this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
35 points (100.0% liked)

AskBeehaw

2003 readers
2 users here now

An open-ended community for asking and answering various questions! Permissive of asks, AMAs, and OOTLs (out-of-the-loop) alike.

In the absence of flairs, questions requesting more thought-out answers can be marked by putting [SERIOUS] in the title.

Subcommunity of Chat

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
35
it's election season, Beehaw, so — what are your thoughts on compulsory (mandatory) voting? (beehaw.org)
submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

good idea/bad idea, necessary democratic reform or authoritarian imposition? are there better or worse ways to do it?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (9 children)

Australia has compulsory voting with penalties for not voting. It ensures that people who don't think they have a voice or that their vote doesn't change anything actually are required to make their voice heard, even if they think that it doesn't matter.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Australia has a lot of really borderline fascist ideas. Not a great argument.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Some people in Australia absolutely have ideas like you describe, fortuitously the rest of us don't have to vote for them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Anti-smoking legislation is evidence of an authoritarian society. Lifestyle control and coercive paternalism appease the whims of fanatics who hold positions of influence. In a free economy, demand dictates supply. Smoking bans and restrictions are only in place because there is currently not enough demand for smoke-free establishments to appease those who claim they speak for all society. The will of a few is being forced on the many.

wanting to exist in a society where you don't get second-hand lung cancer is not fascism, oh my god. it is perfectly socially acceptable and not even the slightest bit "authoritarian" to regulate actions that can directly harm other people. and this is an absolutely comical free-market-absolutist-brained idea of what freedom is.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

What does one have to do with the other?

load more comments (6 replies)