This isn't 1943, , but since December of 2001 the U.S. government has once again started selling war bonds. Of course the Government isn't pushing the sale of war bonds since the government isn't as concerned with inflation and high taxation as it was in the 40's. but after watching some of the propaganda of that era I was compelled to write, albeit on a auxiliary topic. I watched on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TUPUbvO0eU and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8H00RPk948 promoting the purchase of war bonds. there is also a video herehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXQnvy5zIjg&feature=related encouraging people to save enough to pay their income tax, in those days the government wasn't so bold as to take your money before you even got it in your pocket.
But back to war bonds, for those of you who are of my generation, here is how it works. you would buy a war bond, which had a fixed term, and when the term was up you could cash in your bond for money plus a 1 or 2 % interest. It amounts to lending the government money to fight a war, and then being paid back interest.
As you can see from the videos, and if you like you can look at the old newspaper ads and perhaps find radio advertisements too, that the purchase of war bonds was proposed as being patriotic.
This is what I will contend with. And I find it nothing short of absurd. In the first place, it should be noted that fighting a non defensive war is not patriotic, but is entirely unpatriotic and a detriment to the Country and ones countrymen, however beneficial for the government it might be. "War is" after all, "the health of the state." It is first giving license to the government to expand its powers, to draft men and force them to kill and be killed, and to force one's fellow citizens to pay for it.
Beyond this there is the Bastiat Principle of the Unseen. By fighting an unnecessary war resources are diverted from what the consumers would purchase, new cars, capital goods, clothing and all sorts of other useful commodities and services, to the building of ships and planes and tanks. this means that the price of valuable goods must go up, Thus war has an impoverishing effect besides the direct death and destruction that come attached with it. Of course needless to say that the government attempted to rectify this by instituting price and wage controls. which in turn led to shortages. The shortage of labor caused by wage controls compelled employers to offer medical insurance since it was against the law to offer more in the way of monetary renumeration, and now we see where this has led 70 years later, where the consumer is disconnected from the provider by the imposition of an employer middleman.
So the buying of war bonds is unpatriotic because it supports a war, but again because it is a loan. a loan that will be repaid with interest. and where does that money come from? taxes of course. The men at the helm of government assume that tax increases to the level needed will cause them to be voted out of office. So they instead sell bonds which will earn a profit for the bond holder. They use that money to finance their war and wait until the bonds mature to raise taxes. This is one of of the examples of the inferiority of democracy. A King who will be at the helm of government for the rest of his life, and then his son, does not gain anything by such a maneuver. he would be in power when the bonds mature anyway, so he can raise the tax now, or wait and raise the tax even higher to cover the interest later. with a democracy politicians can pass bond initiatives that wont mature until they have moved on thus they won't be around to handle the problem but instead pass it on to the next guy.
Lastly let us assume that we were invaded. take the case of South Carolina and the other states who, after declaring their independence were invaded by the United States Army. Here is a case of a just and defensive war. A people seek to be free and establish their own government, of their own accord, and a foreign power uses force to prevent them from doing so. Even in this case, how would it constitute patriotism to buy a Confederate war bond? It is not the love of one's country to buy a war bond, even if the war is fought with the aim of repelling a foreign invader. It seems to me that such a person who would buy a bond in such a situation is seeking to profit from an attack on his own country, for if the United States government, or the soldiers of the United States had not assaulted the independence of the people of Virginia, there would be no situation in which it would be necessary for war bonds to be sold. If the man were truly patriotic he would give money to the army, or at least lend the funds interest free. Better than both he might organize a voluntary and unpaid militia to snipe invaders, or donate money to such a group, thereby bypassing the coercive nature of government taxation altogether.
As an afterthought on democracy, I find that this might be why bonds pass more frequently than taxes in local government. Who knows what will happen in 5 or 10 years. A family with a child will be willing to vote for a bond to pay for government education, so as to benefit their child, but in 5 or ten years when a tax must be raised to pay the bond holders, the family may have moved, and thereby have skipped out on having to pay the costs.
I certainly agree with all who were against the bank bailout, as the banks work hand in hand with the Fed to create inflation and rob us of our money, but the auto industry is not in the same boat as the banking industry.
In practice I am in favor of a Federal bailout of the American Auto industry though I would approach it from a different angle. What I am in favor of is not a bailout, but retribution. I can only imagine how much the Federal government has taken from the big three car makers in the form of taxes since he inception of the coorporate income tax, and I don't have a problem with theif giving his victim back his rightull belongings, infact I believe Justice demands it!
The federal government should repay to the car makers their tax money from the last several years or even decades, agree not to tax them anymore, stop the regulations they have on the Auto industry, prohibit state regulation of the industry and their labor restrictions, and stop inflating the money supply both by the Fed and the fractional reserve banking system.
I shared the first point of my plan with a statist coworker and he said that would be fine except that as soon as Ford and GM got their tax money back, other people would want their money back, and if the car companies were exempted from paying taxes, everyone else would want the same treatment. He went on and on and I was never able to layout the rest of my plan, but this in and of itself is a good first step, and the retort he gave as a reason not to do it, I hold as a great reason to do it.
To see the tax money as one's own money, and not the government's is a great first step, and we have an oppurtunity to do it here.
Just curious about Mises U.
I looked into it and it would cost a minimum of $2,650.00 for me to be able to go. As it is now I just can't justify the expediture (I would make a great president wouldn't I?). But I am willing to listen to arguements as to why I ought to go.
Has anyone here been to one as a "member observer"?
I guess what I'm looking for is for someone to give me the sales pitch... So lets hear it!
I wrote this in a response to a question raised about 3rd parties in America.
But there is a solution, I don't expect anyone here to buy into this
as a way of saving democracy or justifying it, or any of the above, but
at least it may help.
It's the idea of an instant voter run
off. you get one fewer votes than there are candidates running for the
office. You vote first for the person you would most like to see win,
and you have the option of selecting your second favorite candidate to
so my ticket might read
1 2 3 4
McCain ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Obama ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Hoppe ( x ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Barr ( ) ( ) ( x ) ( )
Paul ( ) ( x ) ( ) ( )
after the ballots are read and no candidate receives more than 50% of
the votes for the 1 column, then the candidate who recieves the fewest
# of votes will be dropped and those whose ballots had the least
popular candidate ranked first would be read again under the 2nd
column. so if Hoppe came in last my vote would be changed to Paul. if
there were still no pure majority, the next least popular candidate
would be dropped again and the process would repeat.
allow people to vote their conscience instead of for the lesser of two
evils, and would protect the would be winner from the spoiler effect.
It does not fix democracy, but perhaps it is a little better that 51
rule over 49 than 23 rule over 77.
If nothing else it would be a legitimizing tool for getting the message out about Libertarianism and Austrian economics.
last note. this would be a little tricky when it came to the electoral
college, and I don't know how it would play out exactly. supposing this
were implemented in all 50 states, we could have a design such that the
electors might be recalled and the next most popular candidate would be
elected by that state in the event that the candidate initially elected
did not get a substantial number of electoral votes from other areas.
So that even if Hoppe won Oklahoma straight away, his electors might be
recalled in favor of Paul's if Obama is leading Paul 268- 264, Oklahoma
would not send Hoppe electors if Paul was voted more popular than
Obama. In this case Oklahoma's 6 electoral votes would make difference
Again, I'm not claiming that this will fix the world,
but it may alleviate some of the pain. And most importantly, as I
mentioned before, it would provide people a real incentive to take a
good look at the issues, both economical and ethical and that would be
the best for us, and for liberty.
Before we get into marriage itself. I believe there is something to be
said against the current tax code. I am for the tax break granted to
married people insofar as the smaller a tax is, the closer it is to
being no tax at all, and the better. All citizens should be treated the
same. A proper ethic does not say all men (and women) should be robbed
equally, but they should not be robbed at all.
Now lets talk about marriage itself. As to whether it is between 2
men, 2 women, one man and several women, or one man and one woman, I
find the last to be the only one morally appropriate, But above that I
say it is onlyh between adults and their creator, and not between them
and government. Government has no role to play in the institution of
Instead of the gay community pressing for state sanctioning of
their marriages, they out to advocate the elimination of the state’s
involvement in marriage all together, because it is none of the state’s
business. The Christian right should join in this movement but for a
different reason, if they are intent upon “preserving” the sanctity of
marriage, they ought to call for the abolition of state sanctioned
marriages on the grounds that it is not the government, but God who
brings two people into holy matrimony.
In either case I find the licensing or non licensing of people to
get married by the state to be unconstitutional on the grounds of the
right to assemble, and associate, and that is what a marriage is,
whether 2 men, 2 women, or 1 of each, it is an association of those
Finally, this is not to say that gay marriage is moral, only that
it is unethical for anyone to involve themselves in other’s affairs
through the force of law, and again ultimately, that it is a greater
evil to say that it is the state, and not God, or at best the state,
partnered with God, that makes a marriage legitimate. Even with the
state out of the marriage business, it may be difficult to find a
church to marry two homosexuals. But then, ultimately it might not be
an issue, if the state recognizes two people living together for 6
months as common law marriage, they ought to recognize just about any
Homosexual marriages should pose no threat to the true believer,
if they believe that it is only God who sanctions marriages; what
difference should it make to them what the state acknowledges as a
marriage (which would be necessary in the case of divorce, and dispute
From both the religious right and the gay community there should be a call for the separation of the state from marriage.
We have just started working to establish a student LvMI at Cameron University. it should be official by sept 11th, Mises's birthday.
The Leadership institute has been very helpfull in helping us become established.
Microsoft, in order to compete with the almighty google search engine has set up a charity of sorts, or rather a way to donate to the charity you choose. The best part is, you can choose the Mises Institue! just go to www.searchandgive.com its pretty easy to sign up, you'll want to look for Ludwig von Mises Institue under charities. and from then on, everytime you click the search button, microsoft will donate $0.01 to the Mises Institute (up to $5.00 a month)! Not a whole lot sure, but if you're going to use a search engine, this might be enough to switch over to www.search and give. thats a potential for $60.00 a year to the Mises Institue per person!
Robert Nozick's conception of the immaculate state was more or less demolished by Murray Rothbard's Chapter regarding Nozick's book in The Ethics of Liberty. Of his most damaging critizisms is to point out that the most dominant police force just becomes a bully and has no legitimate claim to power over those who have not subscribed to it. Rothbard also points out there is no explanation of how a democratic process would arise.
I think I have a solution. incorperating in part the drop dead principal described by Rothbard, and a few economic observations. For one, a police force does not add anything to society, it merely attempts to keep things as they are, but in reality makes things worse off. If it were not for the criminal, and were not for the police force, we would all be better off... If they both dropped dead.
Furthermore the basics of policing are simple enough, in its infancy it does not require any special skill or talent, and may require less from a man being on a squad defending the community as a whole, than as an individual defending himself, given the stregth in numbers in each case.
Essentially there is no justification for profit in the justice system. If one man or a minority of men seek to establish a police force for the defense of the community and have the community pay for it, profiting from it. The citizens would be much more inclined to form their own company as shareholders, each contributing however much they agree too, and owning that percentage of the police force, lets say Liberty City 1787. There may even be a sense of economic proportion, so that those who have more worth being defended would pay more, and own a greater share than those who own little and have little that needs protecting. One can now raise the question of the individual who does not want to participate. and to this there are two solutions. one if for the labouror who doesn't want to pay for whatever reason, in this case it is likely that the farmer who employees him needs his services and is willing to pay the worker's part in order to secure the worker's service. In the case of the business man who does not want to pay, it is more likely that the other members of society would charge this individual a fractional amount more for their services, so that the blacksmith who doesn't volunteer to pay would be charged extra by the cloth maker, the store keeper, the brick mason etc. and that that extra money collected by each would go to pay for the blacksmith's share of production, of course this is a last resort, chances are that if he got the raw end of just a few transactions he would agree to pay his share, and that if not the town would begin doing business with a competitor who was willing to pay his share voluntarily. Furhter more, economics aside there are the social aspects to consider, what will the majority of men think of another who is not willing to contribute to the communities protection? will he not be invited to dinner parties,get togethers, will a boy whose family wont contribute to the overall protection make friends, or be rejected by girls?
And then the question to raise is would any of these measures constitute coercion? I think not. for it is just free individuals doing as they see fit.
Again realize that the cost of protection in its infancy would produce little or no cost. It would be the Night Watchman State in its truest form. this night watchmen may very well be one of the poorer citizens, whose being on duty 1 night a week is his fair share. and that the gun he uses is provided by the gun smith, and that is the gun smith's fair share of contribution.
The shareholder's then of the Liberty City policeforce would vote on the specifics of its business, and determine the specifics of the laws, the penalties, how and who would take turns as judges in the various trials, and how jurors would be elected to serve. The important thing to remember is that there is no profit involved. there is no incentive for one person to share his shares in the company to someone else. any money that might be collected through fines would only go toward costs. and therefore translate into savings at another time.
In regards to defense as well it is easy to see how the same Liberty City Defense company would also have an interest in defending themselves from outsiders who might come in to do them harm. and thus Both Justice has been established, and the common defense provided for.
I dont think it takes much imagination to see how this could evolve from the shareholder state to one a little more familiar to to what we have today. Not that there isn't a distinction between the two in regards to legitimacy.
what did Mises have to say about the hourly wage (in comparision to the piecemeal wage)?
We are 6 months out from the election now. As far as I am aware this is the first time that all the candidates going into a general election have already had a book published. Mcain even has 3 or 4. If it were not for the awareness of the political goals and manipulation of the authors, I would be greatly incouraged. but they are little more than talking pieces to go on with Oprah. There is one candidate who stands out. Ron Paul whom I still support. His book, which just came out last month talks more about the ideas that have influenced his life, than himself. I suppose one could say this is only natural since Ron Pauls political carreer is coming to a close while Obama, Clinton, and even McCain are just moving up. but its more than that. of Course the mainstream candidates talk about issues in their books. but not about ideas. The difference between Paul and the rest of the field is that Paul has an overall consistency and methodology seeing how action in one area will affect other areas, while the other candidates do not have this depth, seeking only the greater good for the greater number on a case by case basis. And without an accurate overview of the whole the good intentions will bring more problems than solutions. But the greatest difference, what is most inspiring and at the same time depressing is found on page 169 of Ron Paul's book, while it is found nowhere in the books of our top 3 candidates, nor in the books of a number of other so political heavy weights from both sides of the isle not to exclude Bill O'reily and Howard Dean. What I am talking about is what Ron Paul titled in his book as, " A Reading List for a Free and Prosperous America." Here Paul lists more than 40 authors and about 50 different books. everything from the Little Known works of Murray Rothbard to the famous yet little read work of Alexis TocQueville. ideology and political world views aside, Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who is really concerned with education, who wants to see a more educated and literary citizenry. he even recommends Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand including a note about her writtings, " I consider all of Rand's novels worth reading, in spite of my strong disagreements with her on important matters." Paul desires for Americans to be well educated concerning Liberty, Government, and political theory. Clinton, Obama, and McCain only desire to convience the special intrests groups that they will be better off if they only choose them. Ron Paul won't win this election and I know that, but it clears my consciounce and even makes me feel better to vote for a man who is genuinly concerned witht the intellectual state of its citizens, who actively seeks for the betterment of America as a whole, but more importantly, one American at a time, and placing the charge on the individual to read and to educate themselves. Jesus is my shepard, my president should be a leader.
Special intro for mises.org readers:
This may not be the most enlightening thing for anyone who may chance across on a site such as this, and it was not written for you. It was written for the common man in the world above. who has not had his eyes opened to reality. For the so called "patriots" who pay taxes as a cheerful duty, and who think there is no other way. It does assume that government is necessary, but again, for those of you who want no government you must join with those of us who want a government that barely escapes being a government at all. the idea of immediate emancipation is irrational. first the monster must be starved, shrunk down to size and then slain... if that is your goal. So focus on the things that you agree with and pick up on the tactics of this arguement. I believe it is one that will see the way to a smaller more just government in my eyes, and when that day comes I look forward to a debate with the anarchists over the debate with the socialist.
the following may not be the most eloquent or stylish
expression of ideas, but the ideas are inspired from the last 2
centuries greatest minds and I believe God himself. saying this puts
all the more pressure on me for the following to be smooth and flawless
on the technical side. But I have finally caved and conceded to the
fact that I am not a good enough writer to do the ideas justice, but
the weight of the idea is such that it must be brought fourth no matter the degree of quality of expression is lacking.
Writing in 2008, it is easy to find people who are absolutely opposed
to slavery, but I have not had such luck finding people who are opposed
to 50% slavery, or 35% slavery, or even 10% slavery. The concept of
slavery is that man “A” works, and the fruits of his labor are taken
against his will by man “B.” Does it matter if only half of his fruits
are taken, or maybe only a fifth? Would there be an abolition movement
today if slavery only existed on one day of the week, while the
remainder of the week slaves were free to leave the farms and
plantations and work for themselves?
I know it is coming, so let me put to rest the socialist complaint of
our current system right now. The socialist would complain about the
capitalist system where a man works for a company producing $2,000
dollars of profit but only getting $700 in his paycheck. The socialist
might complain that this is partial (or fractional, if you will)
slavery, but I must point out that it is not, because chains are
necessary for slavery. Under the capitalist system there is no force
compelling man “A” to work for man “B,“ nor is there a law fixing the
price for which man “A” must work -- except for the current minimum
wage laws. “A” is free to work for “B” and can quit at anytime under
most circumstances to work for “C,” unless there is a contract stating
A more accurate way of looking at the employer-employee relationship is
to see it as a partnership. The employer provides the business plan and
the means of production and whatever other details are necessary, and
the employee provides the labor. If I were better at math I’m sure I
would be able to find some kind of 10/90 or 15/85 split in the business
between the employee and employer, where each is able to terminate the
partnership at will.
Under a slave system the servant is not at liberty to quit or to
negotiate the split of the profit. There is coercion and a threat of
violence in slavery. With 100% slavery, the slave must work and
produce, and the master will take all the profits. In a 50% slave
system there is coercion to force the slave to give 50% of his
production to the master. In either case the slave has no choice, but
must yield to the demands of the master or else face punishment.
Now we must come to the question as to whether or not a man who is
coerced into working for free for the master only on Monday is really a
slave or not. If not, where is the line drawn? If he is forced to work
for the master Monday and Tuesday, would that count as slavery? And if
not, can it be considered freedom in either case? Where shall the line
between freedom and slavery be drawn? I am of the school of thought
that if a man is not 100% free (allowed to act without coercion), then
he is a slave.
But can slavery actually be justified? Would it be acceptable to own a
slave and to say to him, “You will give me all you earn from Monday’s
work each week and keep the rest when the profits from Tuesday through
Friday’s labors are enough to provide you with a mansion, luxuries, and
comforts equal to or surpassing mine.”? For a person to nod in
agreement is to not oppose slavery at all as an institution, but to
only oppose the condition of a slave. Thus it would also be fine to
hold a slave in bondage all week long so long as his material condition
were at some acceptable level. I would have to disagree. I do not put
such high and weighty value on material possessions, but in the spirit
and in the freedom to choose. Even if the slave has a mansion and all
the latest technologies and greatest comforts of the age, it is not
acceptable that his will be negated or that his labor or wages be
confiscated. Under a “Monday Only” slave system the slave is unable to
keep that profit made on Monday. If he is sick Monday and unable to
work, his labor will be confiscated from the following day’s work
whether the slave wants to give those profits up or not.
I have been flirting with, and will now discuss, the old defense of the
brutish institute of slavery. The defenders of the institution would
defend slavery on the grounds that the slave was better off as a slave
than as a free man. They would say that the master provides the slave
with the necessities of everyday life (food, clothing, shelter, basic
medical care, etc.), and if the slave were free he would not be able to
provide those things independent of his master. If a reader is only
interested in the end condition of the slave he might come to the same
conclusion and agree that slavery is justified. He would certainly have
to agree that “Monday Only” slavery, where the labor and production of
a man is bound and confiscated for the first day of the week, but the
production of the slave the other four days is enough to provide him
with all those aforementioned luxuries, is justifiable and even
preferable to no slavery where the man’s labor is never confiscated,
but is only enough to give him a humble means of existence.
As I have said above, I cannot support these ideas and all I can say to
those who do is that they have an inflated value of material well being
and a deficiency in regards to the value of free choice. As far as I am
concerned, it is not the hard work involved in picking cotton, or the
deplorable conditions that slaves endured in the 19th century, but the
confiscation of their labor and deprivation of the choice to do with
that labor what they would like that is the evil of slavery. It would
make no difference to me if a slave were put up in the best hotel in
Las Vegas and required to count the stitches in the carpet and then
given access to the best spa at the end of the day, it would be slavery
nonetheless and equally as wrong.
It is for this reason that I oppose the Income Tax System and look
forward to the day when a man’s wages are his own to do with as he sees
fit. The income tax is the reincarnation of slavery, though it may only
be “Monday Slavery” or “All of January and Half of February Slavery,”
it is slavery nevertheless. The income tax is the most direct form of
slavery in America today, as it directly takes away a person’s labor
against his will. This should be abolished.
It is not only morally wrong, but also a form of slavery to take a
man’s paycheck by force, never mind taking it before he even has it in
his hand. Money is labor. No matter how it is reduced, some sort of
physical activity had to be done to produce an income. It is a very
direct conversion for most of us; we work and, in exchange for that
work, we are paid money. But even for the landlord or the heir, money
is still backed by labor -- no one gets rent property for nothing, it
must be bought. It is bought with money that was earned through labor,
either that or was given as a gift or in the will of a relative. In
either case, labor is being confiscated. I can not say for sure because
I am not in the position to know, but it would seem that it is less
painful when the labor confiscated is removed through the years in the
case of the landlord or through the labor of a parent, but it is still
confiscation and, though it is not direct, it is enslavement. However,
there is another reason to do away with the income tax in the case of
wealthy business owners and landlords; people are both smart and
inclined to make more rather than less money. In the case of a
landlord, for example, the landlord does not pay taxes, but becomes a
tax collector; raising the price of rent and adding “taxes” into his
expense list to be covered by the renter just as he would “new carpet”
or a “new door.” The same principal can be applied to corporate income
tax, where the expense of the tax, like all business expenses, is
passed on to the consumer.
Indeed, all taxation is the coercive deprivation of labor, whether it
is the income tax or more subtle forms of partial slavery like the
sales tax, property tax, tariffs, or others. But my superior moral
fiber only extends so far, and being human, there is a hint of
despotism in me. Government, though it is evil, is necessary, and must
be funded. This funding is going to come from taxation. Therefore,
while fractional slavery is condemnable on moral grounds, it can be
justified at a very limited level, to provide those functions that, it
could be said, could not be adequately provided for by the private
sector. (Such as roads, emergency services, and defense.)
Due to both the necessity of taxation to fund our government and the
nature of taxation itself, we should be very stringent with our
government’s fiscal policy. Though we might like the idea of government
undertaking an action which we may believe will have a positive impact
on society, we should keep in mind that it takes funding and that the
funding will not come from only those who support that particular
action of government, but also coercively from those who do not support
When we vote for government functions that are not absolutely essential
and that private enterprises could, if given half the chance, handle
sufficiently, we are subjecting our fellow citizens to unnecessary
confiscation of their labor and fractional slavery. It is also
imperative to realize that our fellow citizens may, in turn, use this
as license to commit the very same atrocity to us somewhere down the
line, for the sake of "providing" for society.
this is a response to one of my more moderate friends in a private
message. I thought it to be worthy of general publication, so here is a
One of the main tenants of my philosophy is that we do not have
positive rights but only negative rights. Not the right to have food,
medicine or shelter, but the right not to be assaulted, murdered,
robbed, trespassed against or kidnapped and confined. these
restrictions are not just restrictions against other individuals like
the common criminal, but also the state. the state can not rob me of my
gun (2nd amendment) they can not imprison me for something I have
written or said, or for my religious convictions or who I choose to
keep company with (1st amendment) they can not invade my home to house
soldiers (3rd amendment) nor can they tresspass or steal things from me
(4th amendment [without warrant] ) and so on... but whether I eat or
not, that is more or less up to me, and the tender hearts of my
neighbors family and friends.
just a test to see if I can still post.
Tu Ne Cede Malis
Sic Semper Tyrannus
The FDA, an illegal federal administration according to the Constitution and by all accounts an unnecessary function of government, has decided to allow cloned meats to be marketed to the public. But what has all the anchor men shook up and, from what they say the public shook up, is that the FDA won’t require labeling on the cloned meat. What a crime!
But this isn’t a problem for a free market. So what if the cloned meat isn’t labeled? If there is public concern, even if there isn’t, Its very likely that one company or another, say Tyson will start to label their natural, non cloned meat. Problem solved. Its wrong for the government to even pretend to be able to determine what is safe or unsafe for individual consumption, I think I can figure that out for myself. But even at this stage, its unnecessary for the government to require labeling. The natural meat producers will take care of it.
okay here's the idea.
political candidates can loose elections
because of the 3rd party split vote. thus hurting the statesman and his
constituency. it further hinders the constituency by the realization of
the 2 party system, induce the populace to vote for the "winner" and
not vote their conscience. or there is a dileama, either they vote
their conscience and most likely end up with their last choice winning
the seat, or they can vote forsake their first choice and settle for
their 2nd choice. either option is not good.
here is the solution. to iplement a multiple cho
ballot system. in which the voter makes one fewer choice than there are
people running for office. he votes for his first choice, his second,
3rd and so on. when the votes are counted, it is the votes of
everyone's first choice that are counted. if a candidate recieves 50.01
percent of the vote, that is the end of the process. but if 50.01
percent is recieved by none of the candidates. the candidate with the
lowest percentage of votes will be dropped. the ballots cast for him
will be reread with the machine set to read the second choice, the
machine will be set to read the second choice and the machine will also
be set to only read the 2nd choice on those ballots where the first
vote is for the most unpopular candidate.
if this results in a
candidate getting 50.01% then its over, if not the next candidate with
the least number of popular votes will be dropped and the ballots with
him as first choice will be run through as aforementioned. also if any
voter had voted first for the least popular canidate as his first
choice, and the 2nd least popular candidate as his 2nd choice, his
ballot would also be reread for his third choice.
again if this
results in a candidate receiving 50.01% of the vote then its over. if
not. the next candidate with the fewest votes is dropped. the ballots
that chose him for #1 have their #2 counted, if that #2 was either of
the previous candidates who had been dropped off, it ballot would be
read at #3 or 4 if the #3 had been dropped. for anyone's whose 2nd or
3rd choice had been cast for this unpopular candidate, their ballot
would be read as the # 3 or #4.
if this results in a candidate winning 50.01% of the vote then it is over. if not the pattern is repeated.
will protect politicians from the 3rd party spoiler, it will also
protect voters from having to choose between the lesser of 2 evils as
they see it, or having to vote their conscience at the risk of seeing
their last choice win the election.
most importantly it will stir
debate and ensure that elected officials will be elected by a true
majority, and not just a plurality.
More Posts Next page »