|
|
#11
08-08-2007, 06:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ 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. 
|
|
#12
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.
|
|
#13
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.
|
|
#14
08-08-2007, 06:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Put aside the practical considerations of setting this up for the moment. Would you be against a system where at the beginning of every financial year each citizen of a country got a list of the things that their government wanted to do along with their expected cost (and the amount they cost last year) The citizen would then choose which of the things he or she personally wanted to happen and ticked the various boxes. Then here's the thing. Your taxes would equal the total cost of the program divided by the number of people who tick the box to continue that program. You could even weight it on income if you a redistributor. For example you could have Iraq War Full presence 100 billion y/n Some presence 50 billion y/n Token presence 1 billion y/n Enforcing gay marriage ban 100 million y/n Immigration Closed borders 10 billion y/n Strict limits 8 billion y/n etc etc So you make your choices then they send you the full bill and you could either choose to pay it or change some of your choices. If you like this idea what do you think the outcome would be. If you don't, why not? [/ QUOTE ] The federal budget is how many thousands of pages? And you expect people to check or uncheck each one? LOL. It's a nice idea in theory but its a horrible idea when you think about any practical implementation. [/ QUOTE ] So, are you against it because you think people are not interested enough to take the time to fill it out and will throw it away and they will not be funding programs you want? Or do you not care that many might throw the forms away and the gov't might shrink considerably (assming the forms could be placed in everyone's possession right now) so would be for it regardless?
|
|
#15
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?
|
|
#16
08-08-2007, 06:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
With modern technology I don't see any reason not to do this. As far as people not taking the time to look into the issues, and fill out these forms, it's more of a problem for the current system if it's a problem for the new idea. It's easily resolved by the creation of representative groups. I vote the democratic ticks, republican ticks, heck even borodog could mark your ticks for you. There is a moral inconsistentcy with forcing leaders upon other people, in the form of forced representation that has been overlooked out of praticality. All this would do is update the system to the original spirit of democracy. Direct Voluntary Democracy >>> Representative democracy. The atiquated pragmatic representative democracy is no longer needed, and I have no idea why a voter would prefer the old system. If this was in place I would also like to see competition open. Fed EX, UPS, and USPS all vying for the government contract for x number of years.
Obviously the better initiatives would find a way to exclude freeriders from receiving free benefits. And I'd also like to see it so that anyone can introduce these items provided there is some minimum interest in the idea.
|
|
#17
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.
|
|
#18
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?
|
|
#19
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.
|
|
#20
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?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
