How to cure stupidity

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Question. What do you think about allowing the average citizen deciding what government policy should be?
 
In other words, let voters decide such things as tax rates, whether or not we go to war, if a treaty should be approved. Pick something government does. What do you think? Should the voters of the nation decide? Voters of the state? County? City? Neighborhood?

That is democracy.

The United States is not a democracy. The United States is a republic. Look it up if you don't believe me.

I like the idea of democracy.

I think it is entirely fine for citizens to vote on what the tax rate will be. Vote nationally, state and county-city level. This is an annual vote, or maybe every 2 to 4 years, depending on how you wanna structure it.

The idea makes bureaucrats and paper pushers run away in horror and want to take up arms.

He's right.

My idea is a direct threat to them. If taxes are left in the hands of the voters, you'd see a MUCH smaller government. Much.

But administering the budget which those taxes fund is best left to a much smaller group of people. There is no need to call a vote of the entire county when the Road Department is deciding which road to pave or when the courthouse needs a new computer the Court Clerk's office.

Now I admit there needs to be some limits to it. Eventually you get to the point where you need some republic type government.

Let voters handle the big stuff and elected reps handle the small stuff.

And, once voters have cast their ballots, that's the way it is until the next election. No more judges overruling the will of the people.

I also believe in an independent judiciary, but we have some judges who do overreach themselves. They need to be removed from office. And in case you are wondering, I object to  these judges when they have found FOR issues I support as well as against issues I support.

At the same time, we have this thing called The Constitution. It serves to protect the rights of the minority against the wishes of the majority.

I like that.

But there is no contradiction in my stated opinions. The Constitution can be amended. It has been amended. A number of times.

People voted. They said it is time for change. Things changed.

In my state the Legislature is presently debating a bill which would let voters, community by community, hold a vote to decide if Sunday alcohol sales should be allowed.

Opposition has been fierce in Atlanta. A number of Legislators have voted against the bill.

Myself, I say those who vote against it should be tossed out of office.

Let each community vote. We don't need a central government dictating how we run our communities and our lives.

As for the opposition to the bill, GREAT! Bring it on, but do it at the community level. If their argument is good enough, the referendum won't pass.
 
Those who seek to deny MY right, and your right, to determine the course of events in our community are nothing more than midget dictators. They don't want the masses to vote, to decide and rule. They want a centralized and strong government.

The kicker? The very people in Atlanta screaming this should not be put to a vote community by community are the very people who scream loudly about voter rights and the right to decide on other issues.

Evangelical Christians. They REALLY want the right to vote on whether or not gay marriage can be made legal. But they are not willing to extend that right to vote to other people on other issues.

What's the matter? Afraid you might lose and so you want to take steps to make sure you never have to even get in the game?

Alcohol-related referenda in my community have been shot down by voters. Whether I support the idea of increased alcohol sales is irrelevant. The voters decided. I like it.

Any time voters are offered the opportunity to decide the course of government, they should do so.

The People's Republic of Kalifornia

There is a down side to this.

Voters, being pretty much ignorant and wanting to stay that way, will vote against anything they don't understand. Then they might vote Yes on things without fully understanding the long range implications of their decision. The PRK is experiencing that problem right now.

Over the years they passed so many laws and state constitution amendments, the state is absolutely obligated to spend money in certain areas and certain ways.

I just don't have a problem with that either. The people voted. They got what they voted for.

The fact that they voted to send themselves to Hell in a handbasket simply underscores my point. They got what they asked for. It may not be what they wanted or expected, but the fault is theirs for not taking time to understand things.

That's not reason to not let people vote.

Maybe I am too much a pollyanna. Correction. I am too much of an optimist when I say the people will eventually learn and come to their senses.

Doesn't matter. Let people vote.

If they chose to put JATOs (Jet-Assist Take-Off) on the bottoms of their handbaskets, so be it.

Ignorance is curable. There is no cure for stupidity, except death. If they die through their own stupidity, well I just ain't got a problem with that either.