- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Instead, Law has been corrupted so that it provides benefits and privileges to some at the expense of others. That’s the elephant in the room that no one seems to bring up when discussing “the democracy of tycoon dough.” When the wealthy donor influences the politician he’s also influencing the laws for his benefit.
The more power and authority delegated to government, the greater the scope of it. While the supply grows it is controlled via a non-growing supply of elected officials. Therefore the demand for the position or access to those in the positions increases.
Therefore the price of control increases.
The rhetorically simple solution is to reduce the demand by reducing the supply (scope and reach) of the government. For example, if the government had no say in whom you can marry, there wouldn't be money in changing who you can marry.
As to implementation of the above... If we knew that we wouldn't have the problem to complain about.
If you understand that corporations don't pay taxes, you have a basic understanding.
If you understand that the government doesn't make money, all it can do is redistribute existing money, you have a basic understaning.
If you understand that rationing is the only outcome if you throw 30 million more people into a healthcare system and then limit their choices, you have a basic understanding.
How's that for a starting point?
If you understand that competition is evil you have a basic understanding.
If you understand that government is perfect you have a basic understanding.
If you understand that redistribution is "fair" you have an expert understanding.
That is the problem. "Who" gets to decide is the issue.
Competition is "evil" only because progressives don't like people being recognized for their abilities and achievements.
Government is "perfect" because someone else gets to decide aspects of my life, and progressives think they know better than I do what's right and good for me.
Redistribution is only "fair" to half the population; by definition it's unfair to the other half, but progressives conveniently choose to ignore that.
Emotions and feelings can't come into play.
So how about this for a basic understanding: Since I'm carrying the load for two taxpayers (myself and someone else), I get to vote, but my hanger-on doesn't. No different than someone living in my house on my dime; since I'm the breadwinner, I get to make the rules (vote).
That's pretty cut and dried. If you have a positive tax liability, you get to vote. If you pay no taxes (or worse yet, get back more than you pay), you don't get to vote.
You have to earn the ability to vote (and decide to what happens to all the money in the pot) by being a contributing member and actually putting more into the pot than you take out.
It might ask which does candidate X agree with: a) "Business needs government as a partner to make the economy fairer and to prevent abuses associated with concentration of power." or b) "Businesses should be left alone to create value in the economy and held only to the laws governing all citizens. This is the best policy to prevent abuses."
The point is not your opinion on those position statements. It's that the voter should know which candidate claims to endorse A and which claims to support B. Candidates could lie, just as politicians sometimes break campaign promises now. The point would be to filter out the voter who decides based on an ad with video from a fundraiser altered to look like surveillance tapes of smug crooks. "Did candidate Y make a crooked deal with his cronies to abuse children in sweatshops? Can we really trust him?"
I admit this is a thought experiment, not something I could imagine being implemented fairly.