in some kind of narrow triangulation of leadership. US presidential candidates have to run to the center during the general election, though they may have to run towards one side or the other during the primary.

There are better systems of voting, and one of the strongest endorsements of them is the fact that no seated member of elected government will even consider them.

I still support the Republic as a form of government, or at least benevolent tyranny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I hate the government. That's pretty much it.

---

The death of an idealist. :wave:

As for the American voting system, I'm pretty sure 100% of ppl outside the USA don't understand it and 95% of the pple INSIDE America don't understand it either.

In normal countries (read Westminster systems) each party puts forward their best candidate and the ppl vote. Can't get much simpler than that!

How did a thread about crpt catching fire turn to religion turn to demonstrations turn to politics? :confused: Way to go Crpt!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foxer

The death of an idealist. :wave:

As for the American voting system, I'm pretty sure 100% of ppl outside the USA don't understand it and 95% of the pple INSIDE America don't understand it either.

In normal countries (read Westminster systems) each party puts forward their best candidate and the ppl vote. Can't get much simpler than that!

How did a thread about crpt catching fire turn to religion turn to demonstrations turn to politics? :confused: Way to go Crpt!

---

Simple it is, and it sucks rocks.

The chance that your particular vote will change the outcome of an election is staggeringly small. Because of the electoral college in America, the probability is slightly increased, but still staggeringly small. For one thing, you need a nearly split election, or else you are just one in a sea. This means that the candidates can run for the average opinion, but the average opinion of a majority of the voters. The bulk of American presidential politics seems to be positioning yourself as acceptable to the average while trying to energize a base group. The reason for this is that a HUGE number of Americans don't vote at all. If you can excite this segment to actually come out and vote for you, that is as good as getting a bigger slice of the regular voters. This happened in the last two presidential elections quite notably.

There are well known and studied voting systems, such as rank order voting, which would be really simple, and would not allow a third party candidate to split the vote, but would more accurately reflect the will of the people. The reason the will of the people is better reflected by rank order voting (or whatever the proper name for it is) is that people are ranking their choices. Thus, if half the people love A and hate B, while the other half love B and hate A, but there is a C that both halves would prefer over the one they hate, then C will win. In the current system, half the people would get their first choice and the other half would get the shaft. With rank voting, nobody would get their first choice, but nobody would get the shaft, either. Better yet, the example presented is about the worst case scenario for rank voting, since there was no group that liked C best, a situation that NEVER arises. A more reasonable example would show that the average payoff for each individual would be higher than it is in the current system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foxer

The death of an idealist. :wave:

As for the American voting system, I'm pretty sure 100% of ppl outside the USA don't understand it and 95% of the pple INSIDE America don't understand it either.

In normal countries (read Westminster systems) each party puts forward their best candidate and the ppl vote. Can't get much simpler than that!

How did a thread about crpt catching fire turn to religion turn to demonstrations turn to politics? :confused: Way to go Crpt!

---

Crptcblade 08

I will burn them all! :afrog:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

There are well known and studied voting systems, such as rank order voting, which would be really simple, and would not allow a third party candidate to split the vote, but would more accurately reflect the will of the people.

---

** WARNING **

Mathematicians, statistitions and probability theorists only past this point!!

http://www.sss.ias.edu/publications/...apereleven.pdf

If you believe the opinion of just one person then Rank Order Voting is not the way to go either.

(yes - I read all 12 pages - gawd help me!)

For me the solutions not the voting system (though ours in the UK seems specifically designed to keep the incumbent party in power) but in the distribution of government functions. Over the last couple of decades the Tories took all the power from local councils and gave it to Westminster, then labour stopped bothering to consult parliament on decisions so the net effect is that decision making is now ultra-centralised with the governement having total control of the process.

Personally I'm all for a much more localised and distributed model. The trouble with that aproach is that it does tend to exagerate the difference between rich and poor areas as rich areas have more funds to attract inward investment to generate more funds to generate inward investment to generate... you get the idea. I can't help feeling there's a middle ground, though, with centralised taxes being distributed out to local councils to decide on spendng policies. It would be difficult to manage but should be achievable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crptcblade

Crptcblade 08

I will burn them all! :afrog:

---

I can haz bumper sticker plz?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homer13j

I can haz bumper sticker plz?

---

After I receive a donation check. I'm not made of money, damn it. :mad: