Should the group in a legislator’s district that got him elected monitor his votes, and recruit someone to run against him in the next primary if he starts voting wrong?
The group in a legislator’s district that got them elected should absolutely be paying close attention to all of the legislator’s actions in power. This is crucial to a well functioning team because, as a local legislator nears top dog, their direct local connections wear thin. Before long, they are in the pocket of the state, and they have made new friends. These new friends have deeper pockets, and stronger desires; they’re extremely persuasive, especially when they’ve eliminated all local influences. At some point, the original goal is is drowned out screaming green and ulterior motives. One way to postpone the demise of a legislator could be to recruit someone to run against them, should they begin to sway from local opinion. Each vote is telling of character, and if a group isn’t paying attention enough to realize their representative is backing the ‘wrong’ team, then who is really the one in the wrong?
Should the police be allowed to enforce a politician’s verbal restriction against making a video of him at an open meeting?
The police should not be allowed to enforce a politician’s verbal restriction against videotaping him at an open meeting because it is an unconstitutional act, and it directly violates the rights of those trying to properly document a public event. The first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (First Amendment Rights). Freedom of (speech and) press, as stated, grant that if one is on public property, they may lawfully photograph (or videotape) anything in plain view. This includes persons within range of sight, whether they be located on private or public property. The only way that a politician could lawfully restrict the use of video cameras or photography during a meeting would be if both the photographer and the politician were located on private property; in this case, the property owner is within their rights to personally set rules and standards for what they will allow on their land (Know Your Rights).
Pick any chapter in How to Argue, and write 100 words on this: “How could voluntary arrangements solve this problem if the state did not impose the politics of plunder?”
Enforcing equality by law means, more specifically, enforcing equality of outcome using coercion. This issue could be simply resolved if the government would butt-out, and allow free-market voluntary exchange to take over, because then there would be equality. However this would be equality of opportunity, rather than the government’s enforced equality of outcome. Free market competition means that everybody would have the same chance to get the same job as everyone else, and could bargain their price. The hardest worker offering the best wage would get the job, just as he should. This extends much father than the job market though, and it fits comfortably into every aspect of life.
To break this into simpler terms, imagine yourself in a class of 29 other children. You each had to take a test, and were given a week to study. On the day of the test the teacher told you that the winner would get a cupcake; this upsets some students because they did not know there would be a prize, therefore they did not study. You on the other hand, being the hard worker that you are, studied all week. You ace the test, get the highest score in the class and you get the cupcake. Fair, right? Right. But some students do not think so. Typically, these students are the ones who do not want to do the work for themselves. So, little Timmy, who didn’t study because he didn’t know there would be a cupcake, gets mad. He tells the teacher that everybody should get a cupcake because that is the only way for her to be fair to all of her students. She responds by saying “you all had the opportunity to study. The circumstances were completely fair and equal for each student; one student studied harder than the other students, he made that decision without an incentive. He got a cupcake for doing what everyone was supposed to do in the first place. Do you think that the one cupcake should be shared evenly among 30 students for all their combined efforts when some people are scoring zeros and some are getting 100’s? Should you be rewarded for someone else’s hard work Timmy?” He contemplated this for a moment, sat back in his chair, and said “well, no. I guess not. I wouldn’t want to be the one pulling the weight of the whole class and getting skimped on my treat.”
We live in a world where the government is always testing, and our only incentive to pass is to avoid being plundered and abused. Voluntary arrangements completely abolish the threat of force the government has imposed on our decisions.
For those out there who believe that “government should control prices, but not people” – you have been greatly misled. These two, are in fact, the very same thing.
When government steps in and says that they’re only controlling price floors and ceilings – but not people themselves, they are offering a false reassurance. While this does keep many people calm and at bay, it doesn’t change the fact that in reality their lives are being altered, toyed with, and controlled in every sense of the word.
“Money makes the world go round” is a common saying; but if this is true is could be better worded as: “money controls the world”. Break this sentence down, and one would find that at it’s core, this saying really means “money controls people”. When government is given the control of prices, they are given control over people themselves in almost every aspect of life. This is a violation, and a perversion of the original intentions of a government for the people.
When observing a community of liberty-loving free marketers, one finds that success is abundant. Everyone has what they each need; there is peace and unity in a voluntaryist society such as this one. The fruits from each beings successes are shared and celebrated among many. However, on the other hand, should one observe a community submerged in state regulated price floors and ceilings, the entire market pricing system would be found a palpable lie.
This is because state regulated prices aren’t fluctuating based on a supply and demand route; and when price floors are implemented, there is over production. Price ceilings result in shortages of goods. In a free market, the key to knowing how much of an item to produce is all found in the prices, seeing as how they display the demand of that particular item at a certain point in time. Price decision should stay between the buyer and seller, and when it does, the market will function healthily; without surplus or shortages.
Is it possible to have state subsidies without state control?
To be blunt, there is absolutely no way for state subsidies to exist without state control. The government should under no circumstances hand out money without “strings” or regulations, because this leads to the abuse of handouts. The welfare state offers one of the best explanations of this in today’s society; it is funded by the plundering of those not receiving such help, and heavily promotes dependence on the state by welfare recipients. It is not considered particularly difficult to become a recipient of government aid in the United States; the welfare state is largely abused and encourages paternalism. The government uses coercion to control the wealth of the United States by means of redistribution. Without this control, there would be no money to fund any state subsidies. Rather, a community of cooperation and charities; people with more of their own money will be more apt to help others. In today’s society one encounters money handouts in thousands of government programs; likewise, as of 2014 taxes are up 42% since last year. Although many people seem to benefit from the plundering of others, they, in reality, are just making themselves wards of the state through dependence. No man wins under state control or coercion.
“If the state is strong enough to do something good for you, it can also do something bad to you.”
As true as this is, it is hard for some to understand why, or even how the government would do something bad to the people who so naively trust it. Maybe it is easier to consider it in this context; each action has an equal and opposite reaction. So, to a woman receiving welfare, the state is a positive thing. This is helping move her in the direction she needs and she appreciates the help; what a thoughtful government we have, looking out only for the best interest of it’s people. But, on the other hand, she is not thinking about exactly where that money came from. This recipient of government aid isn’t considering that just as she is cashing that check, or using her food stamps, a man is on the other end pulling his hair out about the devastation of taxes. The government is stealing one man’s money from his paycheck each week simply to hand it over to those who ask. On any scale, the state can only “do good” for one person when it is harming another, due to the fact that 100% of their funding has amounted from the plundering of hard working citizens.