A leeeettle smug, Hollywood, but whatever works.

What does the president have to do with education?

*groan* why couldn't they have just made a slogan like "be cool, stay in school" and be done with it!

Anyone who needed this video to be convinced should leave the voting to smarter people tho...

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Ryjkyj.

*notdead

This dead video has been deemed functional; it must have been accidentally declared dead - declared notdead by atara.

Yeah, back and forth on this one... too smug? Too preachy? Will it cause people to go 'Oh f*ck you rich hollywood people, I got 5 kids to feed man' (Or, you know... whatever).

But then, the message is good.

And I hand it to predominantly DiCaprio and Hoffman for being very charming in this... oh, ok, and Whittaker.

Whoever did the PSA is computer illiterate though if they think you need the www in front of maps.google.com/vote... but anyway.

Quite frankly I wish the US would move to compulsory voting, I know you yanks get all uppity about anyone forcing you to do anything... but really, EVERYONE should vote, and making it the law, more than anything, just makes sure you don't forget to do it.

if you want to be part of a lynch mob. vote.

democracies don't last long. there is no morality in majority rule.

Wow.. did they even mention the problem of voting fraud? nope of course not. Did they mention that only a small handful of citizen's have taken that issue seriously?

OH wait, what's that? You say that you don't care if your vote really counts? Just as long as you can say "I voted" so "I matter"... uhh.. yeah.. go read "Witness to a Crime" and tell me your vote really counts.

pssst!!! Do Something (about voting fraud!)

WRITE-INS
Call for overhaul and revision by organized protests at voting centers day of the sham:
Demand alternatives to the 2 candidates they have fed you like some French Goose forcemeat for a fat liver, and at the same time, impeach the dipshit in there now lame, for a simple series of goddamn lies.
Demand shit, and watch the roaches scramble......drop a pair, pidgies...

Get medieval on they asses......I wold love to send all congressmen and senators who have spent more than 20 years seated on their fat asses packin' for starters, and kick them up in the ass as they walk away with a cardboard box from their office, they thankful and lucky they are not fed to wild dogs.

Shall we go on???? Hollowwood! Fuck each and everyone of ya so-called, actors, for insulting me personally with yer canned, scripted tripe......

Choggie you really are a bitter, twisted individual who seems to have trouble getting joy from life.

Actually, all the posts after mine seem to be of the opinion of 'Other things are the problem, so I'm not going to vote'.

But you'll bitch the god damned loudest when someone gets elected that you don't agree with.

And comments like 'democracies don't last long'... are just f*cking stupid.

The message is bullshit and the presentation is, wow, incredibly smug and patronising.

How about really don't vote, because democracy is inherently corrupt. The sovereignty of the individual cannot be overturned by any majority. Consensus doesn't determine morality and consensus doesn't determine correct governance.

>> ^campionidelmondo:
Anyone who needed this video to be convinced should leave the voting to smarter people tho...


agreed

>> ^gorillaman:
The message is bullshit and the presentation is, wow, incredibly smug and patronising.
How about really don't vote, because democracy is inherently corrupt. The sovereignty of the individual cannot be overturned by any majority. Consensus doesn't determine morality and consensus doesn't determine correct governance.


So, what would you prefer? A monarchy? Dictatorship? Anarchy?

Really, I am interested in what superior mode of government you have in mind.

Noocracy. Judgement should always be in the hands of those most equipped to judge.

The whole point of government is to keep power out of the hands of the people, who are selfish, bigoted and ignorant. Democracy is the plural of dictatorship.

>> ^gorillaman:
Noocracy. Judgement should always be in the hands of those most equipped to judge.
The whole point of government is to keep power out of the hands of the people, who are selfish, bigoted and ignorant. Democracy is the plural of dictatorship.


Ah, but Noocracies still require people to be elected to office, and that has been touted as being handled by giving weighting to education levels and things like that.

Which may seem like a good idea, but it does tend to rely on the concept of 'measurable intelligence' and may overlook those people who are very smart and have great ideas that could shape things in a wonderful way, but just not be 'book smart'.

In general you do indeed see the more caring, just, well reasoned ideas for government come from those who have been better educated, because that helps teach acceptance of others and removes that 'governing by way of fear of those not like you' which tends to prevail in the non educated.

But... if you have a huge swathe of uneducated people (such as the US really does have), how do you propose that you tell them that they are not learned enough to vote and to just 'leave it up to us smart people'?

How are things like that EVER going to work without some sort of military might to hold off the non bright and the scared? And then, if you start down that road then you'll be running into the issue that the intellectuals will see that for what it is, which is a form of dictatorship, and not agree with that on humanitarian grounds.

The solution is not to say 'only the educated can vote or make decisions, bugger off all you dumb and ignorant types'. The solution is to improve the level of education across the board, so that everyone, EVERYONE is in a better educated position to have good, critical thought and good empathatic care for those unlike themselves.

THAT, combined with still a democratic system, will give you a form of a Noocracy, but without the need for forcibly denying the 'ignorant' from the pool of decision makers.

That terrorist comment was especially douchie.

Sadly, my attention span only endured up to 1:20...

*parody

Adding video to channels (Parody) - requested by ant.

How did Hollywood's latest products know that I don't care about Darfur or womens' rights? They must have special powers or something.

You win. I won't vote.

I'm glad that's over. Anybody got some weed?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

If you are living overseas like me, the Overseas Voter Foundation makes registration pretty painless:
https://www.overseasvotefoundation.org

^spoco2

Noocracy doesn't require an absolute measure of intelligence. Reasonable indicators are enough, I'm sure we both agree it is possible to distinguish between smart and stupid.

Constitutional republics like the U.S. are a kind of chronologically-removed noocracy; the 'smart people' establish a lasting foundation of law with which they hope to bind the excesses of the mob to whom they surrender government. I respect the idea, but these always degenerate towards democracy, demonstrating the need for an active policy.

"How are things like that EVER going to work without some sort of military might to hold off the non bright and the scared? And then, if you start down that road then you'll be running into the issue that the intellectuals will see that for what it is, which is a form of dictatorship, and not agree with that on humanitarian grounds."

This is the heart of our disagreement. Intellectuals, the best of them at least, will and do recognise that democracy, not noocracy, is oppressive. I've already called it the plural of dictatorship, a more common term is the tyranny of the majority. More fundamentally, democracy is immoral on an individual level; imposing ones will on society, by voting or any other method, without the expertise to make the most correct moral determination possible is violence.

I can point to successful, if limited, quasi-noocratic government systems already in operation. The constitutions of states nominally ruled by law may be transient, but they certainly slow the relentless advance of the mob. The House of Lords in the UK is viewed as baffling and almost miraculous in its ability to identify and oppose the worst legislation of the elected house. If you'd like to know how I'd go about implementing noocracy in my own country, I might start by expanding the authority of that body while rationalising its membership criteria.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, October 1st, 2008 2:21pm PDT - promote requested by joedirt.

Yes, you Mensa folks are exactly right!

We should weight votes by how intelligent a person is. Forget letting idiots and buffoons decide our leadership.

I propose we weight "dumb" people's votes and only count them as 3/5th of a regular smart person voter.

No go f-ck yourselves.

seriously...it's a good thing I watched this. I realized that I didn't know if I re-registered after moving. I called to find out and sure enough, I'll be making a trip to the post office tonight

They totally dropped the ball here. This was just screaming for a P. Diddy cameo where he holds a knife up to the camera and says "vote or die, motherfucker!"

I'd even settle the cardboard cutout they made on South Park...who needs the real one?

yer right spoco2, overwhelming amount of bitter-less and less expression of it refines and recreates....working onnit-Need more solid input from the rest of the monkeys, and more folks like the gorillaman to plainly place perspective in front of the eyes scaled-over, of the masses of assses......

Ha, I'm going to make 'masses of asses' part of my regular political vocabulary.

They should have just culled all the Jonah Hill ones into a piece. This sucks bad except for Jonah.

"... I've never done shit on drugs except play Halo 2!"

>> ^spoco2So, what would you prefer? A monarchy? Dictatorship? Anarchy?
Really, I am interested in what superior mode of government you have in mind.


How about a republic (rule by law)...which is what this country is supposed to be.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Basic-Forms-Of-Government-Not-Found-In-Public-Schools

If you believe in democracy (rule by majority), you believe that 9/10 people can choose to kill the 10th person.
If you believe in a republic, you believe 9/10 people cannot choose to kill the 10th person because murder is illegal.

"Democracy" is another word for oppression of the minority by the consensus of the majority and should be viewed with equal disdain as monarchies.

I'm voting. Not in any US elections, but still.

Good advice, until they told you to actually vote.

I'd vote for Jonah Hill over McBama.

"If you believe in democracy (rule by majority), you believe that 9/10 people can choose to kill the 10th person."

That's only true for "pure" democracies, and is a gross oversimplification. I would not want to live in a republic without democracy, or a democracy without laws.

>> ^uzema:
What does the president have to do with education?


I can't even tell if you're being sarcastic, but yeah they have an influence on national education policy. Remember no child left behind? The program that roots out the children being left behind, then cuts their schools funding?

^mentality:
"If you believe in democracy (rule by majority), you believe that 9/10 people can choose to kill the 10th person."

That's only true for "pure" democracies, and is a gross oversimplification.

No, its true for all democracies. There are no laws in a democracy, there is only majority rule. If it appears that there are "laws" it is only because the majority agrees with them. "Laws" in a democracy are not based on any system of morality, they are merely rules set by the whims of the majority. This is why slavery can be legal in a democracy in one century, and illegal in another. There never really was a "law"--only the illusion of "law" by majority consensus.

When I say "9/10 people can chose to kill the 10th person" what I also mean is "9/10 people can chose to forbid the 10th from smoking in restaurants". The only difference between these two statements is that in the former, the majority condemns murder, whereas in the latter, the majority condemns smoking. In either case, the reason one is prevented from murder and preventing from smoking is that the majority dictates it--not that the person has unalienable rights protect by law.

I would not want to live in a....democracy without laws.

You live in a democracy. What then?

In a republic, individuals have certain unalienable rights (sound familiar?) which are timeless. They do not depend on the whims of the majority or the orders of a despot, they are true for all men for all time. The method in which government officials are selected is irrelevant, whats important is the fact that humans have basic rights which must be protected by law. In a republic, by definition, whatever system is selected would have majority support--for how else could it persist when the illegal use of force is forbidden by law? Thus, a republic could utilize elected representatives, an elected monarch, a birthright monarch, or even a series of randomly selected people--if it was so desired.

Majority support and majority rule are two very, very different things.

Please do vote. You have a "bipartisan" choice between the town retard and your high school principal.

>> ^gorillaman:
^spoco2
Noocracy doesn't require an absolute measure of intelligence. Reasonable indicators are enough, I'm sure we both agree it is possible to distinguish between smart and stupid.


The logical fallacy I see with Noocracy is the assumption that intelligent people will make the best decisions, or rather that they will make the best decisions for the majority rather than just for themselves. You can find intelligent people on either side of just about any argument, just as you'll find stupid people.

Really hoping Southpark tears this PSA a new asshole. Congrats, superfluous Hollywood douche/douchette, you've managed to make me cringe even more at the very thought of voting. I don't know what I'd do if I didn't have Courtney Cox's or that guy from Boy Meets World's express approval.

All the same, I probably will vote, just with another added layer of good ole fashioned shame.

Maybe this will earn DiCaprio the Oscar he should have received for the Aviator. Unfortunately, I think anyone that needs this message, doesn't have the attention span to sit through a 4 minute web clip.

I think Im gunna start a clothing company called Dar Fur

>> ^spoco2:
Whoever did the PSA is computer illiterate though if they think you need the www in front of maps.google.com/vote... but anyway.


Actually, http://maps.google.com/vote/ is 404.

So it's a good thing to vote for one of the two clueless socialist parties? You may as well not vote at all. This PSA is retarded to the extreme.

I agree with voting in the primaries, though. We had the best chance in a long time to get a libertarian on a major ticket, with a great understanding of economics and even more brilliant advisor in Peter Schiff. After listening to those guys speak and have prediction after prediction come true, it shows me that these individuals are forthright and their understanding of these issues is genuine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucDkoqwflF4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G3Qefbt0n4

>> ^robbersdog49:
The logical fallacy I see with Noocracy is the assumption that intelligent people will make the best decisions, or rather that they will make the best decisions for the majority rather than just for themselves. You can find intelligent people on either side of just about any argument, just as you'll find stupid people.


You don't have to believe that smart people will automatically make the best decisions to endorse noocracy, only that smarter people will tend to make better decisions.

There are two basic kinds of government corruption. First the unconscious, rulers acting immorally because they don't know any better. Authoritarian governments around the world aren't curtailing our rights just for the sake of malice. Noocracy is the system best able to mitigate this corruption, while democracy is the worst offender.
Second, willing and deliberate misrule for personal gain. Every government, including a perfectly democratic one, is vulnerable to this form of corruption. Which government is most capable of choosing and emplacing the systems needed to fight it? Noocracy.

The iron law of oligarchy tells us that given time every political system will be dominated by a ruling elite. With noocracy, we simply grant power to the best possible elite.

>> ^oohahh:
>> ^spoco2:
Whoever did the PSA is computer illiterate though if they think you need the www in front of maps.google.com/vote... but anyway.

Actually, http://maps.google.com/vote/ is 404.


Kill the extra "/"

http://maps.google.com/vote works