• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Universal Suffrage, Pragmatarianism and the War On Drugs

X

Xerographica

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
2,071
Reaction score
163
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Let's evaluate the two steps of the democratic process using the war on drugs as our example. Drugs are bad mmm'kay?

Step one involves the process of deciding whether or not drugs should be legal. Should kids be allowed to participate in this process? Here are some of the factors which are completely immaterial to whether they should be allowed to vote...
  1. whether they would for or against legalization
  2. whether they had enough information to make an "informed" decision
  3. whether they had enough life experience
  4. whether they pay taxes
Every argument against kids voting is an argument that we can make against adults voting. Voting is just the right to try and protect one's interests. Everybody should have the right to try and protect their interests...irrespective of all other factors. The only limitations should be that a voter must be a resident and that they cannot be accompanied in the voting booth.

So here we have the tug of war contest between two sides. It makes sense that we would want the side that cares the most to win. Therefore, it would be counterproductive to limit campaign contributions or to limit how many people volunteer for campaigns or to limit how many hours they can volunteer for. The amount of time/money that people contribute reflects how much they care about the issue.

In order to decide which side "wins" or "loses" the democratic contest we take a vote.

Step two of the democratic process involves funding the outcome…in this case…the war against drugs. Currently, both sides of the debate have to pay for the war against drugs. It's completely bizarre that people who believe that drugs should be legal have to help fund the war against drugs. It adds insult to injury and results in taxes being put in the same category as death.

So how do we decide how much money should be allocated to the war against drugs? Currently we have representatives making those decisions. The problem is that there's no way they can know the optimal level of funding for the war on drugs. It's impossible. No sample group can reflect the values of society as accurately as society itself can.

If any tax payers feel that congress is not accurately representing their values then they should be able to individually decide what percentage of their taxes the war on drugs should receive. If anybody felt that the way on drugs wasn't receiving enough money…then they would be more than welcome to "donate" additional money to the war on drugs. They could also "donate" additional time by trying to convince others why it's important for them to "donate" more of their taxes to the war against drugs.

The beauty of pragmatarianism is that tax payers would…
  1. …be transformed into donors supporting public goods.
  2. …have the opportunity to directly support the causes that they care about
  3. …only pay for results
The focus would switch from cutting to contributing.

The point is that everybody should be allowed to vote and everybody should be allowed to directly fund the public goods that they value. The bottom line for step one is that arguing against kids voting is the same thing as arguing against adults voting. The bottom line for step two is that arguing against pragmatarianism is the same thing as arguing against results.
​
 
Your entire concept is horribly flawed. Funding should be based on the practical requirements, not a random vote. Lets suppose you want government funding for a new fighter jet. There are two competing bids on which the public is divided on which is the better choice. If we take your system, we will end up with two half-built jets and thus accomplish nothing. Even picking the worse prototype and funding it to completing is better than wasting all the money.

Sure the war on drugs is a bad idea, but the way to get rid of it is by voting for new laws, not playing with funding. Also, you really need to change your damn name. Naive idealism about replacing functional representative democracy with pie in the sky direct democracy is anything but pragmatic.
 
Rathi, oh. Guess we didn't make any progress since our first exchange.

If our representative democracy is truly functional...then, given the opportunity, what percentage of tax payers would choose to directly allocate their taxes to the various government organizations?
 
Jetboogieman, you ever haggle with a hooker? Of course you have. We all want the most bang for our buck. Which is of course why tax payers should be allowed to directly decide which government organizations receive their individual tax dollars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom