Republicans must Vote in Primary
ts
Republicans must vote in the primary.
I don't care if you think Dole is a banana(or past his prime). So you
think the flat tax is a giant loop hole for the rich. Maybe Pukecannon's
ideas make you sick. Or flannel makes you itch.
G R E A T at least you have ideas and care about the system.
Differences can bring about a unique solution instead of tearing people
apart.
Take the time to talk to freinds, neighbors, co-workers, etc.
Discuss the primary and your concerns. AND REMEMBER
< < < GO VOTE ON PRIMARY DAY > > >
If you don't see a selection you like WRITE IN another.
With your help this can be an internet election :)
feel free to repeat this mesage to others.
Ed Redondo
ts <thsu...@mailbox.syr.edu> wrote:
>I am SORRY to intrude on your newsgroup but this is important!!!
>
All American citizens must vote in Primaries. [unbiased correction]
>
>I don't care if you think Dole is a banana(or past his prime). So you
>think the flat tax is a giant loop hole for the rich. Maybe Pukecannon's
>ideas make you sick. Or flannel makes you itch.
>
I don't care what party you support, nor if you support *any* party.
>G R E A T at least you have ideas and care about the system.
>Differences can bring about a unique solution instead of tearing people
>apart.
>
>Take the time to talk to freinds, neighbors, co-workers, etc.
>Discuss the primary and your concerns. AND REMEMBER
>
> < < < GO VOTE ON PRIMARY DAY > > >
>
>If you don't see a selection you like WRITE IN another.
>
>With your help this can be an internet election :)
>feel free to repeat this mesage to others.
>
>
==============================================================
The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its
credibility. And vice versa.
Religious practice is an individual's right; *not* a right of the public to be imposed
on other individuals.
====================================== Ed Redondo ==============
Michael Huemer
>All American citizens must vote in Primaries. [unbiased correction]
>In article <4h9tct$7...@newstand.syr.edu>,
> ts <thsu...@mailbox.syr.edu> wrote:
>>I am SORRY to intrude on your newsgroup but this is important!!!
>
>>G R E A T at least you have ideas and care about the system.
>>Differences can bring about a unique solution instead of tearing people
>>apart.
>>
>>Take the time to talk to freinds, neighbors, co-workers, etc.
>>Discuss the primary and your concerns. AND REMEMBER
>>
>> < < < GO VOTE ON PRIMARY DAY > > >
>>
>>If you don't see a selection you like WRITE IN another.
Voting is a waste of time, and everybody knows it. Don't waste your
time. Your vote will have no effect on the outcome of the election.
When was the last time an election turned on one vote?
--
^-----^
Michael Huemer <o...@rci.rutgers.edu> / O O \
Rutgers Univ. (Philosophy Dept.) | V |
\ /
JOHN AMSLER
: In article <4h9tct$7...@newstand.syr.edu>,
: ts <thsu...@mailbox.syr.edu> wrote:
: >I am SORRY to intrude on your newsgroup but this is important!!!
:
: All American citizens must vote in Primaries. [unbiased correction]
:
[snip]
:
: I don't care what party you support, nor if you support *any* party.
:
: >G R E A T at least you have ideas and care about the system.
: >Differences can bring about a unique solution instead of tearing people
: >apart.
: >
: >Take the time to talk to freinds, neighbors, co-workers, etc.
: >Discuss the primary and your concerns. AND REMEMBER
: >
: > < < < GO VOTE ON PRIMARY DAY > > >
: >
: >If you don't see a selection you like WRITE IN another.
: >
: >With your help this can be an internet election :)
: >feel free to repeat this mesage to others.
: >
Unfortunately, here in Nevada (a nebulously quasi-libertarian chunk of the
Southwest) registered NON-Partisans such as myself are barred from voting
in the primaries (apparently the party apparatchiks and other a$$orted
self-anointed State Nannies know what's best for us). Similarly, with the
advent of computerized voting machines (e.g., Sequoia Pacific), the option
of write-in candidates no longer exists (or at least I haven't figured out
how to get around it <g>).
- John J. Amsler
Republikans want big, Socialist intrusive governemnt.
Demokrats want bigger, Marxist intrusive government.
Libertarians [apparently] want legitimate, Constitutional government.
hfisher
on the nethermost reaches of hell! Republicans exist to screw the
American worker; it would be like cutting my own throat to vote for
those money-hungry, exploiting bastards.
JOHN AMSLER
[snip]
:
: Voting is a waste of time, and everybody knows it. Don't waste your
: time. Your vote will have no effect on the outcome of the election.
: When was the last time an election turned on one vote?
: --
: ^-----^
: Michael Huemer <o...@rci.rutgers.edu> / O O \
: Rutgers Univ. (Philosophy Dept.) | V |
: \ /
:
Well, the 1993 (?) budget authorization bill (if that's what it was called)
certainly hinged on one vote: with the Senate tied 50-50, Vice President
Al Gore cast the ONE vote that passed the then-highest tax increase in
the history of mankind.
As far as voting generically not making any differnce, there might be
some validity to that assertion --
Cf. "Votescam: The Stealing of America" by the Collier brothers.
- John J. Amsler, Registered NON-Partisan
John Stone
>In article <4hdln7$b...@niflheim.rutgers.edu>,
>Michael Huemer <o...@niflheim.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>>Voting is a waste of time, and everybody knows it. Don't waste your
>>time. Your vote will have no effect on the outcome of the election.
>>When was the last time an election turned on one vote?
>
>suburban Seattle school districts failed by one vote. Turned out the
>district superintendent didn't vote and is now kicking himself.
>--
>Stephen Graham
>gra...@ee.washington.edu
>gra...@cs.washington.edu uw-beaver!june!graham
I remember when I was in high school I did some research on
this subject. I found out about a state representative
contest in North Dakota that was decided by just one vote.
So your votes are important. John S.
Steven J Orlin
Please cut alt.cooking-chat out of your responses. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!
Steven J Orlin
Please cut alt.cooking-chat out of your responses. Thank you
Tassie
>
> Voting is a waste of time, and everybody knows it. Don't waste your
> time. Your vote will have no effect on the outcome of the election.
> When was the last time an election turned on one vote?
I beg to differ with you, one vote CAN make a difference. For example,
a few years ago on one of the islands of Hawaii, there was a mayoral
election. IT WAS A TIE, resulting in having another vote. A clear case
where only one vote would have made a difference.
--
SUPPORT FAMILY VALUES AND A FLAT TAX - VOTE FOR STEVE FORBES
(http://www.forbes96.com)
***********************************************************************
Whisper Dragon -- http://www.phantasy.com/~grignard
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"Being a woman is a terribly difficult task since it
consists principally in dealing with men."
-Joseph Conrad
***********************************************************************
frank forman
John Stone <2067...@msu.edu> wrote:
>gra...@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Stephen Graham) wrote:
>>In article <4hdln7$b...@niflheim.rutgers.edu>,
>>>Voting is a waste of time, and everybody knows it. Don't waste your
>>>time. Your vote will have no effect on the outcome of the election.
>>>When was the last time an election turned on one vote?
>>
>>suburban Seattle school districts failed by one vote. Turned out the
>>district superintendent didn't vote and is now kicking himself.
>>--
>>Stephen Graham
>>gra...@ee.washington.edu
>>gra...@cs.washington.edu uw-beaver!june!graham
>
>I remember when I was in high school I did some research on
>this subject. I found out about a state representative
>contest in North Dakota that was decided by just one vote.
>So your votes are important. John S.
Now take the value to the voter of having Tweeedledum vs. Tweedledee for
his state representative,
Multiply by the probablity that the voter collected enough information to
know that Tweedledum was in fact more to his interest than Tweedledee
Multiply by the probability that a given election will in fact be decided
by one vote.
And then substract to the cost of voting, including the change of
being killed in an accident en route to the eolection booth.
If the number is less then zero, it is not rational to vote.
Welcome to what Public Choice scholars call the Voting Paradox!
[I have no idea why alt.cooking-chat is among the newsgroups here. Maybe
they are looking for a reason to stay home cooking on electino day!]
Frank
Steven J Orlin
PLEASE stop posting this thread to alt.cooking-chat!! It does NOT belong
there!!!
In article <313BBB...@hawk.phantasy.com>,
Tassie <Tas...@hawk.phantasy.com> wrote:
>Michael Huemer wrote:
>>
>> Voting is a waste of time, and everybody knows it. Don't waste your
>> time. Your vote will have no effect on the outcome of the election.
>> When was the last time an election turned on one vote?
Tassie
>
> Well, add one more to the list of GROTS:
> (Groups that Republicans are Out To Screw)
> o Minorities and Women o People without Health Care Insurance
> o Federal Bureaucrats o Environmentalists
> o Kids on Lunch Plans o Welfare recipients
> o Elderly People on Social Security
> o The Poor and/or The Homeless
> o Poor Homeless People with kids on Lunch Plans
> o Poor Elderly Homeless Environmentalists
> o Kids on Lunch Plans without Health Care Insurance
> (Groups that Republicans have ALREADY Screwed)
> o People with AIDS
> o Taxpayers (they are trying to balance the budget by reducing
> growth in federal spending thus cheating taxpayers
> out of their federal largess)
> o Soviets (we ran them outa town)
> o Slave Owners
> Mike Best
<ROFLMAO> That's funny! Now, can you back up each these allegations
with facts?
P. Marks
On 4 Mar 1996, Stephen Graham wrote:
> In article <4hdln7$b...@niflheim.rutgers.edu>,
> Michael Huemer <o...@niflheim.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> >Voting is a waste of time, and everybody knows it. Don't waste your
> >time. Your vote will have no effect on the outcome of the election.
> >When was the last time an election turned on one vote?
>
> In Washington, it was February 5, 1996. A school levy in one of the
> suburban Seattle school districts failed by one vote. Turned out the
> district superintendent didn't vote and is now kicking himself.
> --
> Stephen Graham
> gra...@ee.washington.edu
> gra...@cs.washington.edu uw-beaver!june!graham
>
>
Good point. Tax increases and bond issues (which mean the same thing
[plus interest] in the long term) can sometimes be voted down. So people
should vote.
However what about when it is not an ISSUE that is up for the vote but a
PERSON. Politicians do not tend to tell the truth (shock of the century),
so what is the point of voting for them?
Mr Reagan promised lower taxes and signed (for example) the Social
Security tax increase, Mr Bush promised "no new taxes" and signed them
into law, Mr Clinton promised tax cuts - and delivered tax increases.
Not very encouraging.
Paul Marks.
Richard Foy
>
>Considering that democracy has failed (witness the CDA, passed by an
>overwhelming majority) to protect the liberties of the individual (the
>only purpose of any government), why should we wish it to survive? You
>are correct -- not voting will hasten the end of democracy. Democracy
>deserves to die.
Are you aware of Winston Churchill's famous guote about Democracy?
How would you decide which indiviudals are allowed to shoot which
other individuals if you don't want to do that by a deomcractic
process?
>
>(Please note:The repeal, if it occurs, of the CDA by the Supreme Court
>will not be a plug for democracy, but further proof that democracy
>doesn't work -- the SC is an *unelected* group of people who rule for
>life and cannot be removed except under circumstances so rare, I don't
>think they've ever occured in over 200 years. HAS a sitting Supreme
>Court justice ever been removed against his will?)
I beleive there was aobut 20 years ago. Was it Abe Fortis?
--
"Sexism is the opiate of the American people" -- Roxanne Dunbar
Copyright 1995 Richard Foy All rights reserved. See
URL http://www.he.tdl.com/~hfanoe/cpyrgt_terms.html for terms and condtions.
David Friedman
One small technical point. What is being discussed here is usually
referred to as "rational ignorance." It is rational to be ignorant of how
you ought to vote (and thus either not to vote or to vote for reasons
other than to produce the best outcome) if the information costs you more
than you gain by having it. What is usually called the "Voting Paradox" is
Condorcet's demonstration that, even if individual voters have transitive
preferences, majority vote can still produce an intransitive result.
I don't swear that nobody in the literature has ever used "voting paradox"
to describe the argument that it is irrational to vote, but I am not
familiar with that usage, and, having spent some years as a member of the
Center for Public Choice at VPI, I think I qualify as a Public Choice
scholar, or at least an ex-Public Choice scholar.
David Friedman
frank forman
F. Cowart <madh...@smarty.smart.net> wrote
[among other things, on the thread subject "The Voting Paradox"]:
>But what will replace it? I am of the school of thought that sayed
>"Democracy is the worst form of government, Except for all the others."
Far, far better than democracy is a constitutional republic that delegates
limited authority to the government. My ideal is COUNTY SOVEREIGNTY,
where the higher units have no authority to tax and receive monies only
from the counties. I would require a simply majority in both houses at
the county level, two-thirds at the state level, and five-sixths at the
national level.
I would phase these requirement in over 33 1/3 years by increasing
the supra-majority requirements one percent per year at the national
level and 1/2%/year at the state level.
Given that the average American moves once every five years, I say we can
*presume* (near-)unanimous consent of the governed at the county level.
And since state and national government can do much less, owing to the
supramajority requirements, we can presume (near-)unanimity at those
levels as well. In effect, we will be having voluntary government.
What do I mean by "presume"? To answer this, we need to go back to the
metaethical foundations of egoism. Recall that I have stated many times
(and Mike Huemer has stated just yesterday in "Why I Am Not an
Objectivist") that to say that *you* have a right to do something means,
on an egoist account, that it is against *my* self-interest to interfere
with that right.
In my case, I think this is true, at least as regards your "right" to
keep your property. I shouldn't steal it, because it would hurt my
character: I'd be much better off in the long run to cultivate the virtue
of productivity.
But I cannot say that this is true of absolutely everybody. But suppose
that someone does steal *your* property. On an egoist ethic, would it
harm *you* to recover it? Yes, if you use excessive means, causing
disproportionate harm to the thief.
Should you delegate your right to *proportionate* retaliation to a
(county) government? At least after a few minutes after the theft, when
the thief has fled? Presuming the (county) government competent, I
*suspect* yes here also. I would be bad for your character to make
retaliation a personal obsession. The authorities are likely to be more
objective. There are no doubt other reasons.
My assent to a county government, I claim, is not harmful *to me*, but
only if this government is a reasonable one and does not engage in cruel
and unusual punishments, for example.
If an anarchist or nihilist living in my county announces that he most
emphatically does *not* assent to the county government, does it harm
*me* to assent to this government that will punish him if he disobeys the
laws? This is the crucial question. The answer depends on how the
anarchist or nihilist (I'm not sure if I'm using this word correctly.) is
treated. The county government could simply declare him to be an OUTLAW,
in the old sense of being outside the protection of the government. If
someone murdered the anarchist, the government would do nothing.
This, I maintain, is too extreme. (The Peikoffers could declare the
Kelleyites to be outlaws.) [[DON'T GIVE THEM ANY IDEAS!!-The Internet
Monster]] Treating anarchist criminals just like any others would not be
extreme and, I maintain, be just fine.
Now suppose a county criminalizes abortion. My opinion is that aborting
does not so gravely harm the aborter that it should be illegal. But I
would not have the Federal constitution prohibit such laws at the county
level. My opinion is just that (and I am sure you have noticed that the
debates on abortion show no tendency to rise above the level of opinion.)
What keeps a check on tyranny is voting with your feet. This is one
reason for favoring *county* sovereignty.
But notice that I spoke of harm to the (character of the) aborter *and*
that the county government might punish her, not for violating the "rights"
of the aborted (for rights are derivate from egoism) but to protect *her*
from herself. But this is maternalism! I am generally opposed to such
things, as in the case of drugs, for example. So there is a real tension
in my thinking, and I ask for help in reducing that tension.
Under county sovereignty, however, this tension will not be a large one
in practice, since people can move. And so if a county wants to ban drugs
or run public schools, that won't be just fine with me, but those that
remain in the county will really want those laws. They can run welfare
programs, too. In fact, it would be hard to say what should be proscribed
to the counties under the Federal constitution. (The one we have
disallows states from raising tariffs or running foreign policy.)
I think also that there will be a fair amount of state and national
government activity, though not nearly as much of it. I can see national
standards of weights and measures continuing and just as much "defense"
as we need for a country that was last invaded in 1812.
I realize that I have only offered opinions here and have quite
intentionally labeled them as such. But I don't think anyone can do any
better. I invite comments.
Frank
frank forman
You are correct. My using "voting paradox" to describe the situation that
it is irrational to vote or to collect information on voting should
better called the "voter's dilemma," in analogy to the "prisoner's dillema."
But perhaps it is a paradox, in the sense of conflicting what what people
usually think, namely that your vote counts a great deal more than it
actually does.
Frank
In article <ddfr-10039...@ddfr.vip.best.com>,
Chuck Butcher
to do with comonality? I live in a county that is primarily
natural resource based-timber,agriculture,some mining, some
tourism, and there is a great deal of diversity regarding the use
of those resources, some would log it flat, some use restrictive
practices, some total exclusion, what is the proper use? We
build a few new houses a year, but alot of houses get built with
"our" timber in urban areas, do those people get to have any say?
Or just us?
I live here because I can enjoy the same liberties and
live in a small community of which I may or may not be
politically aligned, if the politics of this community became the
"law" I might have to leave a place I love and do well in.
I've lost track of this thing but I'llsend it anyway
Calvin Bruce Ostrum
| What is usually called the "Voting Paradox" is
| Condorcet's demonstration that, even if individual voters have transitive
| preferences, majority vote can still produce an intransitive result.
|
| I don't swear that nobody in the literature has ever used "voting paradox"
| to describe the argument that it is irrational to vote, but I am not
| familiar with that usage, and, having spent some years as a member of the
| Center for Public Choice at VPI, I think I qualify as a Public Choice
| scholar, or at least an ex-Public Choice scholar.
James Coleman, in his "Foundations of social theory" (1990), which
Gary Becker describes as "the most important book in social theory
in a long time", uses the phrase "paradox of voting" to describe
the argument that it is (or at least appears to be) irrational to
vote, at least according to the model of rationality favored by
the public choice school. The other "paradox" he refers to as
"Condorcet's Paradox".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calvin Ostrum c...@cs.toronto.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It need hardly be mentioned that the sight of a being adorned with no
feature of a pure and good will yet enjoying uninterrupted prosperity
can never give pleasure to a rational impartial observer.
-- Kant, "Foundations of the metaphysics of morals"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonah Paul Mainwaring
|> liz...@dnai.com (Lizard) wrote:
|>
|>
|> >I am of the school of thought which says:"Democracy is the worst form
|> >of government, including all the others -- because it tricks people
|> >into believing they are free." At least under a tyranny, there's no
|> >room for self-delusion.
|>
|> The truth is that democracy is more than a form of goverment,
|> it is a form of life; of living. To be democratic is to be
|> free; and to be free is to live. In essence, freedom exists
|> not without democracy and democracy exists not without freedom.
|>
Democracy implies the existance of a state to which we surrender certain
rights through the Social Contract. To that extent, democracy by definition
is a limitation of freedom. It may insure other freedoms, but at the cost of
some. Government, of any nature, reduces freedom. This is a tautology --
"govern" means that someone will have power over another, reducing that other's
freedom. To claim that freedom exists not w/o democracy is nonsense.
--
Jonah Mainwaring
Nuke a gay whale for Christ!
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~mainwarj
Richard Foy
frank forman <for...@netcom.com> wrote:
...
>
>Your concerns are quite valid. We need to balance two factors. One is
>that the entire constitution could keep all levels of government out of
>certain areas or make basic guarantees, like trial by jury. The
>difficulty is that future courts can use these in quite unintended ways,
>like our Supreme Court has done with the 14th Amendment. The other factor
>is that competition won't really be very effective and that all elvels of
>government will oppress.But the fact of the mattter is that counties have
>less and less autonomy from state laws.
I agree with the concerns you express here. But this almost says
there is not solution, and of course there may not be.
>
>We need to think about governmental units *bvelow* the county level.
>Gordon Tullock, in _The New Federalist_, says that we watch what goes on
>at the very lowest level, because it affects us directly, and we also
>watch what goes on at the national level, beccause of television. it is
>at the intermediate levels that we don't monitor government very well.
My experience tells me that the average person does not pay much
attention to the lower levels of government. When I attend city
council meetings, unless there is a hot button issue on the agenda,
there are usually very few private people there as contrasted with
the business interests.
>
>(It's odd taht I'm saying this on *this* thread, which is about why it is
>irrational to vote. But it's irrational to be reading these Newsgroups.
>Unless you are Gavrillo Princip, the individual does not matter. I
>realize I am hoist on my own petard, but I'll worry about it later!)
People are not rational beings, so why not say anything on any thread?
>>
>>I think that the possibility of moving might not be as successfull a
>>solution to these type of problems.
>
>I have more hopes than you might, because competition works rather
>counterintuitively: it's the traders on the margin in the stockmarket,
>who can be very few in number, that can cause wide swings in the price.
>Most share holders do *not* trade their stock on any given day. I think,
>then, that just a few voters moving with their feet can have quite a
>large effect. It may be that *all* county-run garbage collection is not
>as efficient as private collection would be; what I'm maintaining (or
>hoping) is that voting with your feet will tend to constrain how badly
>inefficient things can get. The most inefficient thing provided publicly,
>I think, is education. But, once upon a time, *school district*
>sovereignty was
>pretty much the case. There were 90,000 school districts, and they set
>their own rules *AND* their own taxes. Today, there are only 16,000 and
>there is little school district autonomy and, in some state, lttile
>flexibility at the county level either.
You may be right.
>
>I hope any of the Revisionists who inhabit these Newsgroups will reitile
>the thread subject, since these disputes are endless. I will make *one*
>recommendatin regards the Nazis invading America: Bruce Russett, _No
>Present Danger_. It's a short book, and the author is far more a gasbag
>gloablonist than an isolationist.
I have far too many unread books now to undertake a new one. However,
I you suggesting that we could have maintained our defense
expenditures say at the level they were in 1938 and still not been in
significant danger of invasion?
>
>>I think to make your approach really valid one has to extend it to a
>>world body created, controlled, financed etc exactly as are the lower
>>bodies.
>
>I am not hostile to the U.N. on principle. Its total budget is about six
>Gigadollars a year (hard figures to come by, since the usual figure of
>1/4 that excludes the agencies like the World Health Organization). I
>realize that the U.N. sounds mostly like a place for Third-World
>dictators to speechify about the injustices perpetrated upon them by the
>competent, but the day to day work of the U.N. is actaully quite sober
>and helpful. Some of their work, to be sure, could be privatized, such as
>coordinating air traffic control, but I've never heard any estimates that
>such activities are *grossly* inefficient.
True. But the UN is also a place where the powerful members of the
security council play political games with each other and about the
rest of the world.
>
>>>I realize that I have only offered opinions here and have quite
>>>intentionally labeled them as such. But I don't think anyone can do any
>>>better. I invite comments.
>>
>>Done.
>
>And thank you.
You are welcome.
IMO we need more of this kind of discussion, that is broad, open
minded, discussion on how to restructure governence. I thnk the net
can be a way to do this, if enough peole of good will try to do it.
Ed Redondo
liz...@dnai.com (Lizard) wrote:
>(Please note:The repeal, if it occurs, of the CDA by the Supreme Court
>will not be a plug for democracy, but further proof that democracy
>doesn't work -- the SC is an *unelected* group of people who rule for
>life and cannot be removed except under circumstances so rare, I don't
>think they've ever occured in over 200 years. HAS a sitting Supreme
>Court justice ever been removed against his will?)
Which is *exactly* what our Founding Fathers intended. One of the three
legs of the checks and balances in our government. The only one *not*
subject to the whims and fancies of the general public or the ambitions of
politicians. The President appoints, Congress approves, and both have to
live with that choice and have no further influence on its members.
I, for one, think it was one of our Founding Fathers best ideas.
One note on how the SC operates (as well as all courts); they make no
decision *unless* someone makes a court challenge or, in plane english,
asks for a decision. Someone else has to bring the matter up. There could
be, and probably are, many unconstitutional laws out there, but if they are
not challenged in courts they never see the light of the SC.
frank forman
>In article <formanDo...@netcom.com>,
>frank forman <for...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>F. Cowart <madh...@smarty.smart.net> wrote
>>[among other things, on the thread subject "The Voting Paradox"]:
>>
>>>But what will replace it? I am of the school of thought that sayed
>>>"Democracy is the worst form of government, Except for all the others."
>>
>>Far, far better than democracy is a constitutional republic that delegates
>>limited authority to the government. My ideal is COUNTY SOVEREIGNTY,
>>where the higher units have no authority to tax and receive monies only
>>from the counties. I would require a simply majority in both houses at
>>the county level, two-thirds at the state level, and five-sixths at the
>>national level.
>
>
>....
>>
>>Now suppose a county criminalizes abortion. My opinion is that aborting
>>does not so gravely harm the aborter that it should be illegal. But I
>>would not have the Federal constitution prohibit such laws at the county
>>level. My opinion is just that (and I am sure you have noticed that the
>>debates on abortion show no tendency to rise above the level of opinion.)
>>What keeps a check on tyranny is voting with your feet. This is one
>>reason for favoring *county* sovereignty.
>
>I think that all governments at all levels tend to become repressive.
>I thnk if one looks at city, county and state governments, I don;t
>see any that are much less repressive than the feds, and their
>repressiveness spreads into more areas of our life than does the
>hgher levels.
>...
Your concerns are quite valid. We need to balance two factors. One is
that the entire constitution could keep all levels of government out of
certain areas or make basic guarantees, like trial by jury. The
difficulty is that future courts can use these in quite unintended ways,
like our Supreme Court has done with the 14th Amendment. The other factor
is that competition won't really be very effective and that all elvels of
government will oppress.But the fact of the mattter is that counties have
less and less autonomy from state laws.
We need to think about governmental units *bvelow* the county level.
Gordon Tullock, in _The New Federalist_, says that we watch what goes on
at the very lowest level, because it affects us directly, and we also
watch what goes on at the national level, beccause of television. it is
at the intermediate levels that we don't monitor government very well.
(It's odd taht I'm saying this on *this* thread, which is about why it is
irrational to vote. But it's irrational to be reading these Newsgroups.
Unless you are Gavrillo Princip, the individual does not matter. I
realize I am hoist on my own petard, but I'll worry about it later!)
>>Under county sovereignty, however, this tension will not be a large one
>>in practice, since people can move. And so if a county wants to ban drugs
>>or run public schools, that won't be just fine with me, but those that
>>remain in the county will really want those laws. They can run welfare
>>programs, too. In fact, it would be hard to say what should be proscribed
>>to the counties under the Federal constitution. (The one we have
>>disallows states from raising tariffs or running foreign policy.)
>
>I think that the possibility of moving might not be as successfull a
>solution to these type of problems.
I have more hopes than you might, because competition works rather
counterintuitively: it's the traders on the margin in the stockmarket,
who can be very few in number, that can cause wide swings in the price.
Most share holders do *not* trade their stock on any given day. I think,
then, that just a few voters moving with their feet can have quite a
large effect. It may be that *all* county-run garbage collection is not
as efficient as private collection would be; what I'm maintaining (or
hoping) is that voting with your feet will tend to constrain how badly
inefficient things can get. The most inefficient thing provided publicly,
I think, is education. But, once upon a time, *school district*
sovereignty was
pretty much the case. There were 90,000 school districts, and they set
their own rules *AND* their own taxes. Today, there are only 16,000 and
there is little school district autonomy and, in some state, lttile
flexibility at the county level either.
>>I think also that there will be a fair amount of state and national
>>government activity, though not nearly as much of it. I can see national
>>standards of weights and measures continuing and just as much "defense"
>>as we need for a country that was last invaded in 1812.
>
>I think that you are underestimating defense. I think a clear look at
>the history of WWII one can see that defense that "invaded in 1812"
>is not too valid a criteria to think about. I think that there is a
>reasonable probabilty that if we did not take significant increases
>in defense prior to Pearl Harbor, we may well have been invaded by
>Nazi Germany. One also needs to think aobut the possibility that *some
>of the defense expenditures we have had in the past 50 years have
>kept us from being invaded.
I hope any of the Revisionists who inhabit these Newsgroups will reitile
the thread subject, since these disputes are endless. I will make *one*
recommendatin regards the Nazis invading America: Bruce Russett, _No
Present Danger_. It's a short book, and the author is far more a gasbag
gloablonist than an isolationist.
>I think to make your approach really valid one has to extend it to a
>world body created, controlled, financed etc exactly as are the lower
>bodies.
I am not hostile to the U.N. on principle. Its total budget is about six
Gigadollars a year (hard figures to come by, since the usual figure of
1/4 that excludes the agencies like the World Health Organization). I
realize that the U.N. sounds mostly like a place for Third-World
dictators to speechify about the injustices perpetrated upon them by the
competent, but the day to day work of the U.N. is actaully quite sober
and helpful. Some of their work, to be sure, could be privatized, such as
coordinating air traffic control, but I've never heard any estimates that
such activities are *grossly* inefficient.
>>I realize that I have only offered opinions here and have quite
>>intentionally labeled them as such. But I don't think anyone can do any
>>better. I invite comments.
>
>Done.
And thank you.
Frank
Jonah Paul Mainwaring
|> In article <4i3305$a...@larry.rice.edu>,
|> Jonah Paul Mainwaring <main...@boreal.owlnet.rice.edu> wrote:
|> >
|> >Democracy implies the existance of a state to which we surrender certain
|> >rights through the Social Contract. To that extent, democracy by definition
|> >is a limitation of freedom. It may insure other freedoms, but at the cost of
|> >some. Government, of any nature, reduces freedom. This is a tautology --
|> >"govern" means that someone will have power over another, reducing that other's
|> >freedom. To claim that freedom exists not w/o democracy is nonsense.
|>
|> some stong characters, without benefit of govenment, may have totally
|> enslaved other individuals simply by being more powerful. In which
|> case a government may well increase the freedom fo those who had been
|> enslaved.
How are those "strong characters" not a government? I believe that that is
known as tyranny, or dictatorship. Regardless, such action is the forming
of a government. Democracy is the lesser of many evils, but to claim that
is is equal to freedom is nonsensical
Why was alt.cooking.chat on the distribution?
Richard Foy
>On 9 Mar 1996 19:22:18 GMT, madh...@smarty.smart.net (F. Cowart)
>>
>>But what will replace it?
>
>
Do you really like anarchy when people would have stingers, rockets,
and even more powerful weapons to use at random?
Richard Foy
Jonah Paul Mainwaring <main...@boreal.owlnet.rice.edu> wrote:
>
>Democracy implies the existance of a state to which we surrender certain
>rights through the Social Contract. To that extent, democracy by definition
>is a limitation of freedom. It may insure other freedoms, but at the cost of
>some. Government, of any nature, reduces freedom. This is a tautology --
>"govern" means that someone will have power over another, reducing that other's
>freedom. To claim that freedom exists not w/o democracy is nonsense.
Government may or may not reduce freedom. If there is no government
some stong characters, without benefit of govenment, may have totally
enslaved other individuals simply by being more powerful. In which
case a government may well increase the freedom fo those who had been
enslaved.
--
frank forman
>In article <formanDo...@netcom.com>,
>frank forman <for...@netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>(It's odd that I'm saying this on *this* thread, which is about why it is
>>irrational to vote. But it's irrational to be reading these Newsgroups.
>>Unless you are Gavrillo Princip, the individual does not matter. I
>>realize I am hoist on my own petard, but I'll worry about it later!)
>
>People are not rational beings, so why not say anything on any thread?
Well, we seem to hve the *capacity* to reason, though we don't always put
it into effect. The upper cerbral cortex has not been fully integrated
into the brain, making *painful* for most people to think.
[snip]
>>I hope any of the Revisionists who inhabit these Newsgroups will reitile
>>the thread subject, since these disputes are endless. I will make *one*
>>recommendatin regards the Nazis invading America: Bruce Russett, _No
>>Present Danger_. It's a short book, and the author is far more a gasbag
>>gloablonist than an isolationist.
>
>I have far too many unread books now to undertake a new one. However,
>I you suggesting that we could have maintained our defense
>expenditures say at the level they were in 1938 and still not been in
>significant danger of invasion?
I think so, yes, though I realize it is a minority view. My solution to
potential Russian agression is to give their capitalists our National
Parks. These capitalists would restrain the military so their investments
wouldn't be damaged. I offer this only as an improvement over the status
quo of I don't know how many Millegigadollars the "Defense" Department is
spending.
More generally, I think all the advanced nations (those that can really
get a good war going) have come to see that war is unprofitable.
>>>I think to make your approach really valid one has to extend it to a
>>>world body created, controlled, financed etc exactly as are the lower
>>>bodies.
>>
>>I am not hostile to the U.N. on principle. Its total budget is about six
>>Gigadollars a year (hard figures to come by, since the usual figure of
>>1/4 that excludes the agencies like the World Health Organization). I
>>realize that the U.N. sounds mostly like a place for Third-World
>>dictators to speechify about the injustices perpetrated upon them by the
>>competent, but the day to day work of the U.N. is actaully quite sober
>>and helpful. Some of their work, to be sure, could be privatized, such as
>>coordinating air traffic control, but I've never heard any estimates that
>>such activities are *grossly* inefficient.
>
>True. But the UN is also a place where the powerful members of the
>security council play political games with each other and about the
>rest of the world.
So is U.S. democracy. I just started a thread on misc.legal.moderated
about whether Congress, alone and without the President's signature,
could overturn Roe vs. Wade. This is my understanding of Article III,
Section 2, but I want to make sure. If so, why is Pat Buchanan calling
for a Constututional amendment? To make a loud noise, I suspect.
>>>>I realize that I have only offered opinions here and have quite
>>>>intentionally labeled them as such. But I don't think anyone can do any
>>>>better. I invite comments.
>>>
>>>Done.
>>
>>And thank you.
>
>You are welcome.
>
>IMO we need more of this kind of discussion, that is broad, open
>minded, discussion on how to restructure governence. I thnk the net
>can be a way to do this, if enough peole of good will try to do it.
Do you think this will require selective breeding, to increase the number
of those few souls whose cerebral cortex is well-integrated with the rest
of their brain?
Frank
frank forman
Clay Pryor <cjp...@indirect.com> wrote:
>for...@netcom.com (frank forman) wrote:
>
>>In article <4hslpa$7...@news.smart.net>,
>>F. Cowart <madh...@smarty.smart.net> wrote
>>[among other things, on the thread subject "The Voting Paradox"]:
>
>>>But what will replace it? I am of the school of thought that sayed
>>>"Democracy is the worst form of government, Except for all the others."
>
>>Far, far better than democracy is a constitutional republic that delegates
>>limited authority to the government. My ideal is COUNTY SOVEREIGNTY,
>>where the higher units have no authority to tax and receive monies only
>>from the counties. I would require a simply majority in both houses at
>>the county level, two-thirds at the state level, and five-sixths at the
>>national level.
>>
>>
>I like your ideas. I have been thinking that the advantage of local
>government is that it would allow us to vote with our feet as you put
>it. That way we could find a place where our taxes would support what
>(and how much) government that we want.
>
>Of course detractors would probably state that this could lead to
>feudalism and warring "tribes".
>
>Also, haven't people made the argument that that is what the Civil War
>was all about and the people pursuing local government lost?
Indeed, they have. It is very little known that Jefferson Davis offered
to free the slaves in return for Great Britain's diplomatic recognition.
Ultimately, political freedom was more important to the South than the
institution of slaveryy.
>Anyway, do you have any ideas as to how to make your ideas happen?
In my case, just to continue doing what I'm doing, namely, putting out
some ideas of my own and trying to get people to think for themselves,
rather than *telling* them what to think. (There are a lot more of you
tan of me.) I think we should also challenge the underlying morality
racket that backs up the continued status quo, which is egalitarianism
and altruism. Ayn Rand did a magnificent job on the latter in her novels,
esp. _The Fountainhead_ and _Atlas Shrugged_, and they continue to sell
in the millions. As far as egalitarianism goes, the innate equality of
races is one of the principle propaganda props of the status quo, and
I've got a thread running, "Evidence FOR Racial Equality??", on many
Newsgroups. I've been getting a fabulous amount of hot air and insults
but almost nothing in the way of actual evidence.
Frank
Michael Huemer
>Do you really like anarchy when people would have stingers, rockets,
>and even more powerful weapons to use at random?
Surely you realize that the only reason such weapons of mass
destruction exist is because of governments. Private individuals have
never invented such horrible devices, and basically the only way they
acquire them is through governments.
--
^-----^
Michael Huemer <o...@rci.rutgers.edu> / O O \
Michael Huemer
>One note on how the SC operates (as well as all courts); they make no
>decision *unless* someone makes a court challenge or, in plane english,
>asks for a decision. Someone else has to bring the matter up. There could
>be, and probably are, many unconstitutional laws out there, but if they are
>not challenged in courts they never see the light of the SC.
This might be misleading for those who don't know. You can't simply
"ask" for a decision on a law. You have to violate the law, get
arrested and prosecuted, and take the risk of being punished in case
the SC doesn't agree with you.
Michael Huemer
>|> some stong characters, without benefit of govenment, may have totally
>|> enslaved other individuals simply by being more powerful. In which
>|> case a government may well increase the freedom fo those who had been
>|> enslaved.
Serious anarchists have answers to that sort of thing. See Murray
Rothbard's _For a New Liberty_ for example. People in an anarchist
society could still have methods of protecting themselves from
criminals. E.g., they could hire security companies.
frank forman
>In article <formanDo...@netcom.com>,
>frank forman <for...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>More generally, I think all the advanced nations (those that can really
>>get a good war going) have come to see that war is unprofitable.
>
>I don't know what you mean by a "good war" but it seems to me that
>Iraq/US got a pretty good one going in the Persian Gulf and that
>others got a pretty good one going in xYugoslavia.
I'm snipping out a great deal of your reply and am only including things
I think you want me to respond to.
Maybe I should have said that the advanced nations no longer fight *each
other*. But, if there's "defense" money to be spent, I suppose it will go
beyond paper shufffling from time to time and actually be used to kill
people. Or maybe I just should have said that advanced nations will *come
to see* that war is unprofitable, or that wars will be fought for other
reasons. Anyhow the war in the PersianGulf ate up a very small fraction
of the "defense" budget.
>>>>>I think to make your approach really valid one has to extend it to a
>>>>>world body created, controlled, financed etc exactly as are the lower
>>>>>bodies.
>>>
>>>True. But the UN is also a place where the powerful members of the
>>>security council play political games with each other and about the
>>>rest of the world.
>>
>>So is U.S. democracy. I just started a thread on misc.legal.moderated
>>about whether Congress, alone and without the President's signature,
>>could overturn Roe vs. Wade. This is my understanding of Article III,
>>Section 2, but I want to make sure. If so, why is Pat Buchanan calling
>>for a Constututional amendment? To make a loud noise, I suspect.
>
>I don't believe that is right> I just read that article and I don't
>see it. But mroe than that, IMO if that could be done, you would hear
>about similar things all the time.
I'm not getting any goodd replies from misc.legal.moderated. But I just
remembered that *I* have a law review article on the subject and fished
it out of my filing cabinet. It's in the _Standford L.R._ from 1984. I'll
have to read it and report back.
>>>IMO we need more of this kind of discussion, that is broad, open
>>>minded, discussion on how to restructure governence. I thnk the net
>>>can be a way to do this, if enough peole of good will try to do it.
>>
>>Do you think this will require selective breeding, to increase the number
>>of those few souls whose cerebral cortex is well-integrated with the rest
>>of their brain?
>
>Yes but I don't think any one is cabable of doind the selective
>breeding in a scientific manner. I don't think anyone knows what
>would work and what would not work. Also I don't think that is
>economically politically possible.
>
>Acutally the more I think about it the more I think it does not
>requrie selective breeding. I think the most imporatant thing is what
>indoctination children receive in the period form birth to a few
>years old.
I wonder if we will have to do some selective breeding to get a critical
mass of educators?
Frank
Richard Foy
>>
>>People are not rational beings, so why not say anything on any thread?
>
>it into effect. The upper cerbral cortex has not been fully integrated
>into the brain, making *painful* for most people to think.
And most people, including many on the net avoide the pain.
>
>>I have far too many unread books now to undertake a new one. However,
>>I you suggesting that we could have maintained our defense
>>expenditures say at the level they were in 1938 and still not been in
>>significant danger of invasion?
>
>I think so, yes, though I realize it is a minority view. My solution to
>potential Russian agression is to give their capitalists our National
>Parks. These capitalists would restrain the military so their investments
>wouldn't be damaged. I offer this only as an improvement over the status
>quo of I don't know how many Millegigadollars the "Defense" Department is
>spending.
>
>More generally, I think all the advanced nations (those that can really
>get a good war going) have come to see that war is unprofitable.
I don't know what you mean by a "good war" but it seems to me that
Iraq/US got a pretty good one going in the Persian Gulf and that
others got a pretty good one going in xYugoslavia.
>
>>>>I think to make your approach really valid one has to extend it to a
>>>>world body created, controlled, financed etc exactly as are the lower
>>>>bodies.
>>
>>True. But the UN is also a place where the powerful members of the
>>security council play political games with each other and about the
>>rest of the world.
>
>So is U.S. democracy. I just started a thread on misc.legal.moderated
>about whether Congress, alone and without the President's signature,
>could overturn Roe vs. Wade. This is my understanding of Article III,
>Section 2, but I want to make sure. If so, why is Pat Buchanan calling
>for a Constututional amendment? To make a loud noise, I suspect.
I don't believe that is right> I just read that article and I don't
see it. But mroe than that, IMO if that could be done, you would hear
about similar things all the time.
>
>>
>>IMO we need more of this kind of discussion, that is broad, open
>>minded, discussion on how to restructure governence. I thnk the net
>>can be a way to do this, if enough peole of good will try to do it.
>
>Do you think this will require selective breeding, to increase the number
>of those few souls whose cerebral cortex is well-integrated with the rest
>of their brain?
Yes but I don't think any one is cabable of doind the selective
breeding in a scientific manner. I don't think anyone knows what
would work and what would not work. Also I don't think that is
economically politically possible.
Acutally the more I think about it the more I think it does not
requrie selective breeding. I think the most imporatant thing is what
indoctination children receive in the period form birth to a few
years old.
Lizard
>In article <3142d07e...@news.dnai.com>, Lizard <liz...@dnai.com> wrote:
>>On 9 Mar 1996 19:22:18 GMT, madh...@smarty.smart.net (F. Cowart)
>>>
>>>But what will replace it?
>>
>>Anarchy.
>>
>
>Do you really like anarchy when people would have stingers, rockets,
>and even more powerful weapons to use at random?
Currently, I face a government which has all those things, not to
mention ICBMs, and has shown not the slightest reluctance to use them
against innocents, both within and outside of the United States. I'd
be a lot happier if I and my friends had them, too.
According to apocrypha, democracy began in ancient Greece as a spear
count. When there was an issue dividing the people, each side would
line up, spears at the ready, and be counted. The side with the most
spear would be presumed to win the battle should it come to that, and
so, was ceded to without actually going through the messy process of
actually having the fight. This left the Greeks free to use their
spears on their neighbors.
In our current world, however, only the government has the spears.
*----------------------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
Indecency:Fuck the CDA.
Information on explosives: The formula for gunpowder is 2 parts
charcoal, 3 parts sulfur, 15 parts saltpeter.
Information on abortion:Planned Parenthood of San Rafael
:(415) 454-0471
URL:http://www.dnai.com/~lizard
Richard Foy
>I think you want me to respond to.
Very good.
>
>Maybe I should have said that the advanced nations no longer fight *each
>other*. But, if there's "defense" money to be spent, I suppose it will go
>beyond paper shufffling from time to time and actually be used to kill
>people. Or maybe I just should have said that advanced nations will *come
>to see* that war is unprofitable, or that wars will be fought for other
>reasons. Anyhow the war in the PersianGulf ate up a very small fraction
>of the "defense" budget.
That is true. But the fact that the Persian Gulf war cost teh US so
little I think is at least partially a result of the fact that vast
sums of money were spent on all sorts of weapon technology which
allowed to the war to be won with small losses by the Amricans and
allies.
I am not by the way saying that was all a great thing.
>>>
>>>So is U.S. democracy. I just started a thread on misc.legal.moderated
>>>about whether Congress, alone and without the President's signature,
>>>could overturn Roe vs. Wade. This is my understanding of Article III,
>>>Section 2, but I want to make sure. If so, why is Pat Buchanan calling
>>>for a Constututional amendment? To make a loud noise, I suspect.
>>
>>I don't believe that is right> I just read that article and I don't
>>see it. But mroe than that, IMO if that could be done, you would hear
>>about similar things all the time.
>
>I'm not getting any goodd replies from misc.legal.moderated. But I just
>remembered that *I* have a law review article on the subject and fished
>it out of my filing cabinet. It's in the _Standford L.R._ from 1984. I'll
>have to read it and report back.
Very good.
>
>>
>>Yes but I don't think any one is cabable of doind the selective
>>breeding in a scientific manner. I don't think anyone knows what
>>would work and what would not work. Also I don't think that is
>>economically politically possible.
>>
>>Acutally the more I think about it the more I think it does not
>>requrie selective breeding. I think the most imporatant thing is what
>>indoctination children receive in the period form birth to a few
>>years old.
>
>I wonder if we will have to do some selective breeding to get a critical
>mass of educators?
The problem with selective breeding is that I don't believe we have
any accurate knowledge of what capabilites will be good in the
future. In addition we don't have much knowledge of how much of
peoples capabilites is a result of nature vs nurture.
And third a policy of selective breeding would create and environment
of genocide, of who by whom I don't have the slightest idea.