Democracy Building
By Thoreau
Here’s an idea:Â Wars should only be declared if approved in a referendum…and before you freak out over the pathologies of democracy, the votes are recorded and only those who vote for it have to pay for it.
The way I see it, if you feel that you can only sleep soundly at night if troops are occupying some foreign land that’s no thread to us, you ought to pay extra for that.
Comment by Leonard —
March 18, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
Here’s an idea: everything else the state does should be similarly funded. That is, voluntarily. Want drug laws? You pay for it. Want welfare? You pay for it.
Thoreau, the engineering mind turned political and educated will tend towards anarchism.
Comment by yave begnet —
March 18, 2008 @ 9:00 pm
S’right, T. I vote for your plan. (Not yours, Leonard.)
Comment by Anticorium —
March 18, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
I would vote for your plan, Thoreau, except that a few days ago ABBA’s drummer died, and you failed to link to it and add “In other news, al-Qaeda is looking for a new #3.”
Comment by Steve —
March 19, 2008 @ 1:51 am
There is no other acceptable method than what you sketch out here.
In addition to paying, a vote for the war automatically volunteers you for the military…no exceptions.
Note: there are probably others who have espoused similar ideas but I first ran across it in Heinlein’s recently published first novel: For Us, The Living.
Leonard is correct about applying this to all state activity.
Comment by Dave W. —
March 19, 2008 @ 10:02 am
Well, people seem to like Medicare well enough. I wish we could opt out, but so be it really is paid for by the people who use it.
The problem with other welfare, and with social spending on public education, is that it is mostly for the children, and these children don’t vote or pay taxes. I mean, how do you guys feel about education (for all children) and welfare money (for the poor ones)? Better solution?
I generally agree with T. about people who want the war paying for war, but I think this is better achieved by having corporate taxes pay for war. Having a referdum brings too much game theory into public policy. The corporations wanted Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. The corporations were the ones who wanted to continue in Afghanistan before Bin Laden “got away.” We don’t need a cumbersome vote to know that they should pay for all this.
Comment by Dave W. Oops —
March 19, 2008 @ 10:07 am
–wanted to continue in Afghanistan after Bin Laden “got away.â€
Comment by Barry —
March 19, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
Comment by Leonard —
“Thoreau, the engineering mind turned political and educated will tend towards anarchism. ”
For those of us who are not engineers, that phrase might still ring true, but with a totally different meaning.
Comment by Dave W. —
March 19, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
arrrgh, I see that Mr. Henley already beat me to some of the points I made above:
http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2008/02/21/7909
I hadn’t read that post before because the headline made it sound uninteresting. Mr. Carson is right — that is one of Mr. Henley’s best posts — but, I guess you guys probably knew that. Our Leonard seems to have forgotten about it rather quickly.
Comment by Leonard —
March 19, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
Forgot? It’s not applicable. We’re discussing here a highly artificial ‘and-a-pony’ architecture for the radical limitation of the state. Thoreau thought it up as a structural limitation on one aspect of state power. But I pointed out it work just as well for all aspects: if you could so limit one such power, you could limit all, and I would (and-a-pony).
Whereas, Jim’s piece was about practical aspect of the libertarian struggle (if any of it could be called such). Which was, what order ought we advocate taking in abolishing the suborgans of the state? Or at least, what things should we concentrate on whining about in our always losing struggle to limit the state in any way? This is not and-a-pony stuff; we do have the power to whine, and possibly it might even make a slight difference.
Comment by Dave W. —
March 19, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
Oh, its applicable. Also, in that thd, where Quasibill told us to read up on Kevin Carson’s “vulgar libertarian” meme — you should do that. I know I did.
Comment by Wulf —
March 22, 2008 @ 11:11 am
Yay! I vote for no more wars, but I still get to have my life and property defended by the military others vote for… thus I subjugate my fellow citizens into paying for something from which we all benefit. Very libertarian.
Better yet is the plan to have corporate taxes pay for war, because we all know that if we raise corporate taxes, that money comes out of the profits – but only in a way that affects the CEOS and major shareholders – not employee-owned stock. Thankfully, no corporation would pass along tax hikes to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Take that, evil Republithugs!
Comment by Thoreau —
March 22, 2008 @ 11:24 am
Your fellow citizens wouldn’t be subjugated into anything. We’d only get a war if they vote for it and they pay for it.
And you could still spend your own money on rubber sheets for your bed if you keep wetting it in fear.
Comment by Wulf —
March 22, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
Your fellow citizens wouldn’t be subjugated into anything. We’d only get a war if they vote for it and they pay for it.
And those of us who do not vote for it and do not pay for it would still reap the benefits of it. Being opposed to war in general or the war in Iraq in particular does not mean that you and I have not benefited from it in any way. More importantly, it does not mean that we could not benefit from military action we did not vote for and did not fund.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 22, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
I have yet to see any benefits from Iraq, Wulf.
I do, however, see some costs. And I’d say we owe them some reparations.
But I still don’t see any benefits coming to us.
Comment by Wulf —
March 23, 2008 @ 11:20 am
I have yet to see any benefits from Iraq, Wulf.
Two quick points.
1) As a scientist, you are well aware that they may yet exist despite your not seeing them.
2) More importantly, your proposal was not be limited to Iraq. Extrapolate to other, more clear-cut cases. How would this policy hold up in universal terms?