Hypothetical Political Scenario

[orange]

Assume for a minute that it was required that all US citizens read detailed reports on many different political issues, paying special attention to how much it would cost them individually in taxes, and then vote on those issues.

Would there be enough people voting us into the war on Iraq? Would there be enough people voting for law enforcement agencies? Medicare and Medicaid?

Do you think that many people have strong opinions on issues like these while being unaware of how much it costs them, or rather, how much less they'd have to pay in taxes if these programs didn't exist? Would such a system create a neo-libertarian paradise in America?

[David Floyd]

Well, I certainly think that many Americans would vote Libertarian if they listened to the Libertarian viewpoint with an open, rational mind.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by orange
. . . paying special attention to how much it would cost them individually in taxes . . .

I certainly hope they'd also be given information on how much it would cost them if they didn't have these programs. For example, law enforcement may seem expensive at first, but having been in L.A. during the Rodney King Riots, I've seen what happens when law enforcement breaks down and anarchy reigns.

[Bosh]

We'd be ruled by students, housewives and retirees

[Commie Chocobo]

HAH! maybbe then america would realise commuunism is the only way...

[Whoha]

You mean have election day on Tax day, instead of as far away from each other as possible?

Yea that would be about right for increasing voter turnout and increasing the number of people who vote for such evil conservative ideas like killing old people,poisoning the air,etc:P

[PLATO]

I always thought that would be a great idea...Of course then we would be a democracy. The government can't be letting us little guys run the show, now can they?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by orange
Assume for a minute that it was required that all US citizens read detailed reports on many different political issues, paying special attention to how much it would cost them individually in taxes, and then vote on those issues.

Then the wise would use the reports in order to twist it into something that supports their side, and we'd have politics as usual.

Unless you also assumed Americans were able to see through the politics

[Q Classic]

the long-silent moderate majority would finally be able to tell the extremists on both sides of the ****in fence to shut the **** up, because it's been their *****ing and their policy jerkfests that have ****ed up this country.

[orange]

no, just facts. The program, the cost per individual, etc.

[GePap]

Regular citizens would be unable to get through detailed budget reports, specially since the methadology used to calculate costs is as important as he numbers on the page, given that different methdologies give you widely different numbers. And some things can't be measured financially with any possbility of accuracy.

[orange]

let's put it this way then - the exact amount they'll be charged. Like a preemptive bill.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by orange
Assume for a minute that it was required that all US citizens read detailed reports on many different political issues, paying special attention to how much it would cost them individually in taxes, and then vote on those issues.

The political party that forced people to do those detailed readings would be punished by voters at the poll, and the opposition would be elected on a "No mandatory reading" landslide.

[GePap]

Originally posted by orange
let's put it this way then - the exact amount they'll be charged. Like a preemptive bill.

How do you meausre the cost to them of not having the service? That is the crux of the problem.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, I certainly think that many Americans would vote Libertarian if they listened to the Libertarian viewpoint with an open, rational mind.

[connorkimbro]

I certainly hope they'd also be given information on how much it would cost them if they didn't have these programs. For example, law enforcement may seem expensive at first, but having been in L.A. during the Rodney King Riots, I've seen what happens when law enforcement breaks down and anarchy reigns.

You ARE aware, I hope, that in a libertarian society, there would still be law enforcement. It just wouldn't necessarily be funded by the government via taxes.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, I certainly think that many Americans would vote Libertarian if they listened to the Libertarian viewpoint with an open, rational mind.

To me libertarianism sounds great, but its not pragmatic. Still its better than communism, which is simply unrealistic.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by connorkimbro

Quote:

I certainly hope they'd also be given information on how much it would cost them if they didn't have these programs. For example, law enforcement may seem expensive at first, but having been in L.A. during the Rodney King Riots, I've seen what happens when law enforcement breaks down and anarchy reigns.

You ARE aware, I hope, that in a libertarian society, there would still be law enforcement. It just wouldn't necessarily be funded by the government via taxes.

Yes, that's why it's a terrible idea either way.

[connorkimbro]

Yes, that's why it's a terrible idea either way.

Fine if you think that, but provide arguments, not fallacies like Zkribbler's straw man that i quoted.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


To me libertarianism sounds great, but its not pragmatic. Still its better than communism, which is simply unrealistic.

There are two types of loons on Apolyton -- libertarians and commies.



joking

[Arrian]

No need to be joking, Mr. Fun, you're right on that one.

The main problem with your idea, Orange, has been pointed out: who writes the report? Projected cost will be calculated based on a number of basic assumptions, which of course can be twisted by the agenda of the report author. If the author likes the plan (probably), the cost figures will most likely be based on... shall we say optimistic assumptions. The next problem is that most people won't actually read the report, or won't understand it, and will instead listen to other people yelling about how terrible/great the proposal is. Third, there is the issue (also already mentioned), of the cost of *not* having a service/program.

-Arrian

[orange]

Arrian - I thought I cleared that up with this - it doesn't matter who writes the report, it matters what the actual bill is. Assuming they are only agreeing or disagreeing based on what they will actually be charged (like a bill), would most Americans agree to the majority of government programs already in effect (like those mentioned previously)

The cost of *not* having the service/program is inconsequential to what I'm asking.

[Arrian]

I think a lot of programs would get voted down. A lot. Some of that would please me. Some of it wouldn't.

But in the long run, I actually don't think all that much would change. The rules of the game would change, and the players would adjust. But the game itself would play on.

-Arrian

[East Street Trader]

Well, we need something. Democracy as it operates currently seems pretty well played out. Undermined by a combination of party politics and the media.

But, as with so many things, it is much easier to describe what is wrong with the thing which exists (and can be examined and shot at) than to make any sort of constructive suggestion as to an improvement or a practical alternative.

I have been wondering if there might be a way to get individuals more personally engaged - as, it is said, individual citizens were engaged in the city states where the democratic idea was born.

This notion would attempt some such thing.

Hard to take it too seriously, though.

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by orange
Arrian - I thought I cleared that up with this - it doesn't matter who writes the report, it matters what the actual bill is.

You can't give a bill if you don't know what it's going to cost. If you are estimating costs it depends on who is doing the estimating. Who would have made up the bill for what Iraq was going to cost?

[Japher]

If people were give the cost of a bill and voted only on whether or not they wanted to pay that cost than yes the there would be a neo-libertarian democracy.

The problem is one also needs to question whether or not the benefits outweigh the cost and if the bill would even accomplish what it will set out to do... That is why I am a republican and not a libertarian.

How much does thus freedom cost?

[East Street Trader]

Hmmm

per US serviceman or civilian killed, a lot

injured, less

per Iraqi civilian killed, something

injured, something less

increased world tension, a jot or tittle

chance for a whole bunch of collumn inches, big plus

lots of jingoistic political support, makes the costs look tiny.

Vote now!! You know it makes sense.

Bonus vote - which militarily weak country should be invaded next?

[Japher]

Bonus vote - which militarily weak country should be invaded next?

Canada

[Whoha]

no, southward, its too cold up there, only conquer it when our global warming program finishes to completion and Canada is a tropical Paradise.

[Japher]

Good point, plus they never really complain too much about us taking out other countries... We could use some more tropical areas; Tahiti!