News What Alternative kind of Government do you Support?

[plover]

More rules and more restrictions is in general what leads to higher prices and lower wages and attempts to evade the rules and restrictions. If you just let the free market operate under full disclosure, then it's simple.

Why are dictates to operate under full disclosure any different from the corporation's point of view (as opposed to a larger scale economic point of view) than any other rules and restrictions? They're a hindrance to be skirted as much as can be gotten away with and to be weakened by any political means available. So now you have an enforcement problem. How do you enforce the rules without being even more intrusive? How do you have the resources to carry out the inspections and record keeping necessary for enforcement without expanding the government? All this seems to lead back to my original question: how do you get companies that see full-disclosure as in their best interest?

In your original post that I responded to, I see you as saying that the rules of transparency are "all strictly regulated by an impartial third-party committee that is not politicized". How do you create such an animal? How is it different (in theory) from current regulatory agencies? How are the complexities of enforcement reduced to the point where an area can be overseen something conceived of as a simple committee? Even honest accounting can be fantastically complex, who is analyzing all these corporate records for fraud? And how can this be done without oversight at the properties of the corporations to check whether the records match the realities they describe? What prevents various types of money laundering through the jurisdictions of other "committees" (especially those whose rules are codified differently) for large corporations?

I'm not saying that full disclosure would not be a good idea, intuitively, it strikes as me an improvement over current policy, but then I don't think the rights (including privacy rights) that ought to be granted to corporate entities can be derived by analogy from those of individual citizens—corporations and humans are just too ontologically different. My line of inquiry is more directed toward questioning whether the suggestions you outline really do reduce the complexity of government. One way to summarize this might be to ask: doesn't using these suggestions to minimize government reduce to the problem of maximizing the degree to which corporations see full disclosure as being in their best interest?

Don't work for Exxon and don't buy from Exxon if you don't support Exxon. Any company that wants to remain in existence has no choice but to satisfy its customers (read: you).

But it's possible to find all the corporations in a given industry reprehensible and still be unable to live without the services of that industry. There's nothing to prevent the group of corporations that dominate an industry from colluding to agree on practices favorable to the industry but unfavorable to consumers. (Just like we have now...)

 

[plover]

YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO A GOOD LIFE

For all of human history (including now), there have been parts of the world where you didn't have a right not to be enslaved; there are a lot fewer places where this state of affairs holds than there used to be. For communities organized into settlements large enough that everyone does not know everyone else, it has mostly been the case that you didn't have the right not to be executed at the whim of your ruler or of some other person considered to have high social rank; this state of affairs has also become much rarer. Rights are an abstraction, and they change with time and societal structures. While it is empirically true that (for all practical purposes) there is no place in the world where a right to be free of the ordeals and corrosions of poverty is in effect, and while there is no clear path as to how that can be changed, to try to frame that state of affairs as an eternal truth is just a failure of imagination, to call it undesirable is to enshrine contempt and to denounce the ideal of universal human dignity.

 

[russ_watters]

The "right to life" isn't very well protected if, say, an area has 10,000 people that can't afford to move, but only enough wages to support 7,500 people, now, is it?

Unless the ability to move will prevent their death, "right to life" does not apply.

If that's the case (and stays the case), then good -- however this is not what has been argued thus far.

Well, this thread is about different forms of government. "A mature capitalist society" applies to the US and most of the west - so the best case would be for the rest of the world to become mature capitalist societies as well.

 

[franznietzsche]

Unless the ability to move will prevent their death, "right to life" does not apply. .

Exactly. There is a right to live, not a right to live well. There is no right to material, only a right to yourself.

 

[vanesch]

Unless the ability to move will prevent their death, "right to life" does not apply. Well, this thread is about different forms of government. "A mature capitalist society" applies to the US and most of the west - so the best case would be for the rest of the world to become mature capitalist societies as well.

This is where we're probably just nitpicking on words: the US and most of the west is capitalistically inspired, in that the economy is largely dominated by the free market. All evidence points out that that is probably a good thing. However, the word "capitalism" means that one would like to see EVERYTHING to be done that way. In most of the western societies, there is still a role for the state beyond just being police and justice, so they are not "capitalist" societies.
As far as I'm a supporter of the free market, I oppose to the capitalist dogma (as I oppose every dogma!). There shouldn't be any a priori on to how to organize society. And as far as I think that MANY things are best dealt with by a free market, I'm also of the opinion that SOME things are best dealt with in other ways. That doesn't mean I'm a communist or so (although it isn't an insult!). Back when I still had voting right I often (but not always) voted for rather right-winged parties (as long as they didn't have any ties with traditionalists/religions) because I was of the opinion that their leaders were more responsible managers than left wing parties, although the ideas set forward by those parties were closer to my opinion (but the people proposing them were sure to make a mess of it). Of course, what is "right-winged" in Europe is probably ultra-liberal in US ears :-)

 

[Zlex]

This is where we're probably just nitpicking on words: the US and most of the west is capitalistically inspired, in that the economy is largely dominated by the free market. All evidence points out that that is probably a good thing. However, the word "capitalism" means that one would like to see EVERYTHING to be done that way. In most of the western societies, there is still a role for the state beyond just being police and justice, so they are not "capitalist" societies.
As far as I'm a supporter of the free market, I oppose to the capitalist dogma (as I oppose every dogma!). There shouldn't be any a priori on to how to organize society. And as far as I think that MANY things are best dealt with by a free market, I'm also of the opinion that SOME things are best dealt with in other ways. That doesn't mean I'm a communist or so (although it isn't an insult!). Back when I still had voting right I often (but not always) voted for rather right-winged parties (as long as they didn't have any ties with traditionalists/religions) because I was of the opinion that their leaders were more responsible managers than left wing parties, although the ideas set forward by those parties were closer to my opinion (but the people proposing them were sure to make a mess of it). Of course, what is "right-winged" in Europe is probably ultra-liberal in US ears :-)

Indeed, there is little doubt in my mind that, if left to total laissez-faire capitilism with no laws or regulations whatsoever, human nature would quickly render us to relying on anecdotes to avoid the foisting of crap in the supermarkets. ("Psssst! The diet supplement in Aisle 9 is really toxic waste; I saw people outside the store, keeled over. Pass it on, caveat emptor.)

There is little doubt in my mind that the umbrella of 'human nature' covers the occasional desire to lie, cheat, and steal, and if you combine that with unbridled laissez-faire capitalism, you just grant license to the worst among us to rape, pillage, and burn. However, if you combine it with some form of totalitarism, you get Joe Stalin. Human nature is human nature.

But, the fundamental principle of capitalism is not that we all get to do whatever the Hell we want, independent of laws or taxation to support the commons. The fundamental principle of capitalism is that -your- finite life and the results of its selective exertion in the seeking and holding of value are yours to imperfectly direct, and a consequence of that is the principle that ownership of value is possible. It is a principle that acknowledges the glaring inability of any imperfect penguin armed one of us to either grasp or run the world for everyone else, no matter how many credits we've accumulated at the community college. It is a principle that says, the imperfect decisions to hold and seek value are personal and accrue to the individuals that make them and hold them, and that as indivuduals with common rational interests, we notice that our mutual self-interests are best served when that principle is permitted range within the bounds of reasonable laws and regulations, ie, in building and living and prospering freely in the strongest nation on earth. The proof is in the pudding; better to live in a maelstrom of impersonally competing values that sort themselves out in the market, then be subject to the penguin armed vision of a selective one or few(Hillary's Central Committee,) trying to deal with the intractability of our many economies by hubristically and hand wavingly referring to 'them' as an 'it' as their first sign of complete ignorance.

Apply these concepts to the creation of any manmade value, especially health care. It does not fall from the sky, unabetted, to be 'redistributed' like rainfall. Real human beings, with their singular skins and souls handed to them at their creation, create the values we seek via the heated exertion of their finite singular lives. To assert that those values are anybodies birthright, to be 'redistributed' by the tribal elders, emphasizes munificence at the cost of ignoring slavery. (Not that you have, but many have.) Munificence at the cost of slavery of any kind is too expensive to tolerate. By that, do I mean to argue against the concept of welfare, or a safety net? No, but a 'safety net' is for the destitute, not the middle class.

By that, I mean to argue against the concept that health care providers should be prohibited from voluntary commerce, or health insurers should be prohibited from voluntary commerce, or providers of hospital services should be prohibited from voluntary commerce, or drug companies should be prohibited from voluntary commerce. To the extent that the tribe sticks its nose into that commerce to weed out fraud, the intrusion is justified. To the extent that the tribe sticks its nose into that commerce to control, manipulate, or distribute it according to some pygmy armed grasp of the world, it is statist folly.

 

[Hurkyl]

Unless the ability to move will prevent their death, "right to life" does not apply.

?

I don't follow what you're trying to say.


I just don't see how it's possible to claim the "right to life" is protected if, through no fault of their own, it is impossible for people in otherwise reasonable circumstances to live.

(I add reasonable to exclude situations like suffering from an incurable terminal disease, being shot by an insane madman, etc)

 

[vanesch]

Apply these concepts to the creation of any manmade value, especially health care. It does not fall from the sky, unabetted, to be 'redistributed' like rainfall. Real human beings, with their singular skins and souls handed to them at their creation, create the values we seek via the heated exertion of their finite singular lives. To assert that those values are anybodies birthright, to be 'redistributed' by the tribal elders, emphasizes munificence at the cost of ignoring slavery.

Well, this is one of the points where I don't really agree. First of all, I would like to fight the idea that "money spend by the state is lost money for the economy". If well-managed, the money flows are comparable.

Let us first consider the free market situation for health care:
- there are private insurances covering health care
- there are private companies making pharmaceutical products
- there are private hospitals

So essentially, the money input flow into this system consists of the insurance fees and some consumption of pharaceuticals.

If well-managed, at about similar money flows, you can:
- impose an obliged insurance, which takes the form of a tax
- have private or public pharmaceutical companies
- have private and public hospitals

There is a redistribution from the rich (which pay higher obliged insurance tax) to the poor (which pay less) ; it almost doesn't make much of a difference for Joe Average.

It doesn't make much difference for the rich, anyway, because compared to what they make, it is a small amount of money. It makes not so much of a difference to the average person, at least, when he's smart enough to take an insurance. It makes the difference of a life to a poor person.

Previsions of what should be done and not on the long term are, concerning health care, more a matter of specialists, and are not very well informed by market signals. So this can be managed "centrally" (as compared to, say, the production of perfume, or air plane tickets) ; it will even probably be better managed centrally than distributed, it being a matter of specialists, and not of consumers.

It doesn't make much difference to the pharmaceutical companies. Instead of having their goals set purely by the market, they get their goals set by a mixture of competition and information from health care management.

Doctors can choose: work in the public sector, work in the private sector, or a mixture of both.

The private sector can take care of all the extra whims and desires of the rich, according to the market mechanism.

EDIT: I just added the above description as an example, just to show that a society can choose to adopt it or not. It is a political choice, and it is not necessarily a bad choice.

 

[russ_watters]

?

I don't follow what you're trying to say.


I just don't see how it's possible to claim the "right to life" is protected if, through no fault of their own, it is impossible for people in otherwise reasonable circumstances to live.

(I add reasonable to exclude situations like suffering from an incurable terminal disease, being shot by an insane madman, etc) [emphasis added]

Maybe I missed something, but how does not being able to move kill people? Are you saying that not having enough money to move kills people? If yes, how (give an example)? and if not, its not a right to life issue.

vanesch - when I say "capitalism," it should not be construed to mean 'completely free from government control.' In the same way, when I say "democracy" I don't mean a direct/absolute democracy. I fully recognize that pure systems don't work.

 

[loseyourname]

Why are dictates to operate under full disclosure any different from the corporation's point of view (as opposed to a larger scale economic point of view) than any other rules and restrictions?

They aren't necessarily in the best interest of every company, but they are certainly in the best interest of smaller or newer companies (in particular, companies that are not corporations) as it allows competition to be fairer. I'm really just trying to get as close as possible to fair competition (which means every company must know what the others are doing) in every market where that is possible and optimal. I realize that it won't be in all markets, but it should be at least in all markets for life-essential products, such as food and basic services and such.

They're a hindrance to be skirted as much as can be gotten away with and to be weakened by any political means available. So now you have an enforcement problem. How do you enforce the rules without being even more intrusive? How do you have the resources to carry out the inspections and record keeping necessary for enforcement without expanding the government? All this seems to lead back to my original question: how do you get companies that see full-disclosure as in their best interest?

The inspections and record-keeping problem can be lightened greatly in the coming years with better IT, but even then, I realize it is pretty big. The funding would basically have to come from the companies themselves, at some agreed-upon rate of taxation. Another source of revenue (that would be directly related to how much work the committees must do) would be the money from the fines imposed for violations. Enforcing the rules would require a great deal of intrusion, and like you, I don't have any problem with this because I don't feel that a company should have the privacy rights afforded an individual either. They should have whatever privacy rights are necessary to keep them competitive (that is, their records should be kept private from other companies in markets that are not truly fair and open), but I don't think having to open up to a committee of some sort that will not disclose their information, so long as they are in line, constitutes a violation of this basic privacy right.

As far as making them see that this is in their best interest, ultimately, I don't see why is wouldn't be. If cheating were allowed, then the best cheater would win. If cheating is not allowed, then the best business wins. Cheating only helps now because only very large companies can get away with it. If you removed all regulatory committees, then any company could get away with it, and the larger companies would lose their competitive advantage anyway.

In your original post that I responded to, I see you as saying that the rules of transparency are "all strictly regulated by an impartial third-party committee that is not politicized". How do you create such an animal? How is it different (in theory) from current regulatory agencies? How are the complexities of enforcement reduced to the point where an area can be overseen something conceived of as a simple committee? Even honest accounting can be fantastically complex, who is analyzing all these corporate records for fraud? And how can this be done without oversight at the properties of the corporations to check whether the records match the realities they describe? What prevents various types of money laundering through the jurisdictions of other "committees" (especially those whose rules are codified differently) for large corporations?

Hey, I'm not saying it would be easy, but ultimately we can see that any company that gets by through money-laundering and lying eventually fails, no matter how they may profit in the short-term. Ridding ourselves of just about any taxation outside of what is needed for oversight and ridding ourselves of price regulation and other such measures that help businesses to fail will go a long way toward ridding ourselves of accounting fraud, and of course, it would completely rid of us tax fraud. That alone would make the job a great deal easier. When you have less rules, it is much easier to enforce the existing rules.

To use the example of a drug company free from restriction by the FDA, let them use risky and unproven drugs just so long as they are forced to be open about it. Any patient willing to take the risk can take the drug, but if ultimately they do more harm than good, the company will fail. Any patient harmed in the process has no one but himself to blame (or possibly his doctor). Ridding us of the costs of FDA approval and lawsuits in this manner, by itself, would drastically cut the operational cost structure of all pharmaceutical companies and greatly reduce prices, which in turn would make healthcare cheaper.

There's nothing to prevent the group of corporations that dominate an industry from colluding to agree on practices favorable to the industry but unfavorable to consumers. (Just like we have now...)

Collusion like this is already illegal. The only industry I can think of that obviously does this is the oil exporting industry, but most of that is done outside of this country and so is outside of our control. What other industries are you thinking of? I think it has historically been done by airlines and possibly automakers, but we've seen that new entrants to these markets that do not take place in the collusion ultimately did well. And, of course, those that broke the rules payed the price. There is the problem of companies not openly colluding, but just guessing at what the others will do, and keeping practices fairly uniform that way, but what are you going to do about that anyway? I don't see how this practice would become any more or less prevalent under any amended system.

 

[Hurkyl]

Maybe I missed something, but how does not being able to move kill people? Are you saying that not having enough money to move kills people? If yes, how (give an example)? and if not, its not a right to life issue.

Just what I said: there are 10,000 people in a town, but only enough wages to support 7,500 people.


I'm not really talking about the issue of minimum wage anymore, since the debate has moved onto just what the "right to life" means.


Someone mentioned a mining town that goes bust, so let's continue with that one. The town was formed in a hot, dry, desolate, isolated location. The citizens of the town live entirely on imported food and water, because there certainly isn't enough local resources to keep them alive. (Let's ignore other things, like electricity)

The only real influx of money comes in the form of money paid to the miners by the mining corporation -- the town never blossomed to the point where it could become economically stable without the mining corporation, and very little comes from outside sources.

So, (very) indirectly, all food and water is afforded by the wages paid by the mining corporation. However, the mine goes bust and most of miners are laid off.


So, now you have a situation where there is little to no influx of money, but the only way any of these people can survive is to purchase food and drink from the outside. Obviously, this won't work for long, so the only options are move or die, and if you can't afford to move...

 

[russ_watters]

Hurkyl, that's an interesting hypothetical, but it just bears no relation to reality. The fact is, the starvation rate in the US is statistically nonexistant and unemployment is not a factor there: there are a variety of welfare programs available that make it pretty much impossible for anyone to starve to death in the US (or any other western nation, for that matter). Beyond that, even a mentally ill homeless person (a significant fraction of the homeless in the US are mentally ill) can easily feed him/herself for a long period of time via panhandling.

 

[Hurkyl]

Fortunately, I've made few (if any) claims about reality.

Remember that, for the last few posts, I've been responding to franz's interpretation of "right to life" meaning that, as long as you can breathe, the government has done its part.

 

[russ_watters]

Fortunately, I've made few (if any) claims about reality.

I know - I wasn't implying that you did, just saying that you should. This is a subject with a lot of real information behind it that we should use to form our opinions.

Remember that, for the last few posts, I've been responding to franz's interpretation of "right to life" meaning that, as long as you can breathe, the government has done its part.

I said something similar (and historically/Constitutionally, that is what it means - if you want to argue it should be broader...) - and I'm still not sure of your position. With the hypothetical, you implied the possibility of physical death - but now you seem to be saying that the "right to life" should not be limited to physical death. Could you clarify that, please?

 

[BobG]

Just what I said: there are 10,000 people in a town, but only enough wages to support 7,500 people.


I'm not really talking about the issue of minimum wage anymore, since the debate has moved onto just what the "right to life" means.


Someone mentioned a mining town that goes bust, so let's continue with that one. The town was formed in a hot, dry, desolate, isolated location. The citizens of the town live entirely on imported food and water, because there certainly isn't enough local resources to keep them alive. (Let's ignore other things, like electricity)

The only real influx of money comes in the form of money paid to the miners by the mining corporation -- the town never blossomed to the point where it could become economically stable without the mining corporation, and very little comes from outside sources.

So, (very) indirectly, all food and water is afforded by the wages paid by the mining corporation. However, the mine goes bust and most of miners are laid off.


So, now you have a situation where there is little to no influx of money, but the only way any of these people can survive is to purchase food and drink from the outside. Obviously, this won't work for long, so the only options are move or die, and if you can't afford to move...

And the solution? If the mining corporation has gone bust, it's not possible for them to do anything about it. If the mining corporation is bust and no one's working, the city's not taking in any taxes, so they can't do anything about it. There is no right to life (if there is, then at least everyone's right is violated, since even the most fortunate don't live more than about a hundred years).

There's a right to try to live without the government making it harder - in other words, if farmers do manage to scrape up enough of a crop in a bad to stay alive to the next (hopefully better) year, the government shouldn't come through and say, "The government's piece comes first - you get whatever's left over."

Or, alternatively, the government shouldn't come in and say the mining company has to pay out more money in labor than it's taking in, ensuring the company goes bust and that everyone's jobs disappear.

 

[setAI]

the right to life unquestionably means the right to food/shelter/healthcare [equal access to the limit of technology for all]- this is self evident because All Humans are RESPONSIBLE FOR ONE ANOTHER- period-

the proof of this can be demonstrated by the fact that no individual human can survive in isolation- humans are totally supported/defined/maintained by the society of humans-

while it might be temporarily convenient- or even efficient- to ignore these rights and pursue a dominion over a class of people- this will always lead to struggle that will only grow until the situation is untenable- therefore ANY and ALL socially Darwinistic ideologies end in RUIN- they cannot hold back the reaction to their actions forever-

just out of practical necessity- we humans must recognize a minimum of right for SUSTAINED life-

as the saying goes- "there but for the grace of god- go I"- over 90% of homeless people are severely mentally ill- anyone of us could go insane and end up on the streets DESPITE any sense of our own willpower and control we feel we have now- would you like to be abandoned or discarded as garbage when your time comes? or would you hope for basic health and shelter?


humans BY DEFINITION have to support each other- or they literally would not exist- let alone survive! so we have a fundamental human morality of basic SUSTAINED life for all humans- basic food/shelter and HEALTHCARE- anything less is by definition uncivilized and IMMORAL-


now- what is the best way to build a world where these minimum requirements are met?



I personally am thankful that all of these painful issues will be moot within a generation or two- all humans will soon have total control over all aspects of their physical and mental structure- an illiterate schizophrenic junky will be able to restructure there body/mind after a few days of nanotherapy into that of a healthy and brilliant economic genius or scientist or political expert- or anything they can imagine- we will have a world of only predators and no human prey to oppress or ignore any longer- perhaps new forms of artificial life will take the place of the downtrodden?

 

[russ_watters]

the right to life unquestionably means the right to food/shelter/healthcare [equal access to the limit of technology for all]- this is self evident because All Humans are RESPONSIBLE FOR ONE ANOTHER- period

Can you cite any court case, political theorist, activist organization, international organization, etc. that has ever used that definition? It seems to me that that definition is only self-evident to you.

For example, the National Right to Life Political Action Comittee deals with physical life/death only (particularly having to do with abortion and euthenasia).

For two birds with one stone, the US Constitution's right to life comes from http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/ebarnes/242/242-sup-locke.htm :

Life: One's right to life is the right you have for everyone else not to take your life away, and it extends to having the right to be given certain things to preserve your life (i.e., to be taken care of so that you won't die). So, if I shoot you with a gun and kill you, then I have violated your right to life; and, if I see you starving in the gutter and I don't give you my extra sandwich, then I have also violated your right to life if you die as a result of my not feeding you. According to Locke, your right to life is both a negative right and a positive right. [emphasis added]

Caveat - I had said the right to life was negative. Apparently to Locke it was both positive and negative. In American law, the positive right to life varies and is not consistently applied. Ie, good Samaratin laws don't exist everywhere.

It seems like it could be true in Marxism, but I'm not sure. In any case, no Marxist government has ever existed and all moderrn democracies are based on Locke's definition.

 

[loseyourname]

as the saying goes- "there but for the grace of god- go I"- over 90% of homeless people are severely mentally ill- anyone of us could go insane and end up on the streets DESPITE any sense of our own willpower and control we feel we have now- would you like to be abandoned or discarded as garbage when your time comes? or would you hope for basic health and shelter?

You know, there's a difference between helping out a person who has no hope of helping himself and ensuring a certain minimum quality of life for everyone. You also run into the problem of violating another person's property rights when you force them to provide monetary assistance to another. I'm all for providing that assistance, don't get me wrong. Personally, I give as much as I can, limited though my resources may be as an unemployed college student. Giving, however, should not be compulsory. A person has every right to do whatever he pleases with what is rightfully his, provided he isn't using it to harm another. This seems to be the basic axiom from which our constitutional system is derived. We do reserve exemptions for children and incapicated family members, because in these cases these people are under the charge of others and are incapable of caring for themselves. But these exceptions are few and are certainly not the rule.

 

[setAI]

Can you cite any court case, political theorist, activist organization, international organization, etc. that has ever used that definition? It seems to me that that definition is only self-evident to you.

I would say it's self evidence is clear to anyone with my IQ level or above
"self-evidence" is often expressed in other terms and in the obvious structures of human society- as well as the root of Ahimsa found in all the world's religions- they try to make it seem like the noble and divine mercy of sinless people- however it is basic math:

in a world with limited resources where no individual is ever isolated- is ever non-dependent- any form of control that creates social imbalances that reduce the rights/access of a group of people will always antagonize said group- allow such an imbalance to continue and eventually class struggle will lead them to find some leverage against your interests- a morality of minimal health/food/shelter for all is an EMERGENT property of any limited environment with competing-but-co-dependant agents- because it is a necessary component of social stability for the long-term- not because it is just right and just- which it is as well-

you wouldn't have to provide the minimum of human rights or cow-tow to the poor if you had a means of absolute control and limitless resources- you would never fear a waning of your power or resources due to the reactions to inequality because all that oppose you would be powerless- but since such absolute power is currently unavailable- self-preservation indicates a set of principles we call "morality"-

 

[russ_watters]

I would say it's self evidence is clear to anyone with my IQ level or above

Uh huh... can you cite a political theorist with your IQ or above who holds the opinion? Or are you saying you are the smartest person who ever lived?

 

[setAI]

Or are you saying you are the smartest person who ever lived?

I'm only 47th

 

[ray b]

I like the old Roman system
2 leaders for one year and no second term
nobody who wants the office is considered acceptable
so no-one runs for the office

voters should qualify by taking a test at leased as difficult as a drivers test

end the stupid electoral college
or at least vote by distric not by winner take all state vote
but one man one vote is the best way

out law party line voting [one vote for every person running in a party]

 

[Smurf]

out law party line voting [one vote for every person running in a party]

Definitly, every single vote should be anonymous.

 

[russ_watters]

Definitly, every single vote should be anonymous.

I don't think you understand what he meant: All (I think) voting machines have a "straight party" button or lever you can use to automatically select all the candidates from one party. I didn't think anyone used those anymore until my roommate told me he did. I can't tell you how much that annoys me - its the ultimate in uninformed, knee-jerk voting.

I would actually be in favor of removing party affiliations from the ballots: just list the names.

 

[honestrosewater]

I would actually be in favor of removing party affiliations from the ballots: just list the names.

You would stop at ballots? What purpose do political parties serve in the US?

 

[honestrosewater]

nobody who wants the office is considered acceptable
so no-one runs for the office

Yes, compulsory service does have several benefits. The two major problems are 1) division of labor works so much better, and 2) personal freedom is more valuable.

voters should qualify by taking a test at leased as difficult as a drivers test

i.e. ignorant people shouldn't vote. I agree (sorta), but making voting rights conditional is not the way to go. Maximize education to minimize the number of ignorant people.

end the stupid electoral college
or at least vote by distric not by winner take all state vote
but one man one vote is the best way
out law party line voting [one vote for every person running in a party]

Amen.

 

[Smurf]

I don't think you understand what he meant: All (I think) voting machines have a "straight party" button or lever you can use to automatically select all the candidates from one party. I didn't think anyone used those anymore until my roommate told me he did. I can't tell you how much that annoys me - its the ultimate in uninformed, knee-jerk voting.

I would actually be in favor of removing party affiliations from the ballots: just list the names.

Ooh. I didn't think either the US or Canada had ever used those. I wonder if we do too then

 

[0TheSwerve0]

You would stop at ballots? What purpose do political parties serve in the US?

They fund the campaigns.

 

[Smurf]

Even more reason to eliminate them, funding should be provided by an independant source (the state?) and everyone should get equal amounts of financing so that the contenstants don't need to be backed by large corporations and/or the upper class to get any exposure.

 

[loseyourname]

He might be a bad example because he didn't win, but Howard Dean was backed mostly through small donations. He certainly didn't have any corporate support. During the primaries, anyway, I don't think any candidate receives party funding. Not that that's an argument for keeping parties in existence.

If we did abolish all political parties, though, where would the candidates come from? Would you set a minimum number of signatures for a nomination petition, and anyone that gets that number is on the ballot? What happens if you end up with 150 candidates? How could we possibly know who was the most capable out of such a large group. Any kind of public debate on the matter would be impossible.