Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor
Yes gdp. You’re the smartest mathematician here. I read all those theorems.
Duverger is actually important. That median vote theorem works when we have 2 parties. You see why parties like green parties or hey, libertarian parties, tend to mess things up and push things to the opposite direction as in Bush vs Al Gore? Nader actually push US slightly to the right. And well, Iraq won’t attack itself won’t she?
Arrow and Voting Paradox simply shows how complicated “collective” choice is. I haven’t seen any real sample on that beyond theoretical world though. I don’t think the effect is significant though. The effect would be that normal who you like best voting is not only simplest but would work well 2. On other system where you can rank parties, you would rank your second best as last as strategy to ensure that the first would work. In other word, American voting system can’t be easily improved.
I’ll look that up again.
My main point is, we have enough to promote liberty even when things are far worse than now. In fact, change will be, and perhaps should be, slow anyway. And that’s as good as it gets.
Look at worst case scenario.
What I mean, is, who care, for a while what kind of government we have?
It could be dictatorship, it could be muslims, it could be democracy.
Let’s stop for a while and think. Who care?
Think of government like business. In fact, I see that governing a business is a lot like governing a nation, including the trade off between let my employee (or people) figure out how to do things (tao), or I want to do it this way. Both have plus and minuses.
Now under globalization, whoever is most productive will move to another country. So whoever govern, will have a very strong intensive to govern well.
Perhaps when things go a little edgie, some forces might work. For example, the north abolish slavery because they can simply pay their workers higher due to industrialization. The south keep promoting slaverly. Well, slavery is unfair biz practice because you unfairly lower your cost. So the south got kicked out of WTO and then have intensive to abolish slavery. That sort of thing. Well, war works too actually. If all those black slaves can point gun as well as whites, any countries that insist they should cook soup instead will pay a price.
In fact, the japs easily ended hundreds of years of european colonial rules simply by calling the south east asians “brothers” rather than some sort of sub humans.
On european front, the Nazi pays heavy price for exterminating Jews and Slavs. Lenin is a bad government. But the Slavs united behind him anyway because Hitler wants to exterminate them.
So while not perfect, even in war there is, in a sense, “justice”. The mongols conquer the world mainly because they hire people based on merit and don’t discriminate based on religion. On that area, that barbarians were far ahead of the rest of the world. That’s what I am saying.
Even in US, I’ve heard that the military simply use IQ to hire officers. In civilians life where we can bullshit ourself and still live to talk about it, hiring people based on IQ is simply illegal. Globalization will put pressure toward meritocracy as much as ancient wars. That’s what I am hoping for.
All I am saying is we have seed for freedom. We have enough. As long as we can get the hell out of one country to another, it’ll give pressure for whoever in power to let the market rule.
The reason why people are either pro D or pro R is because they just look that way. R and D wants voters. So they need to use issues that divide. It’s easier for a democrat senator to promote abortion, for example, than to raise tax. Most people are not significantly affected by the tax rate going 2% up or down. A democrat senator would be better spending his money to persuade women with unwanted baby, “You’re off the hook” rather than arguing about tax. On most issues, people are moderate. The bad guys are called extremist because moderates rules democracy.
Question:Why women’s right to abort her baby is more important than women’s right to sell her sexual service on any terms she prefer? On the latter, both democrat and republican opposes prostitution. Of course I know the answer but you guys will disagree with me anyway. Women’s right is never really the issue. Things are not as it seems.
As for Loraine. I think she is smart but too theoretical. Individuals never have right. Right comes from might. Might makes right. Individuals are weak. Yea you can persuade others to defend your “right”. A nice libertarian theory. Those who are very good at that job is called dictators. That’s reality. So states right, or the fact that each countries are independence would works too. Works fine.
This is a mechanism that would speed things up. Ever wonder how western countries often bitch on how Muslims treat their women? Well, beautiful women are the most precious things in the world. The reason why in ALL (not just Arab) countries women are not free is because they’re too precious not to control.
Legalize consensual women immigration and you’ll see all the hot women from arab countries move to Europe.
When that happen, what would all the arab males do? Besides bombing you guys. I mean, say they can’t bomb you. What would they do if all their hottest Afgan girls choose to become sex workers in Europe? You think they still oppose free market? You think any countries would oppose free market if all hot women goes to the richest countries? Think.
[quote author=gdp link=topic=7897.msg35804#msg35804 date=1290612133]
You have twice mentioned the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem]”Median Voter Theorem.”[/url] I suggest you click on the link, and read down to the section on “Shortcomings of the Median Voter Theorem,” which begins with the sentences: “There are many instances in which the Median Voter Theorem may not be applied. Among the most common is the case of preferences which are not single-peaked (multimodal preferences),” and again further down, where it states “When preferences are not single-peaked or the policy space is multi-dimensional (e.g., individuals vote on both taxation and public expenditure), the median voter theorem yields no prediction.”
I submit to you that U.S. Voter preferences are indeed not “Single Peaked” (they are strongly divided between “Pro-R” and “pro-D” voters, with “Independents” not in the majority), and that U.S. “Policy Space” is indeed multidimensional. Therefore, the “Median Voter Theorem” fails on both counts.
I further suggest that you study [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_paradox]Condorcet’s Voting Paradox,[/url] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law]Duverger’s Law,[/url] and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem]Arrow’s Theorem,[/url] so that you may more fully understand the false assumptions underlying your incorrect reasoning.