I propose a radical change I want to be able to SAY where my tax money goes. I want to be able to choose where my tax money is spent. I want to say what I support Education Defense Social programs I choose where my tax money goes. Think this would change the thinking of people? Just throwing out an idea, let's keep it light.
I wish we could vote on what our "representatives" are making...do they ever make it through a year without increasing their salaries?
Problem is that most Unmet Public Goods would never be paid for if we left it up to a matter of specific choice, and also there would be all kinds of geo-specific inbalances; we subsidize agrarian areas, for example, because in the long run it is beneficial to our overall economy to have the capacity to be self sufficient in that area, even if we choose not to excercise it...but in the short term they individaully have less taxable income, and as such would lose out in a tax system designed entirley on individual opinion.
Maybe we can change it where the constituency has to approve a congressional raise. If they do a good job, we vote for them to get their raise. If they screw us, they can get bent.
Nice idea in principle, but how would it work? I mean, I can see how we could vote on what to spend on, but how do you vote how much? Or does everyone just make up their own budget, and you then average it all out? Nice idea in principle, but it just doesn't sound workable. I think the system we have today - the "Vote the ******* out of office if you don't like what he's spending your money on" system - is realistically the only one that is feasible right now.
tree! I thought I was on your ignore list? Not sure myself how it would work. Maybe you assign a percentage yourself? Maybe it's a checklist? Making up your own budget isn't a bad idea. You could spend your money on whatever you want! Macbeth I said keep it light! That is true, and by you knowing that, you will exercise your right to put some of your money towards that. Other people will to. I like the idea about voting on raises too.
If we lived in a truly free society I would be able to go to the corner shop, but a pack of joints, and smoke one as I strolled past the police station.
Depends on your philosophy. I'm talking about the legalization of victim-less crimes. We need the police for things like murder and robbery, but my smoking a J doesn't hurt anyone (except, maybe myself, but it's my own life).
macbeth, you long winded s.o.b. you could have just written "tragedy of the commons" and that would have been the end of it.
I agree with you, ZRB. Have you checked out the discussion in the "Children addicted to drugs" thread?
I'll take it even further. If we truly lived in a free society my wife wouldn't make me shower on Saturdays. Or better yet, I would be able to do anything I wanted to my body as long as it didn't hurt anyone else.
I agree in principal, but eww. I agree. You should be able to do whatever you want as long as your behavior doesn't negatively impact anyone else.
I agree we have some problems but Honestly though every1 stop complaining We Have It better off than a lot of COuntries. God Bless America and President Bush
But what if there is some question as to whether your behavior does negatively impact someone else? Smoking, for instance. An awful lot of people believe that second-hand smoke negatively affects them in one way or another, and they do have at least some science to back that up. But like you said in the other thread, business owners should be allowed to choose whether they allow smoking or not. Just an example where this could easily get bogged down. Or more importantly, who gets to decide what constitutes negatively impacting someone else? Just to take an example from life, there are a good many Home Owners' Associations around who find that owning more than two cars or having green-painted eaves is negatively impacting that person's neighbors. Me? I say own all the cars you want and paint your house whatever color you like. It doesn't make any difference to me what you do with your house, even if it's right next door to mine. But some could make a case that there has to be some line drawn as one house can bring down property values on a block. And that would be negatively impacting others. The point is, some folks are pretty easily negatively impacted.
As I replied in the other thread, that is why we have smoking and non. I don't like smelling cigarettes when I eat, so I sit in the non smoking section and enjoy my food. When you are talking about government, I think there should have to be documented scientific proof of significant injury before legislation should take effect. Your example is of an association which one can choose not to become a member of. If you don't want to play by their rules, find a less intrusive place to live. Governments have purvey over all of us and can be MUCH more intrusive than homeowners associations, especially now that they have passed laws like the DMCA, Patriot Act, and RAVE act. The ONDCP reappropriations bill actually had language in it this year that would have allowed the drug czar's office to spend up to a billion dollars a year to defeat ballot measures and candidates identified as anti-prohibition. The defense department wants to create the Total Information Awareness database which would cull data from every source out there and collect it for the government to peruse when they want to. Credit card purchases, bank statements, letters to the editor, anything you do could potentially be at their fingertips. There was another agency, years ago, that persecuted millions of people that they didn't like and were allowed to do anything they wanted. They were called the Gestapo and they were allowed to exist because millions of people ignored what was happening.
And that has worked well for me, as well. Of course, there are very few smokers in my neigborhood that I've noticed. The smelly overly perfumed old ladies? We got those in spades. There's no such place in my city. Every block neighborhood has a homeowner's association. If I don't want to join one, I have to leave town. And HOAs can spring up around you without your consent as they are trying to do now in the M Streets. It doesn't take 100% of the residents to agree to form one. But my point was that people are often easily put out and quickly claim harm. They simply use the HOA, which has governmental authority and is a quasi-governmental entity as far as I'm concerned (i.e. if they can take your house away over less than a $100 debt, something no other private entity other than the mortgage lender itself can do, they've got significant power. And while I could have my pick of any mortgage lender if I didn't like my current one and do a refi, etc., I'm stuck with an HOA as long as I own my house regardless of how crazy they are. They are, for all intents and purposes, the government as far as I'm concerned), to air those greivances. But the example could've been anything. But the point was that you said people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. But it's pretty easy to find some harm. At what line is "harm" drawn? I imagine I could come up with a study to show just about everything harms some second person in some way. That was my only point, at what level does it become significant? And there's no answer to that except a case by case basis. So who gets to decide? And that's where we get into practical trouble.
An HOA cannot have authority over you if you do not agree to their terms. The question you have to ask yourself is, are these terms liveable. I live under an HOA, but they are concerned more with the big issues than the nitpicky details. As far as government goes, I think that one line needs to be refraining from outright BANNING much of anything. Certainly, there are things that need tight control, but banning something is generally a bad idea as black markets emerge and people become marginalized. When a policy becomes more important than a person, what kind of society do we live in?