|
|
|
|
#1
08-08-2007, 06:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] if taxes are collected dont you think that is a sign that people dont own the money they make but are told by democratic decision how much of their income to keep and how much belongs to society? [/ QUOTE ] No, I don't think that. I agree that some people in a social democracy think that. I think a "true" social democrat thinks that taxes are collected to the ultimate benefit of those being taxed. I think that many modern social democrats think like you have suggested: the rich owe it to the poor (aka "society") to make their lives suck less. [/ QUOTE ] umm what the point of democracy to begin with? i think the world your looking for is anarcho capitalist. those are the ones who think that all social services should be privatized. 
|
|
#2
08-08-2007, 06:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
i think the world your looking for is anarcho capitalist. those are the ones who think that all social services should be privatized. [/ QUOTE ] There's nothing private about the OP's suggestion - the government would still be providing extensive services, possibly excluding competition.
|
|
#3
08-08-2007, 06:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] i think the world your looking for is anarcho capitalist. those are the ones who think that all social services should be privatized. [/ QUOTE ] There's nothing private about the OP's suggestion - the government would still be providing extensive services, possibly excluding competition. [/ QUOTE ] okay, but like you said, thats saying that its okay for people to recede from paying for something, but they are not aloud to obtain that service by other means should they refuse to pay. People actually support this? how much of a case is there for people to be allowed to protest an action by being given the right to recede but then forcefully deprive the right for alternative strategies for the given problem?
|
|
#4
08-08-2007, 06:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
People actually support this? how much of a case is there for people to be allowed to protest an action by being given the right to recede but then forcefully deprive the right for alternative strategies for the given problem? [/ QUOTE ] Compared to the alternative (being given no right to recede and then forcefully deprived the right for alternative strategies for the given problem), yes there would be an appetite for this.
|
|
#5
08-08-2007, 06:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] People actually support this? how much of a case is there for people to be allowed to protest an action by being given the right to recede but then forcefully deprive the right for alternative strategies for the given problem? [/ QUOTE ] Compared to the alternative (being given no right to recede and then forcefully deprived the right for alternative strategies for the given problem), yes there would be an appetite for this. [/ QUOTE ] sure but what is the true end? whats the ideal? who holds that as their ideal?
|
|
#6
08-08-2007, 07:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
This proposal has several crippling game theoretic problems. Generally, I think any voting system that incentivizes dishonest voting is a poor solution. Just about all voting systems create some incentive for dishonest voting in certain situations, but this one takes it to the extreme.
|
|
#7
08-08-2007, 07:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
This proposal has several crippling game theoretic problems. Generally, I think any voting system that incentivizes dishonest voting is a poor solution. Just about all voting systems create some incentive for dishonest voting in certain situations, but this one takes it to the extreme. [/ QUOTE ] Can you go into detail?
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
