Support NeoGAF

[eznark]

so if evidence comes up later saying the jury was wrong...

oh well too bad you're going to die anyway?

How is that any different from how it is now?

 

[teruterubozu]

and remember folks, Americans like a comeback, Obama needs it and America will vote him back in

Only if you were a junkie. Presidents don't count.

 

[Chichikov]

Well, it's pushing 2am here, so I'm not going hit it with 5000 words like I could, but I will just extract one nugget.



I'm sure you are somewhat aware of recent history, what's wrong with the latter analysis?

It completely ignores the fact that the Democrats controlled Congress for the 12 years of Reagan/Bush. Whom are equally (or at worst, partially) as responsible for whatever deficits that may have been run up. It ignores the tremendous tax increases that Reagan (82, 84) and Bush (90) enacted in an attempt to make our government more solvent. If these gentlemen (and the advisors that 'controlled' them) really were in some large-scale campaign, they would have NEVER agreed to do them. Especially Bush Sr., who knew it was political poison.

Then it makes an assertion that the actions of Reagan/Bush would 'force the hand' of Democrats into becoming deficit hawks. But consider:


1984 Walter Mondale Convention Speech :



Everyone remembers the ill-fated words Mondale said at the end, but forget the rest of it that led him there. The Democrats were ALREADY the party of the deficit hawk. This nonsense that Republicans had some grand scheme to 'starve the beast' and force Democrats into a corner is bullshit. They were already there attempting to score political points.

Both parties merely played lip service to deficit control until Perot showed up in 1991. He was the game changer that brought about the only significant change in curtailing government spending in our lifetime. His ascension and the Republicans ability to co-opt his supporters is what brought about the 1994 Revolution and ushered in a new wave of spending reforms. Clinton went along because he was politically neutered and still wanted to push through some of his policies.

This entire talking point of 'starve the beast' was popularized by Daniel Moynihan in the budget battle of 1981. Just another scare tactic to make Democrats oppose the tax cuts, but it still lives on today.



Meanwhile, Reagan went on to raise taxes to make Social Security solvent and pushed for one of the greatest expansions in Medicare since the program was incepted. Some mastermind he turned out to be.

--- // ---

TL;DR - Gaping holes = Perot, Democrats in congress from 80-92, Mondale already a deficit hawk in 84

I don't think you really addressed the main point of that article.

Sure, the dems hold responsibility as well, but the crux of his argument is that supply side economics is an intentional ploy to force the hand of the government to reduce its own size.
Are you refuting that point?
Are you arguing that GOP orthodoxy would like to see the new deal dismantled but can't voters to support that position?

Is your criticism amount to anything other than "the dems are just as bad"?
Because while I'm not sure I 100% agree, I'm 100% that this is a discussion I don't need to have.

Meanwhile, Reagan went on to raise taxes to make Social Security solvent and pushed for one of the greatest expansions in Medicare since the program was incepted. Some mastermind he turned out to be.

He specifically address that point in the article.

 

[KtSlime]

How is that any different from how it is now?

Well if the Governor wasn't a prick then the person falsely sentenced to death would have a chance to be pardoned.

If a country is going to play around with the death sentence, there should be as many roadblocks as possible. Heck, make the US President sign-off on every execution ordered by the state. The more steps in the process, the less likely there are going to be accidents*.


*accident is too cute of word for what is really happening.

 

[scorcho]

here's a rather scathing op-ed on the disconnect between Obama's words and policies over the last few years. there's little i disagree with here, sadly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html?pagewanted=all

Like most Americans, at this point, I have no idea what Barack Obama — and by extension the party he leads — believes on virtually any issue. The president tells us he prefers a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction, one that weds “revenue enhancements” (a weak way of describing popular taxes on the rich and big corporations that are evading them) with “entitlement cuts” (an equally poor choice of words that implies that people who’ve worked their whole lives are looking for handouts). But the law he just signed includes only the cuts. This pattern of presenting inconsistent positions with no apparent recognition of their incoherence is another hallmark of this president’s storytelling. He announces in a speech on energy and climate change that we need to expand offshore oil drilling and coal production — two methods of obtaining fuels that contribute to the extreme weather Americans are now seeing. He supports a health care law that will use Medicaid to insure about 15 million more Americans and then endorses a budget plan that, through cuts to state budgets, will most likely decimate Medicaid and other essential programs for children, senior citizens and people who are vulnerable by virtue of disabilities or an economy that is getting weaker by the day. He gives a major speech on immigration reform after deporting a million immigrants in two years, breaking up families at a pace George W. Bush could never rival in all his years as president.

 

[Big-E]

Good article.

 

[speculawyer]

While I am absolutely an asshole, I don't think hoping Perry makes 2012 slightly more entertaining makes me any more of one. As I've stated, I am completely convinced that Obama wins. That said, Willingham got more of a trial than Obama gave Bin Laden.

To be clear though, I wasn't hoping Perry wins the Presidency, just the nomination.

But c'mon . . . having Bachmann control the evangelical vote would be far FAR more entertaining.



So PoliGAF, do you think her husband is really gay? I know he sets off the gaydar and it is a great joke . . . but do you really think he is gay? I really have no clue. It could really go either way.

 

[RustyNails]

Everyone remembers the ill-fated words Mondale said at the end, but forget the rest of it that led him there. The Democrats were ALREADY the party of the deficit hawk. This nonsense that Republicans had some grand scheme to 'starve the beast' and force Democrats into a corner is bullshit. They were already there attempting to score political points.

--- // ---

TL;DR - Gaping holes = Perot, Democrats in congress from 80-92, Mondale already a deficit hawk in 84

How does the bolded conflict with these statements

Reagan, Greenspan, Winniski, and Laffer took the federal budget deficit from under a trillion dollars in 1980 to almost three trillion by 1988, and back then a dollar could buy far more than it buys today. They and George HW Bush ran up more debt in eight years than every president in history, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter, combined. Surely this would both starve the beast and force the Democrats to make the politically suicidal move of becoming deficit hawks.

In his first term in office, Reagan doubled the national debt and lowered taxes for the rich from 70% to 50%. This obviously gave Mondale a platform to run and yes it was suicidal, just like the article suggested. It did force Mondale into becoming a deficit-hawk and forced democrats from then on to become anti-Santas on both of the issues.

 

[Clevinger]

So PoliGAF, do you think her husband is really gay? I know he sets off the gaydar and it is a great joke . . . but do you really think he is gay? I really have no clue. It could really go either way.

Doesn't matter. He's a shitheel, whatever the case.

Also, seems kind of counteractive for progressive and tolerant people to accuse someone of being gay because they're effeminate or have a lisp. And I don't mean to single you out. I've just seen a lot of people getting a kick out of calling him gay in a lot in progressive blogs and such.

 

[Lord_Byron28]

But c'mon . . . having Bachmann control the evangelical vote would be far FAR more entertaining.



So PoliGAF, do you think her husband is really gay? I know he sets off the gaydar and it is a great joke . . . but do you really think he is gay? I really have no clue. It could really go either way.

I read that he apparently tries "curing" people of being gay. Oh here's another lovely article. Apparently gay people are barbarians that need to be disciplined according to him.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/was...rians-who-need-to-be-disciplined-audio-1.html

It gets better because when asked, Michelle Bachman says it's no one's business and it isn't right to invade in her personal and family matters but then repeatedly attacks Michelle Obama.

 

[worldrunover]

I read that he apparently tries "curing" people of being gay. Oh here's another lovely article. Apparently gay people are barbarians that need to be disciplined according to him.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/was...rians-who-need-to-be-disciplined-audio-1.html

It gets better because when asked, Michelle Bachman says it's no one's business and it isn't right to invade in her personal and family matters but then repeatedly attacks Michelle Obama.

Need to be disciplined with a good spanking amirite.

 

[Puddles]

Then focus on educating citizens, rather than engaging in speculative plans to reduce their voting effectiveness which aren't going to pass Constitutional muster anyway. The SC was pretty clear on this when they explicitly supported the idea of one man, one vote in Reynolds v Sims back in ’64, and they've slapped down dozens of schemas that drifted away from that standard since. The standard is ensuring that votes are weighted as evenly as is practicable.

You're suggesting we intentionally distort the weighting of votes, which is not only unconstitutional, but which I find to be repulsive and, as I've said before, a long damn way from anything resembling liberal thought. You can continue to attempt to obfuscate the outcome of such a plan, and argue that there's nothing wrong with it, and maybe you'll convince someone else, but this is hardly the first time I've run across a frustrated intellectual who thought it would be a good idea to reduce the voting power of stupid people. It's an old, incredibly common, and truly ugly idea. Being a stupid, uneducated troglodyte doesn't mean you lose your rights to have your vote count as much as your neighbors. And if you think it does, I have a real problem with that. I'm sorry if that bothers you, but that's how it is.

What's wrong with demanding that people have a little basic civics knowledge before they can vote? It doesn't have to be a racist/classist thing. You could make it a test that people take in high school, kind of like what we make people go through for a driver's license.

 

[KtSlime]

What's wrong with demanding that people have a little basic civics knowledge before they can vote? It doesn't have to be a racist/classist thing. You could make it a test that people take in high school, kind of like what we make people go through for a driver's license.

We already kind of do that and it needs to stop.

I have several friends that are legal aliens, and have lived in the states most their entire life, and are very educated on US politics, but are unable to vote because they would have to give up the citizenship of their birth country.

Anyone that resides in the US should be able to vote on policies that effect their future - to not permit this is criminal, and is contrary to democracy.

 

[S1lent]

Disallowing stupid people from voting? Besides being antithetical to democracy itself, I can't think of a better way of destroying any remaining impetus for strengthening and reforming our public education system so that all Americans can be prepared to compete in a global marketplace.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Disallowing stupid people from voting? Besides being antithetical to democracy itself, I can't think of a better way of destroying any remaining impetus for strengthening and reforming our public education system so that all Americans can be prepared to compete in a global marketplace.

We need to destroy the roots of this entertainment culture first, where education, science, and intellectuals are highly respected instead of celebrities, Youtube stars, worshiping ignorance and anti-intellectualism.

 

[Puddles]

You could phase it in slowly. Make it so that nobody who is currently of voting age would be affected, but starting in 2020 (or some other year in the future), all high school students must pass a comprehensive exam on government before they can register to vote. Have them do it in their sophomore year so they could get another chance if they fail. Have several exam dates every year.

 

[Oblivion]

Well, it's pushing 2am here, so I'm not going hit it with 5000 words like I could, but I will just extract one nugget.



I'm sure you are somewhat aware of recent history, what's wrong with the latter analysis?

It completely ignores the fact that the Democrats controlled Congress for the 12 years of Reagan/Bush. Whom are equally (or at worst, partially) as responsible for whatever deficits that may have been run up. It ignores the tremendous tax increases that Reagan (82, 84) and Bush (90) enacted in an attempt to make our government more solvent. If these gentlemen (and the advisors that 'controlled' them) really were in some large-scale campaign, they would have NEVER agreed to do them. Especially Bush Sr., who knew it was political poison.

Then it makes an assertion that the actions of Reagan/Bush would 'force the hand' of Democrats into becoming deficit hawks. But consider:


1984 Walter Mondale Convention Speech :



Everyone remembers the ill-fated words Mondale said at the end, but forget the rest of it that led him there. The Democrats were ALREADY the party of the deficit hawk. This nonsense that Republicans had some grand scheme to 'starve the beast' and force Democrats into a corner is bullshit. They were already there attempting to score political points.

Both parties merely played lip service to deficit control until Perot showed up in 1991. He was the game changer that brought about the only significant change in curtailing government spending in our lifetime. His ascension and the Republicans ability to co-opt his supporters is what brought about the 1994 Revolution and ushered in a new wave of spending reforms. Clinton went along because he was politically neutered and still wanted to push through some of his policies.

This entire talking point of 'starve the beast' was popularized by Daniel Moynihan in the budget battle of 1981. Just another scare tactic to make Democrats oppose the tax cuts, but it still lives on today.



Meanwhile, Reagan went on to raise taxes to make Social Security solvent and pushed for one of the greatest expansions in Medicare since the program was incepted. Some mastermind he turned out to be.

--- // ---

TL;DR - Gaping holes = Perot, Democrats in congress from 80-92, Mondale already a deficit hawk in 84

It sounds like what you're saying is that the two santa clause theory is bunk because 1) Dems still had control of congress and 2) Reagan wasn't able to enact all the things he supposedly wanted. I don't see how being unable to follow through with what the plan originally was means that one didn't WANT to do those things.

 

[KtSlime]

You could phase it in slowly. Make it so that nobody who is currently of voting age would be affected, but starting in 2020 (or some other year in the future), all high school students must pass a comprehensive exam on government before they can register to vote. Have them do it in their sophomore year so they could get another chance if they fail. Have several exam dates every year.

Let's not even joke that way.

The people that would be likely to write the exam are also the ones likely to keep me from being able to vote.

I'd fail the exam on question number 7: What year did God create the heavens and the Earth?

 

[TacticalFox88]

You could phase it in slowly. Make it so that nobody who is currently of voting age would be affected, but starting in 2020 (or some other year in the future), all high school students must pass a comprehensive exam on government before they can register to vote. Have them do it in their sophomore year so they could get another chance if they fail. Have several exam dates every year.

Also the questions should not be the same. To prevent cheating.

 

[Suikoguy]

Better off making civics a required High School class Nationwide.
Not a requirement to vote.

A class on evaluating sources and media literacy would go a long ways.

 

[Byakuya769]

Shaking my damn head.

 

[Puddles]

I suggest a plan that would eliminate Fox News voters in a generation, and people shake their heads at me. So it goes.

 

[Wall]

here's a rather scathing op-ed on the disconnect between Obama's words and policies over the last few years. there's little i disagree with here, sadly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html?pagewanted=all

Good article. I got ripped for saying pretty much the same thing.

To me the interesting question is the one raised in this paragraph:

Or perhaps, like so many politicians who come to Washington, he has already been consciously or unconsciously corrupted by a system that tests the souls even of people of tremendous integrity, by forcing them to dial for dollars — in the case of the modern presidency, for hundreds of millions of dollars. When he wants to be, the president is a brilliant and moving speaker, but his stories virtually always lack one element: the villain who caused the problem, who is always left out, described in impersonal terms, or described in passive voice, as if the cause of others’ misery has no agency and hence no culpability. Whether that reflects his aversion to conflict, an aversion to conflict with potential campaign donors that today cripples both parties’ ability to govern and threatens our democracy, or both, is unclear.

 

[S1lent]

You shouldn't be surprised that people don't take you seriously, Puddles.

 

[Oblivion]

I think teaching high schoolers how marginal income taxes work, and the tax rates the country has had throughout history would improve things substantially. Or at the very least, there will be less people who would think Obama's the second coming of Stalin.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I think teaching high schoolers how marginal income taxes work, and the tax rates the country has had throughout history would improve things substantially. Or at the very least, there will be less people who would think Obama's the second coming of Stalin.

This needs to be hammered in constantly from Freshman year to the day they graduate to the point where they can name it as if it was the fucking pledge of allegiance.

 

[Puddles]

You shouldn't be surprised that people don't take you seriously, Puddles.

Now that's just mean.

You know how hard it was to come up with relevant Batman quotes for three pages worth of posts on the debt ceiling debate?

 

[besada]

If you're that desperate to ensure voters are educated then create an incentive. It's fairly easy to do and has the benefit of both being constitutional and moral. Give anyone who can pass your test a $500 tax break. You could even create a multi-tiered system of breaks. Pass basic civics, get $100. Pass advanced tax theory, get $500.

It may be a stupid idea, but at least it isn't morally reprehensible. Frankly, any single test bar is going to be essentially useless, so long as the way media in this country works stays the same. I know tons of people who understand the basic civics you're talking about, who are wildly misinformed on individual issues because they get all their new information from cable news, which is a giant, steaming pile of shit.

 

[Oblivion]

If you're that desperate to ensure voters are educated then create an incentive. It's fairly easy to do and has the benefit of both being constitutional and moral. Give anyone who can pass your test a $500 tax break. You could even create a multi-tiered system of breaks. Pass basic civics, get $100. Pass advanced tax theory, get $500.

It may be a stupid idea, but at least it isn't morally reprehensible. Frankly, any single test bar is going to be essentially useless, so long as the way media in this country works stays the same. I know tons of people who understand the basic civics you're talking about, who are wildly misinformed on individual issues because they get all their new information from cable news, which is a giant, steaming pile of shit.

But who makes these tests? LIBERAL UNION THUG TEACHERS??!!

 

[Invisible_Insane]

If you're that desperate to ensure voters are educated then create an incentive. It's fairly easy to do and has the benefit of both being constitutional and moral. Give anyone who can pass your test a $500 tax break. You could even create a multi-tiered system of breaks. Pass basic civics, get $100. Pass advanced tax theory, get $500.

It may be a stupid idea, but at least it isn't morally reprehensible. Frankly, any single test bar is going to be essentially useless, so long as the way media in this country works stays the same. I know tons of people who understand the basic civics you're talking about, who are wildly misinformed on individual issues because they get all their new information from cable news, which is a giant, steaming pile of shit.

I don't understand why the idea of giving people incentives to be well-informed is so contemptible to you.

 

[loosus]

I think teaching high schoolers how marginal income taxes work, and the tax rates the country has had throughout history would improve things substantially. Or at the very least, there will be less people who would think Obama's the second coming of Stalin.

I don't think so. It's older people with the problem, not younger people.

Younger people's biggest problem is lethargy. They can't be bothered to get out of bed long enough to vote.

 

[KtSlime]

I don't understand why the idea of giving people incentives to be well-informed is so contemptible to you.

Gaining the right to a 'full vote' is not an incentive - it is a barrier.

Let's think about this for a minute - let's say the idea is a good one, one that people want enacted, one that the government wants to enact.

Some questions:
What is the content of the test?
Who writes the test?
Who administers the test?

Some answers:
The content is that which would limit those with valid ideas on running government.
The test is written by those who are already in charge, and want to limit those who have contrary ideas.
The test is administered by those who want to maintain their control of the government.

Why does this seem like a good idea - especially considering that the people in charge of the government right now are people that you don't see eye-to-eye with, and therefor have caused you to come up with this scheme to get more suitable politicians in office, ones you agree with more.

 

[Wall]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test

Seems to be relevant info to leave here .....

 

[XMonkey]

Better off making civics a required High School class Nationwide.
Not a requirement to vote.

A class on evaluating sources and media literacy would go a long ways.

I like this idea.

 

[Incognito]

wtf, puddles? i guess i'm at the opposite end of the spectrum: voting should me made easier and for everyone.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

It appears as though literally everyone missed the part where I suggested that such a scheme would not be a prerequisite to voting, but rather an optional sort of licensing, which I think is a pretty important distinction. But I don't think it really bears any further discussion--I concede the point. Let's move on.

wtf, puddles? i guess i'm at the opposite end of the spectrum: voting should me made easier and for everyone.

I have insisted on this repeatedly. The easiest thing we could do is move election day to a weekend, make it a holiday, or require voting to be held for some longer period, like a week.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Come on US abolish the death penalty, it's barbaric, expensive, and has killed more innocents than it should.

It will never happen so many people get so emotional during cases like this.

Disgusting yes, but people get so emotional that they forget about the innocents lives lost.

 

[Skiptastic]

I suggest a plan that would eliminate Fox News voters in a generation, and people shake their heads at me. So it goes.

Out of curiosity, when they do those tests to see who is "most or least" informed/misinformed about topics, do they have a control group who doesn't listen or watch any news media? How do they perform?

I have insisted on this repeatedly. The easiest thing we could do is move election day to a weekend, make it a holiday, or require voting to be held for some longer period, like a week.

You can vote on the weekend. I voted three weeks early on the weekend in the 2010 election. I agree that people should get out and vote, but people ought to be aware they don't have one single day to vote.

 

[Oblivion]

Rachel Maddow's on Meet the Press today! :O

 

[Oblivion]

It will never happen so many people get so emotional during cases like this.

Disgusting yes, but people get so emotional that they forget about the innocents lives lost.

I'm not against the death penalty on moral grounds. I personally find it okay for a a life being taken for a life, especially in such a disgusting case as the one you cited.

However, even if I want that person dead, I would like to make sure that it is the RIGHT person. This is my only problem with the death penalty, where people just seem to want to kill anyone just to make themselves feel better. Why would killing an innocent person make you feel that way? It's completely irrational.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Book smarts aren't the problem with Americans being so stupid with politics. Its wisdom.

Aren't most people who have attended college republicans while most who didn't graduate highschool democrats? Now there are obvious reasons for this (lack of education usually = lack of money = lack of power) but it just shows that people will just vote for what benefits them and/or will believe what mommy and daddy told them when growing up.

We need to destroy the roots of this entertainment culture first, where education, science, and intellectuals are highly respected instead of celebrities, Youtube stars, worshiping ignorance and anti-intellectualism.

This will never happen. History constantly shows that people in general just like crap and small bursts of "shallow" entertainment.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

We should include more people to vote than anything.

The problem with America is the apathet- no they aren't even apathetic, let me correct, the INDIFFERENT middle class not voting. I really hope that this will change soon.

I'm not against the death penalty on moral grounds. I personally find it okay for a a life being taken for a life, especially in such a disgusting case as the one you cited.

However, even if I want that person dead, I would like to make sure that it is the RIGHT person. This is my only problem with the death penalty, where people just seem to want to kill anyone just to make themselves feel better. Why would killing an innocent person make you feel that way? It's completely irrational.

That's the problem, you can never be sure if its the RIGHT person. Yes because the death penalty is illegal that child abuser sicko can get the death penalty but so could many innocents as well. Real life isn't Batman, despite all of our technological advances it still isn't uncommon for innocents to be put to death.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

You can vote on the weekend. I voted three weeks early on the weekend in the 2010 election. I agree that people should get out and vote, but people ought to be aware they don't have one single day to vote.

Not in every state. If I recall correctly, the Florida legislature actually just eliminated early voting in their state. I think the federal government needs to be a lot more proactive about ensuring that elections are run fairly (and for fuck's sake, standardize redistricting, it's absolutely criminal), and it should be aiming to maximize turnout as well.

 

[Piecake]

Book smarts aren't the problem with Americans being so stupid with politics. Its wisdom.

Aren't most people who have attended college republicans while most who didn't graduate highschool democrats? Now there are obvious reasons for this (lack of education usually = lack of money = lack of power) but it just shows that people will just vote for what benefits them and/or will believe what mommy and daddy told them when growing up.

I really don't think that is the case Wouldnt shock me that the majority of business related majors are republican, but the rest? Im not so sure

 

[XMonkey]

Good article. I got ripped for saying pretty much the same thing.

To me the interesting question is the one raised in this paragraph:

Agree, great article and that paragraph stuck out to me as well. A very succinct way of highlighting a major weakness of Obama.

 

[leroidys]

Every time. I like to think that the barely functioning dead beat who volunteers to count ballots reads it and then googles him.

Eznark supports socialist healthcare am confirmed!

"Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance, where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks, the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.... there is no incompatibility in principle between the state providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom." (Friedrich von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, page 125.)

(posted by another gafer before. ethersnake maybe?)

 

[eznark]

I suggest a plan that would eliminate Fox News voters in a generation, and people shake their heads at me. So it goes.

We should just not let people who disagree with you vote.

Eznark supports socialist healthcare am confirmed!

You know I'm not actually Hayek, right? He is dead. Has been for awhile. Plus I would never be so tacky as to write-in myself.

By the way, if you actually care and would like to read a more thorough analysis by Hayek of "free" health care (instead of a blog post by Ezra Klein cherry picking a paragraph from RtS) check out The Constitution of Liberty.

“But there are strong arguments against a single scheme of state insurance; and there seems to be an overwhelming case against free health service for all. From what we have seen of such schemes, it is probable that their inexpediency will become evident in the countries that have adopted them, although political circumstances make it unlikely that they can ever be abandoned, not that they have been adopted. One of the strongest arguments against them is, indeed, that their introduction is the kind of politically irrevocable measure that will have to be continued, whether it proves a mistake or not.”

Unlike RtS, he explores the issue in more depth in The Constitution of Liberty. It generally boils down to it'd be nice but impossible without ceding unimaginable levels of liberty and once enacted impossible to kill.

 

[leroidys]

We should just not let people who disagree with you vote.



You know I'm not actually Hayek, right? He is dead. Has been for awhile. Plus I would never be so tacky as to write-in myself.

By the way, if you actually care and would like to read a more thorough analysis by Hayek of "free" health care (instead of a blog post by Ezra Klein cherry picking a paragraph from RtS) check out The Constitution of Liberty.

But why would you go to the trouble to write in a dead person unless you agreed with their socialist Islamo-fascist viewpoints 100%?

 

[eznark]

But why would you go to the trouble to write in a dead person unless you agreed with their socialist Islamo-fascist viewpoints 100%?

Personally, I don't find it terribly difficult to write three words on a piece of paper. I'm genuinely sorry for whatever ailment you are stricken by that causes the act to be such trouble.

I have no idea what is "Islamo" about state run health care and as I stated above, I've read more than a paragraph of his work and am comfortable with his views on state run health care.

 

[besada]

It appears as though literally everyone missed the part where I suggested that such a scheme would not be a prerequisite to voting, but rather an optional sort of licensing, which I think is a pretty important distinction. But I don't think it really bears any further discussion--I concede the point. Let's move on.

You probably should have considered that before you came at me again with a fundamentally dishonest argument. I've never said I have a problem giving incentives to people to be aware and educated. I have a problem with reducing the weights of votes from uneducated voters, which is what we discussed. In fact, the post you quoted had me suggesting an incentive scheme.

The difference is you wanted to disenfranchise people by reducing the value of their vote, while I'm willing to reward people who make the effort. One of those things is both constitutional and fine (if likely ineffective) while the other is morally repugnant and unconstitutional.

We done, or should I fire up the quote brackets and drag the previous conversation over here?