The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, freedom
and individual liberty
"There
is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it
steadily." --George
Washington
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Please
click on links to read The Full Story.....
George Will is a columnist for the
Washington Post
It was naughty of Winston Churchill to say, if he really did, that “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Nevertheless, many voters’ paucity of information about politics and government, although arguably rational, raises awkward questions about concepts central to democratic theory, including consent, representation, public opinion, electoral mandates and officials’ accountability.
In “Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter” (Stanford University Press), Ilya Somin of George Mason University Law School argues that an individual’s ignorance of public affairs is rational because the likelihood of his or her vote being decisive in an election is vanishingly small. The small incentives to become informed include reducing one’s susceptibility to deceptions, misinformation and propaganda. And if remaining ignorant is rational individual behavior, it has likely destructive collective outcomes. Somin says that in Cold War 1964, two years after the Cuban missile crisis, only 38 percent of Americans knew the Soviet Union was not a member of NATO. In 2003, about 70 percent were unaware of enactment of the prescription drug entitlement, then the largest welfare state expansion since Medicare (1965). In a 2006 Zogby poll, only 42 percent could name the three branches of the federal government. Voters cannot hold officials responsible if they do not know what government is doing, or which parts of government are doing what. Given that 20 percent think the sun revolves around the Earth, it is unsurprising that a majority are unable to locate major states such as New York on a map. Usually only 30 percent can name their two senators.
It was naughty of Winston Churchill to say, if he really did, that “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Nevertheless, many voters’ paucity of information about politics and government, although arguably rational, raises awkward questions about concepts central to democratic theory, including consent, representation, public opinion, electoral mandates and officials’ accountability.
In “Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter” (Stanford University Press), Ilya Somin of George Mason University Law School argues that an individual’s ignorance of public affairs is rational because the likelihood of his or her vote being decisive in an election is vanishingly small. The small incentives to become informed include reducing one’s susceptibility to deceptions, misinformation and propaganda. And if remaining ignorant is rational individual behavior, it has likely destructive collective outcomes. Somin says that in Cold War 1964, two years after the Cuban missile crisis, only 38 percent of Americans knew the Soviet Union was not a member of NATO. In 2003, about 70 percent were unaware of enactment of the prescription drug entitlement, then the largest welfare state expansion since Medicare (1965). In a 2006 Zogby poll, only 42 percent could name the three branches of the federal government. Voters cannot hold officials responsible if they do not know what government is doing, or which parts of government are doing what. Given that 20 percent think the sun revolves around the Earth, it is unsurprising that a majority are unable to locate major states such as New York on a map. Usually only 30 percent can name their two senators.
######
Walter E. Williams is a professor of
economics at George Mason University
Here’s a question that I’ve asked in the past that needs to be revisited. Unless one wishes to obfuscate, it has a simple yes or no answer. If one group of people prefers strong government control and management of people’s lives while another group prefers liberty and desires to be left alone, should they be required to enter into conflict with one another and risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences on the other group?
My answer is no; they should be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways.
Here’s a question that I’ve asked in the past that needs to be revisited. Unless one wishes to obfuscate, it has a simple yes or no answer. If one group of people prefers strong government control and management of people’s lives while another group prefers liberty and desires to be left alone, should they be required to enter into conflict with one another and risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences on the other group?
My answer is no; they should be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways.
#######
Insurance
coverage requirement threatens system in rural areas
By Alanna Durkin Associated Press
FREEPORT, Maine — Fire chiefs and lawmakers are working to protect the system of volunteer firefighting that has served rural America for more than a century but is threatened by an ambiguity in President Barack Obama’s health care law.
Small and rural fire departments from California to Maine, which has one of the country’s highest percentages of volunteer and on-call firefighters, rely on volunteers to avoid the budget-strapping cost of paying them to be on duty in between fighting fires.
By Alanna Durkin Associated Press
FREEPORT, Maine — Fire chiefs and lawmakers are working to protect the system of volunteer firefighting that has served rural America for more than a century but is threatened by an ambiguity in President Barack Obama’s health care law.
Small and rural fire departments from California to Maine, which has one of the country’s highest percentages of volunteer and on-call firefighters, rely on volunteers to avoid the budget-strapping cost of paying them to be on duty in between fighting fires.
######
By Gary North
From the point of view of a defender of liberty, ObamaCare
is the most magnificent welfare state program of our generation.
Premium expenses are going up for
most people. Deductibles are going up for most people. Cancellation letters are
going out to millions of people. The number of people signing up is less than
the number of people who have received policy-cancellation letters. In short,
the costs are being front-loaded, and the benefits are being back-loaded.
######
by Wynton Hall
With the midterm elections just over
300 days away, nervous Democrats reeling from the Obamacare debacle are hoping
a big push to raise the minimum wage will be the silver bullet that will spare
them from the historic losses they suffered in 2010.
Democrats and unions are busy
working to get minimum wage initiatives on state ballots in the hopes of
creating an electoral “minimum wage magnet” to attract low-income, minority,
and union voters to the polls. Seven minimum wage facts, however, may diminish
Democrats' high hopes:
######
By Rabbi Steven Pruzansky Jewish World Review
Bible believers musn't ape our
values. Our responsibility is to guide society toward their embrace
To understand the profound changes in American religious life over the past few generations requires little more than perusing the speech — really, the prayer — offered by Franklin Delano Roosevelt on D-Day, June 6, 1944. We will see how dramatically the American culture has shifted in exactly 70 years.
"My fellow Americans: Last
night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that
troops of the United States and our allies were crossing the Channel in another
and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.
No comments:
Post a Comment