Lately, in political discussions, when people say you should vote for candidate x because he will do this and this and this, I ask them to explain which part of the constitution makes those things the legitimate functions of government. I'm usually ignored, or told that the government is already doing so much that isn't in the constitution that these new/expanded programs are ok too.*shudder* I wonder if they'd feel the same way if government was encroaching on their first amendment rights.
Good point. And speaking of first amendment rights, look into the Fairness Doctrine. Congress is looking into reinstating it, and applying it to the internet. It sounds all warm and fuzzy on paper until you realize what the actual implementation will look like.
I agree whole heartedly with the second part of your post, but please make sure that you are researching the political history of Bob Barr before you endorse him with such enthusiasm. Just because he is listed as a Libertarian does not mean that he really stands for the party's beliefs. Take a close look at what he did while in office in Georgia while he was still a right-wing Republican.
That logic is simple enough to follow, but it's affirming the consequent. Personally I say it's important as an educated voter to be concerned with who's going to go off spending tons of govt money and thus taxing me more or spending govt money wisely and giving me free stuff or whatever. As a citizen it's important to keep tabs on how the govt spends my money and it is not buying votes for candidates to discuss how they plan to spend my money. I think to say that the govt guarantees financial security in these statements is absolutely flawed and false. We are inherently, through the taxes we pay, linked to the financial aspects of our govt. To make it taboo to speak of how they plan on spending that money (tax breaks, govt programs, etc) says it's not within my right to know how my money that I contribute isn't my business to discuss and shouldn't be a concern.
I agree. I'm not saying that they shouldn't talk about how they plan on spending tax money, or that I don't want to hear about it. I just hate that so may presidential candidates try to appeal to the pocketbook of the lowest common denominator to win elections. Creating a society that is overly dependent on the government means that more people will be willing to sacrifice their freedoms for security.
However one does not create the other. Further that is a topic, like abortion or healthcare, that people will frequently decide their vote on. I think it's just as silly and wasteful to hinge your vote on one point, be it money, abortion, healthcare, etc., but just because people do that doesn't create a society that is overly dependent on the government. One does not lead to the other.
This is true, one does not necessarily lead to the other. But it can. You were the one that finally made me see the sliding scale between freedom and security. People that are dependent on the government for their financial security are far less likely to stand against the government when their freedoms are threatened.
It's not buying votes because you'll never get the money. It's like going to a car dealership, treating the salesman nice to get the test drive, then kicking him out as soon as you get around the corner and driving off without paying for it.
Ah, that's the thing. You would see the money. It would just take the form of "tax breaks". The government wouldn't give you more money, they would simply take less of it in taxes.
well. we have to vote for someone... or we can not vote and just aimlessly bitch about stuff,but I chose to exercise my right to vote. I tend to look at the issues that each candidate is espousing and boil it down without the talking points... of course not all of it will come to pass, but overall I'd rather someone in the WhiteHouse that has closer ideals to mine rather than not
( ... )
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
Comments 19
Lately, in political discussions, when people say you should vote for candidate x because he will do this and this and this, I ask them to explain which part of the constitution makes those things the legitimate functions of government. I'm usually ignored, or told that the government is already doing so much that isn't in the constitution that these new/expanded programs are ok too.*shudder* I wonder if they'd feel the same way if government was encroaching on their first amendment rights.
Reply
Reply
And speaking of first amendment rights, look into the Fairness Doctrine. Congress is looking into reinstating it, and applying it to the internet. It sounds all warm and fuzzy on paper until you realize what the actual implementation will look like.
Reply
Reply
Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
One of the things I can do is choose a candidate by looking beyond election tactics and figure out which of them will do a better job.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
It's not buying votes because you'll never get the money. It's like going to a car dealership, treating the salesman nice to get the test drive, then kicking him out as soon as you get around the corner and driving off without paying for it.
Reply
Reply
Reply
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
Thomas Jefferson
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment