About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4


Post 80

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 7:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't vote for most things. Its currently a wast of my time, too much work to figure out who the best candidate is.
This is pretty much what I thought. Democracy has worked itself down to the bottom of the barrel, and I just think that's sad. 

You're young and idealistic and you look around and see all of this stupid bullshit going on in Washington and in your state, it's hard for me to criticize you for being cynical toward it all. It truly is a mess.

I'd vote on decisions that have great impacts on my life, such as the US president.
It would probably be wise to look into your local and state legislature. They have far more direct impact than the Federal Executive Branch.

People already vote for their government with their money. Where do you live? Which government do you fund? Currently that's the best way you are able to choose your government. My proposed vote with money system just makes this process much more direct, and removes taxation through force from the equation.
You lost me....are you saying we should pay to vote? Or we should vote for who ever is worth the most money? I don't understand.


Post 81

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 7:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Don't forget - those who don't vote ARE voting - they're voting NO, even if for  now that doesn't have force of law, but it is the only moral answer to the fact that the lesser of two evils IS STILL EVIL.

Post 82

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 7:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Agreed, Robert.

Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 83

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 7:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean writes:
I'd vote on decisions that have great impacts on my life, such as the US president.
Interesting. You vote only where your vote has the least likelihood of affecting the outcome.

Post 84

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 7:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That was a damn good point Rick.

---Landon


Post 85

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 8:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick, I'm sure your just joking. Least? The US president and his political party have a considerable impact on my life. He's the commander in chief of the military. He's the commander of faith based organizations.

Teresa, thanks for the tip. Do you know of a website that examines electoral candidates from an objectivist point of view? Or a website that provides good evidence for what candidates have done in the past?

By voting by money, I mean: you vote by giving money to the government. For each cent you give to the government, you can vote once for a candidate. Which ever candidate receives the most votes wins. Or to get out of the binary problem, we could use a ranking system, and for each cent you donate, you get that many ranking votes.

Post 86

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 9:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa, thanks for the tip. Do you know of a website that examines electoral candidates from an objectivist point of view? Or a website that provides good evidence for what candidates have done in the past?
That's a damn good idea, Dean! No I don't, but what a great idea! Every district in every state ought to have one of these. Kind of like a "Consumer's Report" but for election candidates.
 My local newspaper is pretty conservative and gives good insight into candidates. I also have the pleasure of lots of door knockers during election time that I can grill for information.
 My only suggestion is to either call the candidate's office and grill them, or research each candidate to find the information you're looking for. A blog search would probably reveal a whole lot about a candidate.


Post 87

Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 11:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As Ludwig von Mises observes, consumers vote for the producer of their choice by purchasing his or her products; they vote with their dollars. The more money they spend, the more votes they are casting. And unlike political voting, their vote actually means something. By contrast, you get only one vote when electing a political candidate, and that vote virtually never decides the outcome of an election. When is the last time, a candidate won or lost by a single vote? Nor does the average voter have any real knowledge of the candidates. All he or she knows is what is advertized in political soundbites.

A much better system would elect representatives at the neighborhood level, where the voters actually knew the person who was representing them. Those representatives would in turn vote for higher level representatives whom they were personally familiar with, who would in turn vote for still higher level representatives, and so on up to the election of the president and vice president. This was the original intent of the Electoral College. Today the Electoral College is a mere formality, and is viewed as some kind of elitist organization designed to foil true democracy. Yet the popular vote itself is a joke, with less than half of all eligible voters even bothering to make to the polls.

- Bill

Post 88

Monday, March 6, 2006 - 9:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa, I was thinking the other day of what I would need to do politically in order to say remove public schools, and no vote or even any single political office could do the job!  In fact, there is simply no mechanism I know of to eliminate it except maybe by amending state laws and then following by township from there.  It just seems like it would be a virtually impossible task, even assuming you could run for and win any office in the state!

Post 89

Monday, March 6, 2006 - 10:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It just seems like it would be a virtually impossible task, even assuming you could run for and win any office in the state!
Boy, do I know that!  One thing's for sure, it's not going to happen over night. Because the federal government has laws in place that mandate education to the 10th grade (I think, I'm not positive on that), and provides tons of funding to public schools, it's really got to start at a grass roots level, and work it's way up. It'll never happen from the top down, (unless Congress finally gets a backbone and passes voucher legislation). I can see small conservative districts working with private education, creating a model for other districts and communities to follow.

Just think of the huge top down step it would be if one state passed it's own educational voucher bill, distributing state and federal educational funds directly to parents! Wow! Even in the poorest districts, there's enough to give parents the control to send their kids to great schools, or even hire private teachers in a neighborhood setting. Groups of parents can get together and hire the best they can afford. Lots of young talented teachers would jump at this kind of opportunity to teach small groups of students, working directly with parents, instead of government bureaucracy.

Parent's (most, anyway) aren't stupid. Even under-educated parents can figure out if what their kids are learning comes from a high enough standard, and fix it if the curriculum is too dumbed down. They just have to care enough to stay on top of it.

The real test comes from the SATs the kids take at the end.  Think of how easy it would be to gage that standard through a child's education.


Post 90

Monday, March 6, 2006 - 6:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No, Dean, I was not joking. I suggest you re-read my post #83. I said nothing about the powers of the POTUS.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4


User ID Password or create a free account.