Georgy Tells Why She Should Be California Gov 1346
1) Do you think the recall is fair? - by mjmalone
Do you think the california recall election is fair? I understand that a lot of Californians are unhappy with Gray Davis' performance, but he WAS elected by the people, if people dislike him then they can vote him out of office when his term is up. It seems unfair that Davis needs a majority of votes to remain in office, but a replacement candidate could be selected by a plurality. It is possible, and quite likely, that Davis will be voted out with 60% or fewer votes. That would mean 40% or more voters essentially voted for Davis, but he would not be the winner, one of the 400+ other candidates on the ballot would and in all liklihood that candidate will have received far fewer than 40% of the votes.
This whole situation seems like a gross abuse of a recall system that relies on honesty and virtuous politicians. Unfortunately California is no such utopia. By running in the election you have shown your support for it, how do you justify this support given the evident problems?
Georgy:
The aspect of this recall that I find most disgustingly unfair is the influence of money in politics. Californians should find it frightening that a wealthy Republican can buy himself another election. And if that isn't enough, we end up with an election where a series of other millionaires are taken seriously when they tell us they will govern for "the people." Perhaps worse than individuals being legitimized as candidates solely because of wealth, is a political system so heavily influenced by campaign contributions that lawmakers can no longer use their own judgment. This is at all levels of the Government, with the White House/Enron shenanigans being the perfect example. We also see it with Davis and Bustamante - who are owned by Prison Guard's Union and Indian Gaming. And if we look at less publicized issues, for example the high cost of Worker's Compensation, lobbying efforts and campaign contributions are to blame for the lack of response on behalf of the Legislature.
Requiring 50% to keep Davis seems unfair, when a replacement candidate could be elected with only 15%. However, the replacement candidate election could be fairer with instant runoff voting. Unfortunately people don't understand, and therefore don't trust, the instant runoff voting algorithm. If IRV were used, voters could be sure that the candidate *most* people wanted to win would win. It's a system where Ralph Nader could have maximized his vote without being a spoiler candidate in the 2000 election. (I encourage people to find out more about IRV at www.fairvote.org)
As for my candidacy, I am running in this election because Californians deserve a candidate who is willing to speak candidly to them about issues, such as the budget, the economy, and the death penalty, that other politicians only dance around. We need someone to show courage and take risks to promote change. This recall provides a unique opportunity for an "honest and virtuous" candidate to enter the race, and I challenge people to lend their support and make the first step in taking back the political process.
2) questions about the campaign - by garcia
I would like to know if you fear that two of your more controversial issues (legalization of marijuana and gay marriages) will be detrimental to your campaign? While I believe that as more and more "young" people run for and are elected to office, these items might come to pass, don't you think that it is a little early to be attempting to make these strides?
Georgy:
The controversial issues define this campaign. Realize that these issues are in large part controversial because they're avoided like the plague by mainstream politicians. Lacking the courage to convince people of their true beliefs, poll-abiding politicians choose the easy road. There is anecdotal evidence many politicians believe in gay marriage and ending death penalty, but are too cowardly to fight for those views. Bill Clinton came out after his presidency and so much as said he thought marijuana shouldn't be illegal! Good thing for us he found his spine a year after leaving office.
I don't see these as wacky issues. I've laid out my arguments for why death penalty is bad policy (it's costly, unfairly applied, and imperfect). I've explained why gay marriage is superior to civil union (marriage promotes fidelity and family values, and it removes unfair tax advantages for people willing to file a couple forms ). As for legalized marijuana, why is marijuana criminal when alcohol and cigarettes profit the government? I believe that when people are presented with intelligent and logical arguments, they will turn around. The problem is few politicians take the time to have intelligent discussions on these issues. Education on "controversial" issues is necessary to convince the electorate to make up or change its mind. I truly believe all of these issues will be passed someday. Politicians are wasting our time and money not passing them now.
3) Content vs. Tech - by stylee
California is considered the capitol of the content industry (RIAA, MPAA) and the technology industry (Silicon Valley). These two industries are at odds with each other over intellectual propery rights issues. They are probably also a large chunk of California's huge economy. Do you think you can balance the needs/wants of both lobbying groups in a manner that will be beneficial to both industries? If so how? I realize that this is mostly a federal matter as far as the law and politics go but there are many that believe that California kind of sets the standard for the rest of the nation to follow(at least economically and politically) so I am intersted in your ideas on this matter.
Georgy:
This is a federal issue; however I think that the RIAA in its aggressive pursuit of young mp3 down loaders demonstrates its lack of creativity. Can't they find a new way to make a buck? Besides which, concert prices are typically $40 or more! I haven't seen the numbers on this, but digitized music and video have certainly fueled sales of technology used in association with them. Additionally, kids and adults understand technology better as a result of digital music boom.
The RIAA, with the support of the government, should have approached the situation proactively long ago, and embraced digital music. They should still do this. If they can provide a reasonably priced, easily accessible digital music alternative, I think people will go for it. Right now however, it's cumbersome for the under 18 crowd especially, to buy stuff online, and they haven't worked out all the kinks surrounding the "rules" (e.g. burnable tracks, how long you can keep them, etc) of proprietary downloads.
I believe the role of the government should be to encourage technology companies and the RIAA to work together on the issue, as well as taking a look at it in terms of intellectual property rights of the artists. To me it seems that the RIAA is mostly concerned with their $$$ and not the rights (or $$$) of the musicians. Again, politics is hit with same problem - special/self interest ruling the legislature. And, with the looks of this ballot, anyone who wants to prevent prosecution of down loaders might want to think twice about voting for Arnie.
4) Hope to win or shake things up? - by Dark Paladin
With the names of such heavyweights as Arnold and lightweights like Gary Coleman (no pun intended - well, all right, it was), do you honestly hope to win, or are you making a Ralph Nader like point in forcing certain issues and ideas into the public's eye?
Georgy:
I hope to both win AND shake things up. Obviously the odds are long (Vegas has them at 100 to 1 - bodog.com/sports-betting ), but they are not out of reach. We've only reached a small percentage of voters and already received an impressive amount of support. Howard Dean was considered a long shot just a few months ago, now he's a front runner. To think a Georgy for Governor victory is impossible is to succumb to the jaded view that money is the only victor, and in effect solidify its reality.
5) Technology - by chrisgeleven
Why does your blog and web site, from what I can tell, not mention any uses of technology that you would like to see? Can you describe any protential plans to use technology to reduce costs or provide more benefits for the same price?
Georgy:
Check back soon. Technology is key to improving the efficiency of government, and though the government has come a long way (you can file electronically for some things on the Secretary of State's website) there is still more that can be done. As for problem solving, I like to speak in specifics rather than generalities, so it takes a while.
I am currently looking into the role of visas in technology companies and its effects on California's labor market, and investigating how we can encourage more wide spread use of open source software (both in education and businesses). I'm also trying to get some volunteers to develop apps that will aid in the voting process (check the website for updates or email if you're interested in helping).
6) the most important question - by Mothra the III
Boxers or briefs?
Georgy:
Boxer-briefs! But seriously, boxers, and Georgy for Gov boxers at that!
6A) Re:the most important question - by markhb
vi or emacs?
Georgy:
I'm so glad you asked!! Both. vi for quick editing, emacs (NOT xemacs) for coding projects. :q!:q!:q!
7) Do you think this election is Real? - by Voltas
With all the "Star Power" and the number of candidates that obviously are looking for media attention (I.E. Gary Colemen ), do you really thing that the candidates or the office really going to be taken serious when its all said and done?
Won't this whole election fiasco cripple anyone who actually wins?
Georgy:
This election does seem like it was dreamt up by Hollywood reality TV executives, but it is a real election, and it will go down as one of the most, if not the most, historical elections. After October 7, the fun will be over, and I'm sure the media will be bored by the daily details of Sacramento bureaucracy. The only thing that will cripple anyone who wins is his/her inability to lead. A candidate like Gary Coleman, who said he didn't want to be Governor, won't win (I hope). The interesting thing about Coleman, though, is that he was actually a president on Buck Rogers! Perhaps this is a case of the line between reality and fantasy blurring. "Hieronymous Fox, an 11-year-old child genius from the 20th Century is kidnapped for ransom by the sinister Roderick Zale. The boy is the President of the planet Genesia and his bodyguard fears that he will be killed because they cannot meet the ransom demand. Buck, Wilma, and the bodyguard then make separate attempts to rescue the boy." Maybe things will pick back up for the media in 2006, when Arnold Drummond can take another shot at it, and Willis can run as Lt. Governor.
8) Did you pay SCO? - by sharkey
Did you pay for your Linux licenses?
8A) Re: Did you pay SCO? - by El_Ge_Ex
If not, would you support strategic military action against Utah?
Georgy:
Despite the fact that SCO has launched an attack on many Californians, I don't think California will be declaring war on Utah, let alone the cowards at SCO. I'm not sure if my company plans to pay SCO, but I certainly hope they won't. SCO seems like they're running scared, using a lawsuit to boost revenue (kind of like the RIAA). Asking for $700 per license is extremely high, and should send a warning single to people that they are doing this to boost revenue and not simply out of fairness. If you check SCO's insider trading, people are selling like crazy. I think the open source community needs to educate people about the SCO case, and keep SCO's scare tactics from bullying weary individuals or corporations into paying them.
9) Who's in your staff? - by zoneball
A good leader must surround him or herself with the best advisors and experts within their respective fields. Who will you be bringing in to your campaign and administration, and what are their qualifications?
Georgy:
My "staff" is all volunteers. Their experience varies from none to work with local and state campaigns. I also have a professional photographer helping me, and a few people working on the technical side of things - website and video editing.
As for my administration, I plan to bring in people who have first hand experience with the problems on which they'll be working, and I would like to see diversity, in terms of both professional background and demographics (ethnicity, age, sex, etc.).
10) Do you understand... - by niko9
Do you understand Dselect? That program scares the poop out me. But I figure if you can handle dselect, you can handle being governor.
Georgy:
I have not used dselect. Hopefully you can find another litmus test for me!
Damn! (Score:5, Interesting)
IRV (Score:2, Interesting)
If they don't like the idea of having recalls, the recall law should be changed. They shouldn't be thinking of ways to circumvent it.
Perhaps a better question to ask Georgy... (Score:5, Interesting)
Those were the 10 questions?
Sheesh, how about "How would you cut California's $35 billion budget deficit?" (i.e. spending cuts or tax increases or both, and in which areas?)
--LP
P.S. For the curious, dselect is the Debian package manager, documented here [debian.org].
wasting time? (Score:5, Interesting)
While I see where you are coming from, I highly doubt that the legalization of marijuana is a necessary topic when there are many other topics which should be discussed.
Marijuana, my opinion on the subject is irrelevant, is not a priority in this country. It's still considered a drug, its prohibition "worked" and didn't cause a massive revolt like alcohol's did, and it's not terribly important (medical use is another thread totally).
You haven't really answered my question though. Of course the mainstream politicians avoid them like the plague, they know that they are possibly detrimental to their campgains. Why don't you think that they will be detrimental to yours?
Not pro or con - recall here, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
You honestly think it's hard to find that many people in California, a state of 35+ million, who don't really have a clue, or are just bitter enough about Simon's defeat to take this shot at fscking their own state government? Get real.
If the early half of the 20th century should have taught us anything, it's that instability in goverment leads to chaos and populist leaders with dangerous agendas.
Too bad there's not a political IQ test people have to pass to vote.
Re:I don't understand her (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What crapola (Score:1, Interesting)
This whole thing is being stage-managed by the puppetmasters at the White House. You're being sold a line of crap, and they're using smoke and mirrors to distract you from the strings being pulled.
You know, I always wondered how basically good and decent people could wind up supporting a Stalin or a Hitler. It seems so unlikely that evil regimes could pull the blatently evil things they do, and that the people of their country could let it happen. You always wind up suspecting some sort of implicit complicicy.
But after seeing the state of politics in this nation over the past 5 years... I wonder no longer. We're rushing headlong into something as bad as Nazi Germany ever cooked up, and we're all just falling in line, swallowing the shit and pronouncing it truth.
There's a political COUP going on in California, and you're outraged over your POWER BILL?
Yeesh.
Re:She does sound like a politician... (Score:5, Interesting)
I expect politicians to represent themselves professionally, and that includes their writing. If you wrote $$$ in English 101 at your local community college, you'd get a shitty grade on the paper. Why is it ok when you are running for governor?
Have you ever visited agricultural California? (Score:5, Interesting)
California may be famous for its cities, but it's the agribusiness which shapes much of the policy and possibilities. How much do you know about the seasonal migrant industry? How much do you know about toxic waste from dense livestock management? How much do you know about fair water rights and the unfair political agendas of the affected populations?
vi or emacs? (Score:2, Interesting)
BZZZT WRONG! pico for both.
Re:What crapola (Score:2, Interesting)
Issa spent $1.7 million on getting signatures. This money was spent on people stopping random Californians and getting them to sign a petition. Thus, they spent around $1 per signature.
It's almost trivial to see how this whole thing works. If you spend enough money, you can get 1 million signatures for almost anything, especially for a "recall" of a governor. Expect to see more recalls in the future if this one passes.
Re:wasting time? (Score:1, Interesting)
I think legalizing gay marriages (and striking down the penalties that single people have, such as having to subsidize married couples and tax-breaks and incentives for people who squirt out children) is important and take the "if you're fucking stupid enough to smoke pot or snort cocaine, go for it" stance -- I think there are much more pressing issues to give a fuck about these days.
-I would say just a few are, making uncle sam take less of my god damned paycheck.
-Enforced reduction in government spending.
-Reduction of government intrusion of privacy.
-Greater attention and solutions to rape, domestic violence and child molestation.
An outsider's perspective (Score:4, Interesting)
I think Arnold may make the best candidate because he's a businessman, has been extraordinarily successful compared to most people who go into business and he's got the appearance of a genuine and warm personality that makes him look much more like a straight shooter. He's closer to the center than most, and as Reason Online's writers have pointed out [reason.com], he's got many good points going for him.
I am a Southerner, and for lack of a better political label I am closer to a libertarian socialist than a libertarian capitalist on most issues. These are what I think are wrong with Georgy's positions.
Just a little critique from an outsider.
Re:Just what California needs! (Score:1, Interesting)
She's a real politician!!
Re:wasting time? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:wasting time? (Score:3, Interesting)
The issue is not only for pot smokers. While we (yes, I do admit it, and I do enjoy it) don't like the fact that one joint can get you thrown in jail, it is far more reaching then that. The entire cotton industry would thrown on it's ear if hemp were to be massively produced and manufactured into products. Not only that, but hemp can be added to other materials to increase their strength. Yet despite the fact that is does NOT get you high, it is still illegal because it is too closely related to pot. You can make up your own stories as to why this is.
As for pot itself, Georgy, in my opinion, hit the nail on the head. Why is alcohol legal and a profit maker for the government, while pot is illegal? Despite the echos of Reefer Madness [imdb.com], there is more to the story then most people realise. Check out the Woody Harrelson narrated Grass [imdb.com], which I thought did a nice job outlining the history even for a pro-pot production. Check out the web and learn what it really does, good and bad, and ask yourself why it is still illegal today. Don't simply say "it's illegal, so just don't do it." Ignorance of why it's illegal just purpetuates the myths.
Re:Damn! (Score:3, Interesting)
She'd lose my vote... (Score:4, Interesting)
But she'd lose my vote on one issue: I refuse to support anyone who supports IRV. Our current electoral system is bad enough: why oh why does every electoral-reformist have to support one of the few systems that's actually provably WORSE?
My personal preference for government elections is the Approval system, which eliminates the vast majority of the problems with Plurality without introducing worse ones, like a complicated ballot sheet (remember, a significant percentage of Floridians couldn't handle the ones we have now!) and violations of monotonicity.
I'm aware of the technical superiority of Concordet methods, and support them for elections in which all voters are highly educated, but the complexity of the ballot sheets should rule it out along with IRV for elections to public office, IMO.
Re:wasting time? (Score:5, Interesting)
And people who care about civil liberties in general.
And people who care about the erosion of the 4th amendment through 'anti-drug' property confiscation and presumption of guilt laws.
And people who don't like the organized crime that prohibition encourages and indirectly finances.
And people who don't want to support the huge numbers people in jail for pot 'offenses'.
And people who don't want to support the huge amount of law inforcement and judiciary dedicated to pot per^h^hrosecution.
Thankfully, since California doesn't have any crime or any budgetary problems, we should just ignore the issue and continue throwing massive amounts of money into the bottomless pit of the 'drug war'. Right?
Re:wasting time? (Score:4, Interesting)
Bullshit! I most definately do not smoke pot; and I don't think pot is a good idea for people who have to make a living through logical thought (it does appear to be beneficial for some artists, musicians, or others that make a living through creativity alone). However, as a civil liberties advocate, I beleive that every person has the right to take whatever poisons they choose into their own bodies, as long as they don't put other people at risk by doing so. Also, when something is criminalized, it becomes a source of revenue for criminals. If gangsters are shooting each other on the street in a struggle for control of a criminal enterprise, it effects ALL of us -- not just their customers! Remove the profit motive, and you remove the incentive for a lot of violence.
Re:wasting time? (Score:2, Interesting)
Everything is wrong with the current state of the drug laws. From the fact that they were all racially motivated (no opium to control the chinese, no cocaine to control the blacks, no marijuana to control the mexicans) to the ridiculous infrastructures put up to deal with addicts as criminals, to civil forfeiture. To the fact that the prohibitions are unconstitutional in the first place (oh ya, thanks for the amendment Ronnie - now we can make all sorts of crazy laws!)
Re:I would never vote for her (Score:2, Interesting)
I think one of the most debilitating things about the American political system (and most others) is that so much emphasis is placed on a candidate's age. Of course, all other things being equal, I would prefer to have a candidate who is more experienced and poised, and therefore older. But all things are most assuredly not equal, and there are plenty of other factors that should be given equal weight (particularly the candidate's policies, which you seem to disregard entirely).
An effective leader of a complex organization like the California government is going to surround his/herself with advisors anyway, so it is hardly necessary (or possible) for them to have years of experience with every imaginable issue. Tell me that Arnie (or Dubya for that matter), at 56 years old, has a vice-like grip on all the issues facing the state. Much more important is that the candidate has his/her head in the right place and sets the overall direction that is best for the state.
In business, it is rare but definitely not unknown for a CEO to be in his/her 20s (consider Michael Dell, Steve Jobs and... that other guy). It takes an exceptional individual to achieve this, but why shouldn't the same exceptional individuals be given their shot in politics?
Reading the interview I didn't know anything about Georgy other than the fact that she is a woman dubbed "The Geek Candidate" by /. I found her views to be extremely sensible (surprising so, in fact), and discovering afterwards that she is young and good-looking did nothing to change my mind.
Re:Homosexual marriage (Score:2, Interesting)
The significant (30-50% of marriages) number of divorces indicate that whatever the social idea of marriage is, it is not completely congruent with the legal definition of marriage. When most of the conceptual rules of the institution as well as the relevant laws for marriage were made, women did not have the power to determine rules and laws for marriage; only recently (100 yrs) have they had rights at all. The institution of marriage has been weakened more by negating the rights of a large portion of its participants than any other factor. The recent changes to marriage are partly a response to the newfound rights of women. There have been a variety of other significant changes over the history of marriage (divorce, dowry, age of consent) - marriage was able to change to accommodate the society in which it is established. If society wants the institution changed then it will do so; if not, then it won't. If there is popular support for gay marriage, then the institution, like lots of others, will change or become irrelevant to many.
If gay marriage is a social engineering project, I think that its purpose is to attempt to induce/compel tolerance for gay people by showing that they can live within a similar framework of law and culture. I don't think it can work that way, but support for gay marriage is certainly an indicator that society is willing to look at gay people without active hatred. I don't think the purpose of gay marriage is to change gay behavior, but to change heterosexual behavior towards gay people.
I believe that marriage should cover only certain types of relationships (long-term, monogamous ones or, at minimum, stable relationships with reasonable abilities to care for young), because of the likely cost to society and the moderate fit to historical standards, but I have a hard time believing that the concept of gay marriage (particularly in long-term monogomous relationships) will do any more violence to the concept of marriage than has already been done in recent history.
Re:Better reasons. . . (Score:4, Interesting)
Someone merely spouting off against her campaign as weak, uninteresting and pointless without even providing any basis for such comments?
Personally, its very refreshing to see someone respond candidly about issues, many of which you wouldn't see a politician touch with a 10-foot pole.
Maybe in 8-16 years the above poster will realize that age really doesn't matter at all.
Re:Homosexual marriage (Score:3, Interesting)
I fully agree that the real damage to marriage has already been done, and compared to that, this is really a side debate. I would like to point out, however, that the status of women in Western societies has always been higher than that of contemporaries, and marriage has been stronger in the West than in other places. Because of that status, even. I think that much of the real damage done to the marriage arrangement has been the government subsidization of single-motherhood, mass government interference in divorce and custody disputes, and a inefficient mass public education system that delays the responsibilities of adulthood long past physical maturation. I do fear however, that if we lose the battle for even the concept of what marriage is, none of those other issues will ever be addressed.
Re:What crapola (Score:1, Interesting)
Bzzzt....Try again (Score:1, Interesting)
Darryl Issa, of course. It doesn't matter if he runs or not, all he wants is a right-wing governor so he can make out well personally. He bought himself an election.
2) How is this a purchased election? The money was not given to public officials as a bribe to make another election. It was not given to voters to sign petitions.
No, it was given to create publicity so that people could be propagandized into thinking that the mess in California was all Davis' fault (when there is plenty of blame on all sides, including Davis), and that if they elected someone else things would get better. With enough money, you could convince people to vote for a toaster if the message is crafted in a clever way designed to appeal to emotions and not logic.
So yes, this election was bought and paid for.
Re:"Both" parties? (Score:3, Interesting)
Davis *is* an idiot. He inherited a broken system set up by previous State Reptile Pete Wilson (who was from the Social Conservative side of the Republican Party, not the Fiscally Responsible side), which had been running long enough to display its weaknesses but not long enough to collapse, and he and his advisors weren't bright enough to either understand the problem or to fix it. I didn't expect him to, but I didn't expect a long-time insider like him to fail so spectacularly in so many ways :-)
I'll probably vote my conscience and partisanly pick Jack Hickey the Libertarian, but he's got a *really* bad website, and I may vote for Georgy.
cut the budget or raise the taxes? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm a native Minnesotan, and I couldn't agree less. Virtually every state in the nation greatly increased spending on social programs during the 90's, as if the tech boom was going to expand forever. Obviously it can't, and it didn't. So what's wrong with rolling back to, say, the 1990 budget? If the current budget is 50% higher (pulling that number out of the air) I sure don't see that I'm getting 50% better value from state services than I was in 1990.
I'm completely in support of cutting those services that were expanded in the last decade. We were getting by without them before, and we can do so again. Many of those things ought not be provided by government anyway. I feel higher education is one of them. If you want to get educated, pay the tuition. Why should you expect everyone else to pay for you?
I've always wondered when the state "shuts down" non-essential offices when the budget is stalled in the legislature, why aren't all those offices closed permanently? If they're non-essential, why are we paying for them? Let the more efficient private sector provide them on a competitive basis.
I didn't vote for Pawlenty, but I'm glad to see he's holding the line on this.
Re:Grit in Craw... (Score:2, Interesting)
So, tell me... do you think that, without the motivation of collecting $1 for every signature turned in, that anyone would have bothered to turn this recall election into a reality? Nope. Nobody else offered money for the signatures. So Issa bought a recall election. Simple as that.
Re:Damn! (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd like to point out that right wing and religious are not synonymous. Nor are religious and anti-(insert issue here)
Trying to pretend that all religions/religious people are the same is just like trying to pretend that everyone in the country is either right wing or left wing.
I'm an agnostic fiscal conservative who could give a fuck less if two guys or two girls wanna get married. I support legalization of all drugs, including making *all* drugs OTC. I hate the Republicrat party as well as the Demopublican party. My family is DEEPLY Christian and they don't have any problems with gay rights either. They also understand that one of the biggest messages of Christianity is to comport yourself well (would Jesus froth at the mouth with hatred for anyone?) and love everyone, regardless of their actions. That doesn't mean you SUPPORT what they do, it just means you don't hate them. Many vocal and visible 'Christian' people seem to have forgotten that they are not responsible for the actions of others, and thus they should have no control over them. I'd also like to point out that disparaging others' beliefs is not likely to convert them to your viewpoint.
Re:Perhaps a better question to ask Georgy... (Score:2, Interesting)
One, a lot of people don't have the money to begin with. For you, it may be a case of the government taking away your money to use in a less efficient way for a purpose which you either don't care about or could do more efficiently. For others, the government's use of that tax money is the only way they'll ever see those services (no matter how poorly the services are implemented or how wasteful they are).
Now, we could debate on wether those people who are reliant on those tax dollars are just lazy slobs living off of the productive members of society. Or we could debate about wether or not affluent people who weren't taxed would act in society's interest and fund the under-priviledged. But those are different subjects. My point is that your statement is not universally true.
Which leads me to the second point: YOU may be able to spend your tax money in a more efficient manner than the government can, but this is also not universally true. I hear this argument again and again, but the problem is that the argument is coming from intelligent, self-motivated, secure people. Of course a person in that position could manage his money/pay for his services more efficiently than a beurocracy. But now, lets look at the case of a person with less capabilities, less motivation, and less of a future. Do you expect me to believe that every person in America would act intelligently if given our tax dollars rather than government services? Hardly.
The fact of the matter is that a significant amount of people in this country NEED government services to one extent or another. Without those government services, they don't have the skills, money or motivation to make the right decisions and act in a way that ensures a decent and stable future. Again, we could argue about wether we should care about people who can't care for themselves for one reason or another, but thats a different topic.
However, your view is quite understandable to me. I, too, feel I could manage my money far better than the government. However, I am willing to sacrifice some of my wealth (which is not considerable, I might add) so that others are able to live decent and honorable lives. My route to less taxation is through quality education (for everybody), reducing corruption and waste in government agencies, and reducing the power of the corporate dollar on governmental policies.
We obviously have different views on how to solve the same problem. Are you, by chance, a libertarian?
Taft
A bit on the "progressive" (liberal) side... (Score:2, Interesting)
Granted, she's got the nerdy young male vote, but when I looked at her stand on issues [georgyforgov.com], I had to do a double take to make sure that she wasn't Cruz Bustamante [ca.gov] in drag!
No thanks for me... I want someone who will attempt to cut the ultrafat budget that California has now.
Re:What crapola (Score:1, Interesting)
It's all a grey area. Who's to say? Definitely not "un-Christian" as you put it. There are a hell of a lot of Christians who would argue so. The Catholic church is not the only chruch.
I believe the problem many anti-homosexual people have comes from the slippery slope view. If we allow homosexuals all normality then they gain power. They gain power and become more prevalent, more people accept the homosexual lifestyle, they gain even more power, all of a sudden what once was perversion is now being forced as normal. And so on and so forth...
This holds for many, many things and is the reason why we have laws. Not that I agree with them all, but without government we would not have most of the technology and society we do now.
Not *totally* legal (Score:3, Interesting)
And to think that during WWI (I think it was I and not II), farmers were _required_ to grow hemp. No, for the record, I've never smoked marijuana and don't plan on it. But I do have some very nice clothes which are cotton/hemp blend, and they're more comfortable and durable than the 100% cotton ones (and seem to hold dyes better).
Re:Perhaps a better question to ask Georgy... (Score:2, Interesting)
Now they have a budget deficit, which apparently (?) resulted from some of Jesse's administrations policies.
I figured in the last few years that nobody knows what the hell they are doing over there. That isn't exactly why I left - I left because where I was living, on the Iron Range, the economy is tanking very hard. I ended up in Western South Dakota where the economy is in pretty decent shape. South Dakota, AFAICT, seems to have their shit together.
Is that lawsuit over the Iron Range mining grant still going? God, what a mess that was...the new governor pulling the funds after they were mostly spent!
sigh.
realityshunt
Re:Slogan (Score:3, Interesting)
Not necessarily. There have been societies where police protection has been privately purchased:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/
Or maybe we'll just set your house on fire, and the fire department will be on hand to protect the belongings of taxpayers.
And my (privately paid for) insurance company will be on hand to put out the fire in my house, which was the way it was done before socialized fire departments. You'd have a sticker in your window indicating who your provider was, similar to the way you put an ADT sticker in your window indicating who your security provider is.
Just because you'd like to use the government to freeload off of your neighbors doesn't mean it's a societal necessity. There's plenty of historical evidence demonstrating it's not.