Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hypothetical Political Scenario

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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.
    -connorkimbro
    "We're losing the war on AIDS. And drugs. And poverty. And terror. But we sure took it to those Nazis. Man, those were the days."

    -theonion.com

    Comment


    • #17
      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.
      One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by 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.
        Yes, that's why it's a terrible idea either way.
        (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
        (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
        (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

        Comment


        • #19
          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.
          -connorkimbro
          "We're losing the war on AIDS. And drugs. And poverty. And terror. But we sure took it to those Nazis. Man, those were the days."

          -theonion.com

          Comment


          • #20
            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
            A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

            Comment


            • #21
              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
              grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

              The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

              Comment


              • #22
                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.
                "Chegitz, still angry about the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991?
                You provide no source. You PROVIDE NOTHING! And yet you want to destroy capitalism.. you criminal..." - Fez

                "I was hoping for a Communist utopia that would last forever." - Imran Siddiqui

                Comment


                • #23
                  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
                  grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

                  The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      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?
                      Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi Wan's apprentice.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        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?
                        Monkey!!!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          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?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Bonus vote - which militarily weak country should be invaded next?
                            Canada
                            Monkey!!!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              no, southward, its too cold up there, only conquer it when our global warming program finishes to completion and Canada is a tropical Paradise.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Good point, plus they never really complain too much about us taking out other countries... We could use some more tropical areas; Tahiti!
                                Monkey!!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X