Requisite protest from the left wingthecanuckguySeptember 20 2010, 21:28:37 UTC
On the whole, I like it (despite the fact that I am, as of today I guess, a politician, as I just filed my papers for school trustee!) but I will point out that this, like most other ideas from the right, is ill thought out
( ... )
Re: Requisite protest from the left wingjmaynardSeptember 20 2010, 21:43:54 UTC
I'm not an anarchist, but I do believe firmly in the idea that government should be reduced to its absolute minimum, kept "as small, starved, and inoffensive as possible", and "that government governs best which governs least". This would accomplish that goal.
Re: Requisite protest from the left wingkazrikoSeptember 22 2010, 19:19:39 UTC
I can agree with the goal, though the method may not work. I think the original idea of preventing the government from controlling too much was a good one, it's just that they accidentally made the commerce clause overly broad and certain things started getting interpreted too widely. If the huge corporations cannot force their will on people and their competitors via regulations in the government (because the government doesn't have the power to place those regulations,) then they will send less money to the politicians
( ... )
Gentleman: defend thy thesis.pokeyburroSeptember 21 2010, 01:43:25 UTC
Even setting aside the lifetaking issue (as is traditionally done in gedankens such as this), there are other bad ways this could go.
What if a bad politician has a pretty good family? A conscientious civilianry might not have the stomach to do the deed. Which means it'd have to be a pretty bad politician, which might be good. However, now flip it back: a bad politician might consider that family to be a shieldFlip it again. A conscientious politician whom the public might like on the whole would be dissuaded from running, for fear of having to leave office feet first. Which might result in the people getting a non-optimal choice. Sure, maybe we'd just kill that guy. But still
( ... )
Re: Will you take this post down today?jmaynardJanuary 10 2011, 21:08:42 UTC
No. That world is fundamentally different from this one. Representative Giffords didn't sign up to her side of the agreement I propose, and so should not be subject to it. I was describing a system as I would see it, not the system that exists today.
If Jared Lee Loughner is found guilty of her shooting and the murders of the 6 people who died, he should get the death penalty. I'd even start the IV and push the drugs.
Comments 11
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
What if a bad politician has a pretty good family? A conscientious civilianry might not have the stomach to do the deed. Which means it'd have to be a pretty bad politician, which might be good. However, now flip it back: a bad politician might consider that family to be a shieldFlip it again. A conscientious politician whom the public might like on the whole would be dissuaded from running, for fear of having to leave office feet first. Which might result in the people getting a non-optimal choice. Sure, maybe we'd just kill that guy. But still ( ... )
Reply
Reply
If Jared Lee Loughner is found guilty of her shooting and the murders of the 6 people who died, he should get the death penalty. I'd even start the IV and push the drugs.
Reply
Leave a comment