This "if you don't like it, go elsewhere / vote otherwise" attitude really gets on my nerves.
It seems to presume the simplest possible Game-Theoretical scenario is fully representative of reality, and ignores all the factors that forced us to create representative governments in the first place or that are included in the common usage meaning of the word "politics".
To illustrate this, imagine an isolated SmallTown™ in northern Alaska, where relocating a family to anywhere else in the world costs upwards of 50 000$ (fictive figure). Mr. Daddy has a job and a family in this town. Suddenly, he's told that he now has to work 90h/week rather than 30h/week, and for whatever reason this is fully legal for his occupation and employment conditions. Now he has effectively no time to devote to his family. There are no other jobs available in this town where Mr Daddy has the skills for being hired that also pay well enough to support the family. "Not happy with the schedule change? No problem, you can just quit whenever!"... and have the family starve, as they're unable to relocate and there are no other options available.
The above scenario is an extreme where I've cranked up the scarcity level to 100%. However, even if you're a senior programmer in Bay, the problems and consequences and mathematics of quitting a job don't entirely go away. Depending on the situation and individual, the collaterals associated with quitting the job might be five times worse than accepting unfairly imposed conditions, where the situation could easily be resolved to everyone's benefit in a different configuration (think Nash equilibria vs Pareto optima).
And if you're not happy with this comment, well, obviously you should just go read another one. (heh)
Perfectly valid comment, but you've put it in the wrong place. My comment is about voting for one's representative, who then goes on to debate and shape future laws. This is key to representative democracy and has nothing to do with scarcity, mobility, or voting with one's feet/skill/labour.
If I don't like the policies of the guy I voted for last time, I won't vote for him next time. If lots of people in my region do the same thing, then he either has to shift policy or be replaced by someone who will. Are you suggesting I move if I don't like his policies? That is not how democracy works, and isn't even close to what I'm suggesting. Nor am I suggesting (anywhere) that if I hold a minority position that I move, or change my vote.
I sincerely think you read something into my comment that I didn't say, and I'm trying really hard not to use the phrase "straw man" in regards to your comment, because I actually agree with you, but you're arguing against a point I didn't make.
Yes, I derailed substantially there. I think it was just another case of needing to vent about Someone Is Wrong On The Internet, and your comment was the convenient outlet for this particular one.
In retrospect I'm quite happy you didn't take it the wrong way, or worse take the bait.
It seems to presume the simplest possible Game-Theoretical scenario is fully representative of reality, and ignores all the factors that forced us to create representative governments in the first place or that are included in the common usage meaning of the word "politics".
To illustrate this, imagine an isolated SmallTown™ in northern Alaska, where relocating a family to anywhere else in the world costs upwards of 50 000$ (fictive figure). Mr. Daddy has a job and a family in this town. Suddenly, he's told that he now has to work 90h/week rather than 30h/week, and for whatever reason this is fully legal for his occupation and employment conditions. Now he has effectively no time to devote to his family. There are no other jobs available in this town where Mr Daddy has the skills for being hired that also pay well enough to support the family. "Not happy with the schedule change? No problem, you can just quit whenever!"... and have the family starve, as they're unable to relocate and there are no other options available.
The above scenario is an extreme where I've cranked up the scarcity level to 100%. However, even if you're a senior programmer in Bay, the problems and consequences and mathematics of quitting a job don't entirely go away. Depending on the situation and individual, the collaterals associated with quitting the job might be five times worse than accepting unfairly imposed conditions, where the situation could easily be resolved to everyone's benefit in a different configuration (think Nash equilibria vs Pareto optima).
And if you're not happy with this comment, well, obviously you should just go read another one. (heh)