[breuleux]

Voting for policies that hurt people at large isn't "fighting back". What has the public done to you to deserve this? It's like working at a restaurant and spitting in customers' food because the restaurant owner is overworking you, and then saying no, the sociopath is the guy who's forcing me to come in on the weekend. Fuck that noise, you're both sociopaths.

If you're unhappy about being forced into duty, you can abstain from voting at all, or you can focus your energy on changing the system so that it works on a purely voluntary basis. That's perfectly fine. But let's not pretend that voting for bad policies, which will inevitably hurt people who have nothing to do with your predicament, is a proper way to fight back.

[stale2002]

> What has the public done to you to deserve this?

Well, what they did was force me into temporary slavery.

> It's like working at a restaurant and spitting in customers' food

If the customers were forcing me to work in a restaurant, I think I might do that.

> If you're unhappy about being forced into duty, you can abstain from voting at all

Why would I do that, when a much more effective method of screwing over the people who forced me into this, is by voting for bad policy?

The people who would force me into this want good policy. So I do the opposite of what they want.

This is why you don't do stuff like this. Because the people who you are forcing into slavery aren't going to play "nice" with your plan. They will instead take actions that you don't like, regardless of your complaints about it, or regardless how "immoral" you believe it to be.

I do not have to live by your code of ethics. I will instead live by mine, and screw over your plan in the way that hurts everyone the most.

You don't get to complain about "fairness" or the "right" way for me to protest, when you are forcing me into slavery.

I would engage in this behavior specially because it would very effectively sabotage this plan to force people into the work.

[breuleux]

What? The "public" didn't force you to do anything. The public is just people. You're part of the public, for Christ's sake. A representative who would act as you propose wouldn't be screwing some mysterious nefarious entity that likes to enslave people, they'd be screwing you.

> You don't get to complain about "fairness" or the "right" way for me to protest, when you are forcing me into slavery.

What about the part of the public who doesn't like this system, doesn't want to force you to do anything, and would like to change the way it works? If you're "sabotaging" the system by voting for "bad policies," you're screwing them over along with everyone else. Can they complain? Because I can guarantee you that they will.

Anyway. Let me put it this way: if 95% of the public supports this system, it doesn't matter how hard you try to sabotage it. It won't do dick. If a significant percentage hates the system, let's say 20%, then 20% of the "enslaved" representatives really want to change the system to work on a voluntary basis. Surely they can bloody negotiate with the remaining 80% to enact a reform, instead of lashing out against the public at large, who can't really do anything about the system because they weren't picked by the lottery.

[stale2002]

> it doesn't matter how hard you try to sabotage it. It won't do dick.

Sure it will. It will help cause more bad policies to happen, at the margin.

There would be lots of controversial laws, and 10% of people voting here to mess things up, would effect something.

That's my revenge on the 90% that forced me into this, because of their "support".

> Surely they can bloody negotiate

Why do that, when we can just sabotage things? You don't get to force me into this, and complain when I fight back.

People do not have to react the way that you want them to, or that you find fair. Burning everything to the ground, in whatever way I can, is a perfectly acceptable retaliation to slavery.

Sure, there would be collateral damage. But there is always collateral damage. No matter what political stance a person is fighting for.

[breuleux]

> Sure it will. It will help cause more bad policies to happen, at the margin.

Very unreliably. You will only be able to influence policies that are nearly 50/50, but if they are 50/50, that is because there is widespread disagreement over which option is better. This means there is a fairly high chance that your "sabotage" vote ironically results in better policy. Think about it: the issue is 50/50, and you have the decisive vote. Half of the voters are wrong. What do you think the odds are that you're in the half that knows what it's doing?

My analysis is that odds that the average saboteur would vote for a bad policy ought to be roughly proportional to the proportion of honest voters that pick the good policy. Unfortunately, these odds are a toss-up when the saboteur's influence is maximized.

> Why do that, when we can just sabotage things?

To get results. Your gripes are understandable enough not to be dismissed, and if you can make a credible threat of sabotage, you may be able to cause a reform and perhaps get your freedom back before the end of the term. Sabotage can be a valid tactic to get what you want, especially if you're in desperate straits, but I don't see how your stunts are supposed to achieve anything at all, let alone anything that cannot be achieved more efficiently through collaboration.

> You don't get to force me into this, and complain when I fight back.

Was I actually complaining, though? When I say your behavior in this situation would be sociopathic, I mean it as a statement of fact. Notice that I followed the remark with "that's part of the risk in the system," clearly indicating that I am willing to eat that loss. I'm not complaining. I'm accounting. (Also, I genuinely think you would be working against your own interests.)

> People do not have to react the way that you want them to, or that you find fair.

I know many people won't react the way I want them to. I know some people will act like sociopaths. This is a variable to quantify: if enough people would turn into madmen if they were forced to do this, well, that invalidates conscription, and it's back to the drawing board. Likewise, if a large number of people think my system is immoral, okay, sure, let's do something else.

I mean, I'm not married to the specifics: I think it is important to make sure that the sample is statistically unbiased, and conscription is the easiest way to do this, but if we can get close enough on a voluntary basis, hey, that's even better.

I do maintain that your reaction would be disproportionate and ultimately immoral. Again, though, I'm not complaining about it, because that would be pointless: you do you. But I'm taking note of it so that I can account for the seriousness of the threat.

Edit: And if the threat is serious enough, you win, really. I would oppose conscription and you wouldn't have to sabotage anything (well, if I had my way). Just want you to know I am listening, even if I disapprove of your behavior.

[stale2002]

> What do you think the odds are that you're in the half that knows what it's doing?

Well then it doesn't matter what I do, so I am not sure why you'd be so angry about it.

> hen I say your behavior in this situation would be sociopathic

It is not sociopathic to retaliate against people who want to force you into temporary slavery. It is instead called justice.

> would turn into madmen

There isn't nothing "mad" about fighting crazies like you who want to force people into slavery.

Instead, the madmen are the ones trying to take away our rights.

Honestly, my actions are fairly tame. I didn't even say that I would engage in violence or anything. I expect that other people might, and I wouldn't blame them.

Violence is a perfectly logical response attempts to force people into slavery. I wouldn't do it, though (because of the other alternatives at my disposal).

[breuleux]

> Well then it doesn't matter what I do, so I am not sure why you'd be so angry about it.

I'm curious how you think you can evaluate someone's "anger" in written comments on the Internet. I'm not angry. I'm judging you and listing all the problems I see with what you say you would do, but there's frankly no need to be worked up to do any of that.

> It is not sociopathic to retaliate against people who want to force you into temporary slavery. It is instead called justice.

Okay, so my view is that equating this system to slavery is disingenuous, hysterical and ridiculous for too many reasons to count, and that your "retaliation" is unfocused, ineffective and reckless. Your view is that I'm a sociopathic tyrant.

Okay.

But you know what? Who cares.

I don't need your approval. You don't need mine. The only thing that matters is that I want an unbiased sample, but saboteurs, insofar that they purposefully act contrary to what they think is good, constitute an unwanted bias. In other words, you don't want to be conscripted, and I don't want to conscript you. We can probably work something out.

> Honestly, my actions are fairly tame. I didn't even say that I would engage in violence or anything. I expect that other people might, and I wouldn't blame them.

If by engaging in violence, you mean violent resistance to anyone who tries to force you to go to parliament, I consider this more acceptable than your idea of going and voting for bad policies, and I do not think of it as sociopathic (I also strongly oppose having such an enforcement policy).

If you mean random acts of terrorism, then this is insane and you've lost me completely.