Comments on: Welcome to Communism

By: Pat

Pat — Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:59:45 +0000

I heard a really interesting program on the radio talking about the recent supreme court ruling on this. The point they were trying to make is how this could be very dangerous for churches. Aparently one town in California was trying to get a church closed down so they could build a Costco in its place. If you think about it, according to the court’s ruling, this is the logical conclusion. Companies bring business to an area, where as a church does not. Therefore businesses can force churches out.

By: Pat

Pat — Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:54:48 +0000

Ah, but the Bill Gates would run the country. ;-)

By: Gary

Gary — Sun, 26 Jun 2005 02:02:38 +0000

I heard a proposal once that you got one vote for every $1000 in income tax you paid….

By: Matt Winckler

Matt Winckler — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:38:06 +0000

Exactly, Gary. The people whose homes were going to be seized would vote "no", but the public at large only sees a new shiny waterpark and thinks, "I sure like to swim. Why not? It'd be cool! Let's do it!" This is why democracy does not work, and it is also why in a republic there should be severe limitations on who is allowed to vote. I have not formalized my thoughts, but my opinion on voting requirements runs roughly like this. In order to vote, a person must:

Be a head of household. When you think about it, there is no sense in dividing families. Such division is unbiblical in the first place, and impractical in the second.
Be a landowner. These are the people paying for government to run; they ought to be the ones given a say in what government does. Joe Schmoe apartment-dweller a few blocks down the road should not be able to raise my property taxes in order to pay for a new school for his children. From a practical standpoint, owning land demonstrates a level of responsibility (fiscal and otherwise) above and beyond non-landowners. This doesn't mean non-landowners are not responsible, but by and large they haven't proven it in a significant way.
Not be collecting any form of government aid. This includes welfare, social security, student loans, and grants. The conflict of interest is obvious, and once again--I'm the one paying for all this; recipients should not be able to give themselves a raise.
Have served in the military. Though I have not served myself, I would readily do so in a society where such service was a requirement for voting. Again, it's a matter of who is entitled to make the rules. Those who have served will think differently about where they send the active military. I would waive this requirement or replace it with something else for women who are heads of households (i.e. widows).

That's a start. I'm sure somebody has put my vague thoughts and ideas into a coherent argument somewhere, but I can't be bothered at the moment to find him. The general argument is that the people who pay for the government ought to be the ones telling it what to do. Career protesters, hippies, welfare-dwellers, and the like shouldn't have a voice. Everybody is happy to support something that isn't going to cost them anything significant.

(In the case of the Kennewick water park, it's my firm opinion that they shouldn't raise taxes at all. The people who want to use it should pay for it--and I don't care if that means $70 admission or what-have-you. The fact that they need to publicly subsidize it should tell us something about its economic viability.)

By: Gary Paulson

Gary Paulson — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 09:47:53 +0000

But Pat, the public would vote to allow the government to take away private property. See that Colliseum in Kennewick? See Safeco Field in Seattle? Think we will get a Water Park here in Kennewick? Those are all items where the government has taken our private property (our money) and used it for a ‘public’ good. The recent vote by the Supreme Court is just an extention of what the government has been doing and with public approval.

Why build a public Water Park? Wouldn’t it be easier to just nationalize the local court clubs? :)

By: Pat

Pat — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:53:41 +0000

Good points Matt. I am so sickened by the Republican party. There doesn’t seem to be a “good side” in our two party system. They both have their pluses and minuses, but when it comes down to it, they’re all a bunch of politicians. And it’s all about power and wealth.

The thing is, you know if there was a vote held today by the public, they would not vote to allow the government to take away private property so that a private business could make more money. They’d be outraged. But the government doesn’t seem to really care what the people think, as long as they think they can still get elected.