The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Timothy on January 20, 2012, 10:47:19 AM
-
Ignorant people, please stay home on Election Day
By John Stossel
Simple answers are so satisfying: Green jobs will fix the economy. Stimulus will create jobs. Charity helps people more than commerce. Everyone should vote.
Well, all those instinctive solutions are wrong. As Friedrich Hayek pointed out in “The Fatal Conceit,” it’s a problem that in our complex, extended economy, we rely on instincts developed during our ancestors’ existence in small bands. In those old days, everyone knew everyone else, so affairs could be micromanaged. Today, we live in a global economy where strangers deal with each other. The rules need to be different.
Hayek said: “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”
You might think people have begun to understand this. Opinion polls show Americans are very dissatisfied with government. Congress has only a 12 percent approval rating. Good. People should be suspicious of what Congress would design. Central planners failed in the Soviet Union and Cuba and America’s public schools and at the post office.
Despite all that failure, however, whenever a crisis hits, the natural instinct is to say, “Government must do something.”
Look at this piece of instinctual wisdom: Everyone should vote. In the last big election, only 90 million people voted out of more than 200 million eligible voters. That’s terrible, we’re told. But it’s not terrible because a lot of people are ignorant. When I asked people to identify pictures of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, almost half couldn’t.
This is one reason I say those “get out the vote” drives are dumb. I take heat for saying that, but Bryan Caplan agrees. He’s a professor of economics at George Mason University and author of “The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies” . He was on my Fox Business show last week.
“A lot of bad policies ... pass by popular demand,” Caplan told me. “In order to do the right thing, you have to know something.”
The “informed citizen” is the ideal of democratic societies, but Caplan points out that average citizens have no incentive to become informed, while special interests do. The rest of us have lives. We are busy with things other than politics. That’s why our democratic government inflates the price of sugar through trade restrictions, even though American sugar consumers far outnumber American sugar producers.
Caplan has a radical proposal for citizens: Be honest. If you know nothing about a subject, don’t have an opinion about it. “And don’t reward or penalize candidates for their position on an issue you don’t understand.”
Political life differs from private life. If you vote for a candidate while ignorant about issues, you’ll pay no more than a tiny fraction of the price of your ignorance. Not so in your private affairs. If you’re dumb when you buy a car, you get stuck with a bad car.
You get punished right away.
“And you may look back and say, ‘I’m not going to do that again.’ ... It’s not so much that voters are dumb. Even smart people act dumb when they vote. I know an engineer who is very clever. ... But his views on economics (are) ridiculous.”
It’s not what people don’t know that gets them into trouble. It’s what they know that isn’t so.
“A very common view is that foreign aid is actually the largest item in the budget,” Caplan said. “It’s about 1 percent.”
Actually, even less. Medicare, Social Security, the military and interest on the debt make up over half the budget. But surveys show that people believe foreign aid and welfare are the biggest items.
So, you ignorant people, please stay home on Election Day. And those of you who do vote, please resist the instinctive urge to give our tribal elders more power.
If Americans keep voting for politicians who want to pass more laws and spend more money, the result will not be a country with fewer problems, but a country that’s governed by piecemeal socialism. Or corporatism. We can debate the meaning of those words, but there’s no doubt that such central planning leaves us less prosperous and less free.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/19/ignorant-people-please-stay-home-on-election-day/?intcmp=spotlight#ixzz1k1BQE5Yr
-
Tim, what should we do? Let those who "understand" what is going on decide what is best for us? Perhaps we should create a ruling class of uber "intelligent" individuals who see that we the unintelligent are told what is good for us just like the nobles we fought a revolution to throw out. Sounds like we should, perhaps, revert back to the good old days of a ruling class and peasants. Chicago politics anyone?
Pecos
-
Lighten up Pecos! It wasn't my idea, it's from John Stossel...
On a personal note, there are a few in my family that cannot identify any of the candidates running on the GOP ticket at the moment! I'd prefer they'd stay home but they have every right to vote based on the current version of our constitution!
It's people that DON'T vote, then bitch about politics or how bad things are that piss me off!
We've had a "sarcasm" emoticon on order for some time, Marshal is busy!
;)
Remember, lacking knowledge is NOT stupidity! An intelligent person can gain knowledge but a stupid person is stuck for life...
-
Actually Pecos, the Revolution you mentioned did result in a "ruling class" and another class who did not meet the property requirement and were essentially "peasants".
I believe we should go back to that system.
Those who are working, or retired after a career (the ones who actually generate the nations wealth) should be allowed to vote. while the unemployed, and welfare recipients should be denied any say in the spending of wealth they did not help generate.
The idea of "universal suffrage" (any one with a pulse gets a vote) is a "democratic" ideal introduced to water down the foundations of our Republic.
With the drones removed from the voter rolls the choice of "bread and circuses" is left in the hands of those actually paying the tab.
-
Restricting the vote to only certain eligible people by wealth really stinks.
Until you compare it the manure pile not doing so has allowed to ripen.
-
I've been a proponent of being able to pass a basic civics test or immigration test to be an acceptable voter requirement. I'm also in favor of having to prove who you are before you're given a ballot! The only time that's happened to me was the last general election (2010) when I lived in SE Connecticut!
It won't happen, at least in my lifetime! I've heard that nearly 80% or Congress probably can't pass the immigration exam!
-
What we have in this country is a population raised on "the tube" who will not and can not think for themselves. They have given up this country to a large group of greedy "educated leaders" and those leaders have got the country exactly where they want it.
We need to change the system we have here and we need to begin with the schools. We are not educating our children we are creating another generation of mindless followers. We are not teaching our children to think, we are not teaching them to lead, we are teaching them to follow. This is the failing of the "ruling elite" theory. The "elite" don't and won't care about the "non-elite" except for what the "non-elite" can do for the "elite". This is what scares me about restricting the right to vote to a specific group of citizens. The danger is the same thing that happened in Germany in the thirties and has happened in every country where there was a "ruling elite" set up.
Also unless you have walked in my shoes, as the saying goes, how can you say I or anyone else can not make an intelligent decision? I'll be the first to admit I'm not the most intelligent person in the country nor am I even close but I think the people I know and I have enough knowledge to make a good decision when it comes to voting. I know there are plenty who vote for some silly reasons and these are the voters we must educate. To exclude them in WRONG, in my opinion. I guess I'm too liberal to be a conservative and a good Republican but that's how I think.
Sorry if this upsets the New England conservatives on the site but I guess that's my Mis-West upbringing.
Pecos
-
Pecos, I worry too that any voting qualification, be it education, passing a test, work contribution or whatever, might be abused by those in power......but ANY law/situation can be abused by those in power.
The only answer is to get rid of them...and that won't happen when they have to ability to buy votes with the public dole.
Eliminate those who are on the dole and you make big strides at eliminating all the rest of the problems.
Changing the educational system won't happen either until that "elite" power crowd is removed....that system is also on the dole.
Making it so it can be done with the vote is the more peaceful and less drastic solution proposed by the New England Conservatives.
-
What we have in this country is a population raised on "the tube" who will not and can not think for themselves. They have given up this country to a large group of greedy "educated leaders" and those leaders have got the country exactly where they want it.
We need to change the system we have here and we need to begin with the schools. We are not educating our children we are creating another generation of mindless followers. We are not teaching our children to think, we are not teaching them to lead, we are teaching them to follow. This is the failing of the "ruling elite" theory. The "elite" don't and won't care about the "non-elite" except for what the "non-elite" can do for the "elite". This is what scares me about restricting the right to vote to a specific group of citizens. The danger is the same thing that happened in Germany in the thirties and has happened in every country where there was a "ruling elite" set up.
Also unless you have walked in my shoes, as the saying goes, how can you say I or anyone else can not make an intelligent decision? I'll be the first to admit I'm not the most intelligent person in the country nor am I even close but I think the people I know and I have enough knowledge to make a good decision when it comes to voting. I know there are plenty who vote for some silly reasons and these are the voters we must educate. To exclude them in WRONG, in my opinion. I guess I'm too liberal to be a conservative and a good Republican but that's how I think.
Sorry if this upsets the New England conservatives on the site but I guess that's my Mis-West upbringing.
Pecos
I agree that education of our kids is the most important thing to work for but unless you're planning to send them to private school or teach them at home, that's not going to happen! My wife and I raised our daughter to have moral, ethical and compassionate values and as a result, she is an independent thinker, works hard and doesn't expect anything for nothing! I've done my job in that regard but her school failed miserably when it comes to Civics and Government!
Not a New Englander, I was born and raised in Michigan. I live here out of necessity and I would much rather be anywhere else but the Northeast!
-
Pecos, I worry too that any voting qualification, be it education, passing a test, work contribution or whatever, might be abused by those in power......but ANY law/situation can be abused by those in power.
The only answer is to get rid of them...and that won't happen when they have to ability to buy votes with the public dole.
Eliminate those who are on the dole and you make big strides at eliminating all the rest of the problems.
Changing the educational system won't happen either until that "elite" power crowd is removed....that system is also on the dole.
Making it so it can be done with the vote is the more peaceful and less drastic solution proposed by the New England Conservatives.
Et tu Solus? I was born further west than Ohio my friend! ;D
-
Et tu Solus? I was born further west than Ohio my friend! ;D
Was born in Chicago, but was raised in Ohio.....grew up at Ft. Knox, KY.
-
Was born in Chicago, but was raised in Ohio.....grew up at Ft. Knox, KY.
Michigan born and raised, Florida, Iceland, California, Connecticut and imprisoned in MA at the moment! I've visited 44 of the lower 48 over the years when I worked in the nuclear industry. I'm a real mutt of an American...not too conservative but not at all a liberal.
There is only one document that matters to me other than the Bible and that's the US Constitution! Since I know that I can actually go and read the original document, the Constitution has more significance to me personally!
-
... I know there are plenty who vote for some silly reasons and these are the voters we must educate. To exclude them in WRONG, in my opinion. ...
Educating others. I think this may be one of our most important civic responsibilities. We can all "work" for a candidate by talking to our friends, family, co-workers, and neighbors. We can post topics to forums and other web outlets. We can print, copy, and distribute educational campaign material. Or we can sign-up to be an "official" campaign volunteer. Whatever the outlet may be, we can all make a difference by being a spokesman for the ideology, political party, or candidate we feel best represents the solution our Nation so desparately needs.
To simply disenfranchise the uninformed or to deny voice to those involuntarily suffering unemployment or other misfortunes is paramount to dissolving one of our most basic ideals - one of our founding principles. When we read from the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...," we must realize that each and every citizen has a stake in the outcome of this process. Young or old, male or female, white or black, well-informed or ignorant, rich or poor, employed or jobless, healthy or sick - every legal citizen must have a voice in granting those "just powers."
Our focus must be on the future. A future where "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" are not mere words whispered in timidity or a slogan for pandering. A future where the governed are once again in control.
-
Very well said JLawson!
Unfortunately, the uninformed are slowly becoming the majority in this country! We graduate 1,000,000 kids from HS that cannot read above an 8th grade level! That's the definition of "functionally illiterate"!
Our education systems are failing faster than the Republic! The more money the .gov throws into the system, the worse it's getting......it make take a more drastic solution to the problem!
I posted this link because it was thought provoking, nothing more! It appears that it's struck a cord which was it's intent by the original author, Mr. Stossel!
-
Educating others. I think this may be one of our most important civic responsibilities. We can all "work" for a candidate by talking to our friends, family, co-workers, and neighbors. We can post topics to forums and other web outlets. We can print, copy, and distribute educational campaign material. Or we can sign-up to be an "official" campaign volunteer. Whatever the outlet may be, we can all make a difference by being a spokesman for the ideology, political party, or candidate we feel best represents the solution our Nation so desparately needs.
To simply disenfranchise the uninformed or to deny voice to those involuntarily suffering unemployment or other misfortunes is paramount to dissolving one of our most basic ideals - one of our founding principles. When we read from the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...," we must realize that each and every citizen has a stake in the outcome of this process. Young or old, male or female, white or black, well-informed or ignorant, rich or poor, employed or jobless, healthy or sick - every legal citizen must have a voice in granting those "just powers."
Our focus must be on the future. A future where "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" are not mere words whispered in timidity or a slogan for pandering. A future where the governed are once again in control.
You need to back that up with historical precedent.
If you research it you will find that on Independence many states increased the "property requirement " there by disenfranchising not only people who had been able to vote under British rule, but also a large portion of Revolutionary war veterans as well.
The Founding Fathers restated the principle known as far back as ancient Rome that "when the population discovers it can vote itself "largess" (bread and circuses) from the public treasury, that is exactly what they will do".
How have the Democrats amassed so much power since they lost the segregation debate ?
They did it by buying the votes of the chronic poor and illegal aliens with hand outs from the public treasury.
Restricting the vote to those who actually pay the nations bills would eliminate that system of graft.
As for Pecos' snide comment about about "New England Conservatives ".
I will simply point out that we were doing quite nicely before the rest of the country was even settled, in fact, the East coast states generated enough wealth to buy nearly all the rest of the country for cash.
-
... Restricting the vote to those who actually pay the nations bills would eliminate that system of graft. ...
I understand your point... and it isn't without merit. However, I see such "conditional disenfranchisement" as a dangerous and steep slippery slope.
Let's say we start by requiring employment or documented retirement status as you suggest. How do we handle homemakers who have never worked and have never contributed to a retirement plan? How do we handle those disabled from birth who have never worked? How do we handle those who support themselves and their family by working one odd job after another - never securing "official" employment?
And how might these conditional voting requirements change in the future? Who will vote themselves out of the right to vote? Who will decide which among us is rich enough, old enough, healthy enough, smart enough, or even ethnically pure enough to have a say in our futures?
I don't pose these questions to be contrary... these would seem to be legitimate issues to contend with if we begin creating an "approved list" for voting purposes. Obviously, my concern is that one day I might not find myself on any one of the lists. Logically, this should concern all of us.
-
Unfortunately, the uninformed are slowly becoming the majority in this country! We graduate 1,000,000 kids from HS that cannot read above an 8th grade level! That's the definition of "functionally illiterate"!
I don't think that's the problem. 3-4 generations ago, there were a lot of people with 8th grade educations (often less) that did great things. The problem is work ethic and an ability to reason (or lack thereof).
-
If they paid taxes, they vote, regardless of if it was official employment. If they work and don't pay taxes, no vote. Not that I am in favor of the taxes we pay, somewhere around 5% should do it. If you have worked and go on the dole you lose the vote till you work again.
If you have worked and retired, you vote. Might be to loose there, but it will work.
If you have never worked and own a home, I'd imagine you have had some taxable income and that would count.
Basic guideline is that if you are on the dole, you don't vote.
Tough one is government workers. They work, they pay taxes, put they are paid with tax payers money.
-
I don't think that's the problem. 3-4 generations ago, there were a lot of people with 8th grade educations (often less) that did great things. The problem is work ethic and an ability to reason (or lack thereof).
True enough and my father is a great example of that! The problem isn't the individual student, it's the education system that allows them to graduate from High School without the proper fundamentals to manage their own lives! It's worse in the urban areas but it's a problem nationwide!
How can someone manage in life if they cannot understand how to fill out an employment application? I have a 53 year old sister in law who hasn't a clue how to write a check, a resume, an application, make change of a dollar and struggles with the most rudimentary math problems that exist in every day life! I'm afraid that our education system and society are too quick to let these kids through the system to further promote their own agendas!
-
.. If you have never worked and own a home, I'd imagine you have had some taxable income and that would count. ...
So now we are excluding another segment of our society - those who rent. First we said you must have worked... but on second thought we'll let that slide as long as you have a house in your name.
Sorry, I don't mean to sound flippant, but don't you see how unworkable this approach would be. And the primary target appears to be people "on the dole." Would this disqualify them from voting on ANY issue - even those that do not involve entitlement programs? Would we allow them to vote on local issues but not elected offices? Possibly only local issues that do not involve funding? Or maybe only elected offices that have no jurisdiction over entitlement programs? Or maybe... we could go on and on.
Can you imagine the bureaucracy involved in administering this? I thought we wanted smaller government.
-
Like in the movie "Starship Troopers" if you want to vote the it is NATIONAL SERVICE of some sort, not not necasarally the military.
-
So now we are excluding another segment of our society - those who rent. First we said you must have worked... but on second thought we'll let that slide as long as you have a house in your name.
Sorry, I don't mean to sound flippant, but don't you see how unworkable this approach would be. And the primary target appears to be people "on the dole." Would this disqualify them from voting on ANY issue - even those that do not involve entitlement programs? Would we allow them to vote on local issues but not elected offices? Possibly only local issues that do not involve funding? Or maybe only elected offices that have no jurisdiction over entitlement programs? Or maybe... we could go on and on.
Can you imagine the bureaucracy involved in administering this? I thought we wanted smaller government.
Well, the folks on the dole can vote on any issue that does not involve entitlement programs or any office holder who can influence them. That includes any tax issue since, again, they are voting to spend your money if they are not paying taxes.
The real solution is to just eliminate the "dole". The government has no business supporting folks with your money. If you choose to support them you can donate to local charities that do the kind of job you like.
The other part is to get government out of doing anything except what is required and allowed by the Constitution. That would eliminate the problem with government workers. They would be a small percentage of the population. That would require major reworking of how the Commerce Clause is handled too.
But until the ones who the government trough aren't voting in those office holders who dump your money into it, that can't be fixed.
As I posted before, limiting the vote by any requirements stinks....until you smell the manure pile not doing so has allowed to ripen.
Voters are the problem. No amount of discussion, debate or facts would have convinced that woman who believed Obama was going to pay for her rent and gas to change her vote.
Until there is no dole, the only way to make things better is to change the voting. Unless we shoot them.
-
Practicing for a new career in MSM journalism - today's lesson is "Taking things out of context."
Voters are the problem... the only way to make things better is to... shoot them.
;D
-
Well, the folks on the dole can vote on any issue that does not involve entitlement programs or any office holder who can influence them. That includes any tax issue since, again, they are voting to spend your money if they are not paying taxes.
The real solution is to just eliminate the "dole". The government has no business supporting folks with your money. If you choose to support them you can donate to local charities that do the kind of job you like.
The other part is to get government out of doing anything except what is required and allowed by the Constitution. That would eliminate the problem with government workers. They would be a small percentage of the population. That would require major reworking of how the Commerce Clause is handled too.
But until the ones who the government trough aren't voting in those office holders who dump your money into it, that can't be fixed.
As I posted before, limiting the vote by any requirements stinks....until you smell the manure pile not doing so has allowed to ripen.
Voters are the problem. No amount of discussion, debate or facts would have convinced that woman who believed Obama was going to pay for her rent and gas to change her vote.
Until there is no dole, the only way to make things better is to change the voting. Unless we shoot them.
If you pay taxes you vote.
If you do not pay taxes we don't care what you think.
No need to complicate it with exceptions, that's the kind of BS that gave us the current tax code.
That woman most likely would not have been voting.
Like in the movie "Starship Troopers" if you want to vote the it is NATIONAL SERVICE of some sort, not not necasarally the military.
That doesn't work. John Murtha , John McCain, and Charlie Wrangel all had excellent military records.
All 3 are f*cking scumbags as politicians.
-
If you pay taxes you vote.
If you do not pay taxes we don't care what you think.
No need to complicate it with exceptions, that's the kind of BS that gave us the current tax code.
That woman most likely would not have been voting.
That doesn't work. John Murtha , John McCain, and Charlie Wrangel all had excellent military records.
All 3 are f*cking scumbags as politicians.
I think you could simplify it and satisfy JLawson and myself by saying that if you are receiving ANY form of government assistance, you don't vote. This covers the housewife who chooses to stay home and raise and educate her children since she married smart and has a husband that can support such a lifestyle. Also, if we actually ever fixed the socio-economic problems in this country, a stay at home mom will probably become much more prominent.
We may be discussing an individual that pays no taxes, but is still part of a household that takes no assistance, and is paying more than their fair share.
-
If you pay taxes you vote.
If you do not pay taxes we don't care what you think.
No need to complicate it with exceptions, that's the kind of BS that gave us the current tax code.
That woman most likely would not have been voting.
That doesn't work. John Murtha , John McCain, and Charlie Wrangel all had excellent military records.
All 3 are f*cking scumbags as politicians.
Without knowing how many military folks voted for them, we don't know if the the service voting restriction would have prevented them from gaining office. It sure wouldn't have prevented those 3 from voting, but it might have prevented them from getting elected.