Get off your high horse and vote!

by A. Patti Wed May 15, 2002 01:36

Who cares?

by charlie braun Wed May 15, 2002 01:40 charliecwc at yahoo dot com

Aside from any other gripe I have with this particular viewpoint, the author seems to have fundamentally contradicted himself; even though Anarchists actively oppose voting in faux democratic elections such as the one on Friday, through their involvement with numerous campaigns and events (easy examples are Anti-Bin Tax and RTS), most actually have far more "influence" than the adverage tick-a-box-every-five years voter over the government and political institutions that you have such faith in.

by Ray Wed May 15, 2002 09:16

But here are some links to answer your questions -
Anarchists don't vote, but that doesn't make us apathetic, as explained here
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/election.html
especially in the anti-election leaflet
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm/leaflet/choiceAPR02.html
Here are some articles about revolution
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm_revolution.html
And here is the anarchist FAQ, which contains a section about what an anarchist society would look like
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

In future, if you want to express an opinion, rather than post a news article, you should either post it as a comment to an existing discussion, or go to somewhere like Global_irl
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/global_irl/
or Irish anarchism
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/irishanarchism/

Ray

by donal Wed May 15, 2002 10:26 d2

anyone who claims to know what's good for you better than you do is a swine
avoiding the polls (and the inconvenience of the results)just makes it easier to cloak the authoritarian impulse in the guise of Righteousness. so you've got more influence than the voters eh? and what have you actually changed lately?

by Ray Wed May 15, 2002 10:56

>anyone who claims to know what's good for you better than you do is a swine<

Which is one reason why I won't be voting. What are politicians but people who claim they know what's good for us? people who think they should be in a position to make decisions for us?

What have I changed lately? I've worked on the bin charges campaign, which is (partly) responsible for the fact that most Dublin householders are refusing to pay these charges. I helped reclaim a street last week. I've given out hundreds of anti-racist leaflets in the last week (to add to the thousands in recent years). I've been an activist on abortion rights for years, and as such I can claim some part of the credit for changing attitudes in Ireland. The list goes on.

And what has your vote changed recently? Tweedledum sits in the Dail instead of Tweedledee. Jack has had a chance to break his election promises, but not Jill. Bertie got to claim credit for the boom, and not Johnny or Micky.

Your vote has achieved nothing worthwhile that couldn't be won by direct action. You're the one avoiding politics, not me.

by donal Wed May 15, 2002 11:05 d2

why does the left oppose bin charges - because they are unpopular or because you are opposed to local govt being free from the central exchequer?
you reclaimed a street? from whom for whom for how long? you indulged in theatre and egoism you changed nothing but the delay on the buses
and wait for it you changed ....attitudes well done son. i know i'll sleep easir to night

by Ray Wed May 15, 2002 11:37

Bin charges are opposed because they're a regressive, double taxation, and actually contradict the 'polluter pays' principle. More here
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm/bins.html
Reclaiming the streets - if you have to ask, you're on the wrong site, but there's an RTS statement here
http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=3648
And changing people's minds is at the heart of political change. Why did people vote against the last abortion referendum? Because they had changed their minds.
I notice you couldn't come up with anything that your vote has changed.

by donal Wed May 15, 2002 11:59 d2

First calling you son was condescending and wrong –apologies

The plastic bag tax (levy)is double taxation but is that wrong?
Surely 'polluter pays' allows one buy the right to pollute?
You don’t address the (for me) key issue of local govt independence
As regards reclaiming the streets - I may well agree with the sentiment but direct action by the young and able bodied puts the aged and infirm at a real and practical disadvantage. the polling booth doesn’t
I’m a capitalist (like most people in ireland) so my vote did ok – and this time around I am prepared to accept the result, though no I wouldn’t choose the doubtless incoming govt– the evil of 2 lessers in my opinion
As to the last referendum, the oracle at delphi couldn’t interpret that outcome

by Ray Wed May 15, 2002 12:24

(last post was missing quite a bit..)

-The plastic bag tax (levy)is double taxation but is that wrong?-

Why do you think the levy is double taxation?

The bin charges are a double tax because when local service charges were abolished 20 years ago they were replaced with a VAT increase. Central government is supposed to fund local councils with the money from that VAT increase, but in fact the subvention was frozen back in the 80's. So we're paying VAT to the government to pay for our services, and now the council wants to charge us for those same services - that's double taxation.
Its not the only reason to oppose bin charges, but its one of them.

-Surely 'polluter pays' allows one buy the right to pollute?-

??? The introduction of a fine for littering doesn't mean you can buy the right to litter.

-You don’t address the (for me) key issue of local govt independence-

What kind of local government independence is there when the council can be disbanded if they refuse to include bin charges in the budget?

-As regards reclaiming the streets - I may well agree with the sentiment but direct action by the young and able bodied puts the aged and infirm at a real and practical disadvantage.-

There are other forms of direct action.

- the polling booth doesn’t-

No, there the advantage is to the rich who can buy politicians. Or are you going to tell me that 'campaign contributions' don't shape policy?
And the polling booth is a waste of time when there is no way to hold politicians to their promises, instruct them, or otherwise ensure that they do what you want them to do.

-I’m a capitalist (like most people in ireland) so my vote did ok – and this time around I am prepared to accept the result, though no I wouldn’t choose the doubtless incoming govt– the evil of 2 lessers in my opinion-

You've yet to tell me what exactly your vote achieved. If you're pretty happy with the current system anyway no doubt you aren't bothered that it didn't do much, but you can hardly expect to convince me that I should get out and vote when you can't point to any positive effect it will have.

-As to the last referendum, the oracle at delphi couldn’t interpret that outcome-

Most anti-abortion people campaigned for a Yes vote. Most pro-choice (or pro 'choice in certain circumstances') people campaigned for a No vote.
The Yes vote was highest in conservative areas. The No vote was highest in liberal areas. It doesn't take a rocket scientist...

by donal Wed May 15, 2002 12:39 d2

most people didn't campaign and only a minority voted - the result was far two close across the state for anyone to talk about 'conservative or liberal' areas.. to be decided by what their track record in abortion referenda, all referenda? was the pro nice vote liberal or conservative, was the anti.
people don't go into the voting booth with placards they go in with opinions, attitudes and consciences, often contradictory always valid. all we get is the result- there's no room for rocket science its far too complex a business for that, and far too straight forward

by John the Revelator Wed May 15, 2002 13:00

If you vote one way (or don't vote at all...)we are likely to have more restricted alcohol licencing laws than we will if you vote another. Which demographic segment of society most enjoys socialising in this way?. The young and exhuberant. Which demographic segment votes most consistently?. The older and most conservative. That's just one glib, facile example but important nonetheless.

by donal Wed May 15, 2002 13:05 d2

The plastic bag tax (levy)is double taxation
because I already pay income tax designed to deal with environmental waste
Rates were abolished for householders in order to win an election – no real attempt was made to balance the fall out
The councils can be disbanded because they have lost the ability to fund themselves and therefore their own programmes – their estimates can be rejected because they can't finance independently
Political contributions may well be a flaw in the system, doesn’t mean the system is all flawed
If you don’t want pro business parties to run the country vote against them, I’m pro business because I believe capitalism benefits people in very practical ways and because i want to be free in soi far as is practicable to do what i want with what i own, i vote for them… you don’t

So how do we decide? On the streets? let the strong decide?

by Ray Wed May 15, 2002 13:29

When there was only one single question on the ballot paper, and only two possible results, you tell me that its far too complex to be interpreted. But when there are a dozen candidates in a constituency, and hundreds (if not thousands) of questions for a government to decide, you think the results of an election should give TDs carte blanche for the next five years. You may want to rethink things a little...

>>The plastic bag tax (levy)is double taxation
because I already pay income tax designed to deal with environmental waste>The councils can be disbanded because they have lost the ability to fund themselves and therefore their own programmes – their estimates can be rejected because they can't finance independently>Political contributions may well be a flaw in the system, doesn’t mean the system is all flawed<<

They are a serious flaw in the system, and the existence of flaws like this tells us why the system is as it is.
There are more flaws, which I mentioned in earlier posts, most seriously the lack of accountability. It doesn't matter who you vote for, pro- or anti-business, once they are elected you have no control over what they do. (and that applies to licensing laws too - the party that is currently in favour of liberalisation may change its mind in govt, and vice versa)

The alternative is direct democracy - choosing between courses of action, rather than electing someone to choose for you.
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/election.html

by Ray Wed May 15, 2002 13:31

-The plastic bag tax (levy)is double taxation
because I already pay income tax designed to deal with environmental waste-

Oh, be serious. You may as well claim that PRSI is double taxation because you already pay for the health service, or that a car tax is double taxation because you already pay for infrastructure. Or that any tex increase is double taxation because you already pay taxes.
VAT was increased to pay for refuse collection. Now a new charge is being introduced to pay for refuse collection. _That_ is double taxation.

-The councils can be disbanded because they have lost the ability to fund themselves and therefore their own programmes – their estimates can be rejected because they can't finance independently-

Rejected by who? By central government. Therefore councils are not independent - they exist only at the whim of government.

by shane Wed May 15, 2002 13:35

the very act of putting X beside some dickheads name is dis-empowering yourself, not exercising people power. how many of you have been greeted at your door by some gobshite claiming to be your "local representative". these politicians are scum, kleptomaniacs, and are no better than human excretement.
if i believed in jesus i would call bertie ahern the anti-christ.

by donal Wed May 15, 2002 14:10 d2

scum and human excrement - scum is a frothy algae mass that floats on top of still water (i'm a redneck i know these things) i never really got the insult i have to say - as for shit, does dehumanising someone make it easier to reject their arguements without the hassle of listening - what else does it make it easier to do? do you reject other people's right to humanity because they disagree with you or because they do so out loud? tell me if i have the means of production and you want them how do you go about taking them off me?

by donal Wed May 15, 2002 14:17 d2

right - local councils aren't independent, thats my point - allow them to raise funds and they could be -
i don't have a problem with double taxation, the anti bin charge campaigns do
yes prsi is double taxation yes i'm willing to pay it because most people who express a preference for a political party support parties that support some form of social insurance

brass tax (hee hee) - without coercion how do you feed an anarchist/syndicalist/communist entity? or find me an irish farmer willing to be collectivised

by Harry Pollit - Anarchist Federation Wed May 15, 2002 14:27

"tell me if i have the means of production and you want them how do you go about taking them off me?"

The means of production is our labour, or that which is created by our labour, we simply cease to labour for you and labour for ourselves instead.
Obviously for this to work it has to be done by the majority of the people.
If you are an employer - then you use blatantly undemocratic and authoritarian means to enforce your will - if you employ me and I don't do as you say you will sack me. So where's your democracy?
Who elected you? Who do you represent apart from your bank balance.
I dunno what you mean about the "mask slips" as that was Shane's first post on this thread - by the same logic we could say the "mask slips" at one of your posts - revealing that indymedia is actually the platform of...whatever it is exactly you are... . Indymedia is whoever posts to it - including you.

by Ray Wed May 15, 2002 14:29

-right - local councils aren't independent, thats my point - allow them to raise funds and they could be -

Why does that benefit me? What do I care? Neither the Dail nor the council is democratic, so what does it matter which body makes these decisions?

- i don't have a problem with double taxation, the anti bin charge campaigns do -

You don't have a problem with being charged twice for a single service? So if Eircom send you two phone bills in a month, you're happy to pay both of them?

- yes prsi is double taxation yes i'm willing to pay it because most people who express a preference for a political party support parties that support some form of social insurance -

And most people in Dublin don't support bin charges, as is clearly demonstrated by the fact that most refuse to pay the charges. The fact that the bin charges were introduced anyway shows how undemocratic the system is.

- brass tax (hee hee) - without coercion how do you feed an anarchist/syndicalist/communist entity? or find me an irish farmer willing to be collectivised -

You're asking how an anarchist society will work, and that's too big a question for a short answer. Try looking at these sites
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spaindx.html
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm_revolution.html
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm_capital.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

by Harry Pollit - Anarchist Federation Wed May 15, 2002 14:36

"without coercion how do you feed an anarchist/syndicalist/communist entity? or find me an irish farmer willing to be collectivised"

Not sure what you mean by "collectivised" - given that in this context the word is usually taken to mean nationalisation/state control - which obviously has f'all to do with anarchism.
But the system driving farmers off the land is capitalism - increasingly so (I can't remember the figures off the top of my head) and economic projections expect more and more to go.

In the case of a family farm it would remain in the hands of the people who work it in anarchism - i.e. the family in question. After all the point is democratic control over workplaces by the people who work them, so the farmer keeps control over his farm (obviously).

As opposed to being driven to the wall, sqeezed between subsidised factory farming and
agri-corporations (in the later case the places one usually sees farmers protesting outside).
As is the case under capitalism.

by donal Wed May 15, 2002 15:01 d2

surely in order to reach any sort of egality in an arch-syndicalist system there needs must be a radical change in the manner of ownership
(i really oughtn't to be the one pointing this out)
otherwise what your suggesting is that the people who work in a bank share ownership of that and the people who work the land - farming families, labourers etc share ownership of that resource and they what trade? some farms are big some are small some land is good some is bad.not quite bakunin is it

the means of production is the ability to marshall diverse resources - labour and capital among them. if i'm lazy in a collectivised workplace what happens to me?

re: bin charges the original point was whether the anti-bin charge campaigns were left lead or left followed. your point now is that most people don't pay them therefore they disagree with them therefore they're undemocratic. therefore what? bin charges are wrong in themselves or local democracy isn't functioning coirrectly - my point is that local democracy can't function properly because it can't fund itself. the best you've done so far is to refer to VAT, but then i can't see you launching a crusade to get VAT reciepts working more smoothly - its a bit of an up with the bit of the system i'm not quite as angry with arguement.
shane is an idiot - they exist on all extremes- the mass defection from left to right in the 30's was characterised by them. they want to feel important by putting down and dehumanising rather than accepting a common humanity that would force them to reflect on themselves as well as their opponents - wait for the 'aw i didn't meant they weren't people too i just mean its just like i was a' you probably heard it last time you complained about a racist/sexist joke too

by Ray Wed May 15, 2002 15:19

- re: bin charges the original point was whether the anti-bin charge campaigns were left lead or left followed.-

Well maybe it was unintentional, but I certainly read your original post as implying that leftwing involvement in the campaign against the bin charges was motivated by nothing more than a desire to be associated with a popular issue.

- your point now is that most people don't pay them therefore they disagree with them therefore they're undemocratic. therefore what? -

Therefore the council shouldn't introduce them. Therefore its legitimate for people to refuse to pay them (more than a refusal to pay income tax would be). Therefore the fact that they exist is an example of why parliamentary democracy doesn't work, and direct action is more effective than voting.

- bin charges are wrong in themselves or local democracy isn't functioning coirrectly - my point is that local democracy can't function properly because it can't fund itself. -

The Dail can fund itself by levying taxes, and it doesn't work properly either. (Its not an either/or situation anyway, the two are related. Bin charges are wrong in themselves, so they are opposed, but the council introduces them anyway because local democracy isn't functioning)

- the best you've done so far is to refer to VAT, but then i can't see you launching a crusade to get VAT reciepts working more smoothly - its a bit of an up with the bit of the system i'm not quite as angry with arguement. -

I'm not arguing in favour of VAT, I'm arguing against double taxation. If both Eircom and NTL sent you a bill for your home phone connection, and you decided you weren't going to pay both, what do you think would be the appropriate course of action?
a) To refuse to pay the NTL bill?
Or b) to pay the NTL bill, and launch a crusade to improve Eircom's billing system?
And if you choose a), should I interpret that as an 'up with Eircom' argument?

by donal Wed May 15, 2002 15:45 d2

right so
a (me) the system is broken
b (you)the system can't be fixed
if the system can't be fixed create another and then convince people to accept it, don't try to tear down the one other people want top keep- its not democratic and at the practical level will never win poplular backing

but nowhere have i seen an alternate refuse system people powered + funded in action
nor an alternative to the notion of refuse being implemented. therefore it looks to me like the left supports anti-bin campaigns because they are poplular and not vice-versa, and still want their bins collected

by Ray Wed May 15, 2002 16:03

- if the system can't be fixed create another and then convince people to accept it, don't try to tear down the one other people want top keep- its not democratic and at the practical level will never win poplular backing -

Donal, look back to the top of this thread. This whole discussion started when yourself and Aengus criticised people for opting out of the electoral system and getting involved in directly democratic actions instead. No-one is preventing you from voting. (No-one is preventing you from banging your head off a wall either) What we are doing is trying to persuade people to choose a more democratic alternative.

- therefore it looks to me like the left supports anti-bin campaigns because they are poplular and not vice-versa, and still want their bins collected -

Of course we want our bins collected. We paid for bin collection. We don't want to pay TWICE. How many times do I have to make the same argument?

by donal Wed May 15, 2002 16:18 d2

you only paid the first time because you had to - vat

there's no 'of course we want our bins collected'
politics of any sort is the art of the possible

you said there were reasons other than the double taxation to oppose bin charges i have yet to read them,
i am willing to pay.
the system says pay so if you want bins collected pay the direct bin charge or offer an alternative not to the charge but to the system

if councils were financially independent ie charged local taxes- you could elect councillors who opposed the charge, but you still wouldn't want to

the amount paid for bin charges can be claimed back against paye, the money is pretty much irrelevent

by Ray Wed May 15, 2002 16:45

- you said there were reasons other than the double taxation to oppose bin charges i have yet to read them, -

As I said above, "Bin charges are opposed because they're a regressive, double taxation, and actually contradict the 'polluter pays' principle." They are regressive, because they are not related to income. And they target householders, who are responsible for only a tiny fraction of rubbish - and don't have control over the excess packaging that makes up most of that fraction.

- i am willing to pay.
the system says pay so if you want bins collected pay the direct bin charge or offer an alternative not to the charge but to the system -

Its called anarchism, I may have mentioned it once or twice...

- if councils were financially independent ie charged local taxes- you could elect councillors who opposed the charge, but you still wouldn't want to -

So, if councillors could levy taxes, I could elect councillors who would refuse to levy taxes. Spot the logical flaw there?

Besides, as I've mentioned a couple of times, the problem with politicians of any stripe is that they are unaccountable. Plenty of councillors promised they wouldn't vote for service charges (bins or water) and then broke their promises when elected. Bertie promised a referendum on the PfP, and then broke that promise. There was a poll published today saying that only 21% of people expect politicians to keep their promises, and the doubters have good reason.

I say again, the solution is not to vote for someone new, but to choose direct democracy.

- the amount paid for bin charges can be claimed back against paye, the money is pretty much irrelevent -

Hardly. Its over 100 euro, and once these charges are introduced they just keep increasing.

by badman Wed May 15, 2002 17:11

1. The neo-liberal policies of the global financial institutions promote privatisation of public services. All of the Irish political parties by and large subscribe to this economic orthodoxy. Before a service is privatised it needs to establish its own customer revenue stream, at least somewhat independant of government subsidies. Charging people for services like water and bin collection is the first step towards their privatisation.

The vast majority of evidence has shown that privatisation of services such as these leads to a net transfer of wealth from the public to the shareholders of a small number of private companies. It also tends to produce an increase of the economic inequality within society, a drop in level of service for the majority of customers and the loss of services altogether for a secion of the population.

2. By putting the burden of the payment for waste disposal onto the public in the form of a flat rate tax, the poorer you are, the greater the proportion of your income that you will be paying, thereby increasing economic inequality within society.

3. If householders will be paying the majority of the cost of waste disposal, the sectors of the economy which produce the most waste will have little incentive to decrease their production of waste.

by fuinseog Wed May 15, 2002 23:56

There is a difference between Joe Higgins and Liam Lawlor; There is a difference between John Gormley and Michael Lowry.

Neither Higgins nor Gormley is perfect. Higgins keeps spouting nonsense about bin charges which are a distraction from the real injustices. Gormley is afraid to alienate his more middle-class constituents with the radical reduction in their consumption which he knows is needed to deal with the ecological crisis. But for God's sake they're better than the alternative.

Certainly the system corrupts politicians, but don't pretend it doesn't matter who you vote for. Don't leave it up to those who believe FF's lies.

Work to change it, work to abolish it. Don't pretend abstaining is either.

by Ray Thu May 16, 2002 09:30

- There is a difference between Joe Higgins and Liam Lawlor; There is a difference between John Gormley and Michael Lowry.-

While Joe and John might be nicer people than Liam and Michael, and though you might have more in common with the first two than the latter two, they all have one very important thing in common.

All of them are trying to get into a position (or have been in a position) where they make laws for us. Without mandate, without accountability, without any democratic control. All of them are looking to be given power over us.

And so, in that sense, it doesn't matter who I vote for. Whether I vote for Joe or Liam, neither is under any obligation to keep the promises they made in their manifestos. Whether I vote for John or Michael, once elected they will pass laws in accordance with their own wishes, not with mine. So yes, in the most important areas, they are all the same.

- Work to change it, work to abolish it. Don't pretend abstaining is either.-

Spoiling my vote doesn't abolish the system, but its a clear protest at its lack of democracy. Its not the only political work I do, far from it.

by saortinn Fri May 17, 2002 16:18

it makes no difference to the main body of the country who is in power. the actual difference in aim and policy is minimal between all the contenders. the power that the government have relative to us is almost total and this is reflected in their arrogance. Ruari Quinn with his all year tan masquerading as a labour leader etc, the cops and their we are beyond reproach attitude. , but my point is that even the governmnet has its hands tied by the rich, both here and foreign investors, they must be pleased, not us, the pre election promised made to them are kept. And as far as what can be achieved by not voting goes and using direct action, well look no further than last Monday. I have been listening to complaints about heavy handed cops all my life, now its a mainstream point of discussion. Would your local TD have achieved that , even if wanted to? if as many of us took to the streets as to the polls there isnt a lot we couldnt achieve.