1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/12160/politics-cannot-be-fixed/

Politics Cannot Be Fixed

March 12, 2010 by

What may be breaking are naïve idealistic beliefs that politicians can use a large and intrusive government to serve “the people.” And the demise of such beliefs would be a good thing. FULL ARTICLE by D.W. MacKenzie

{ 7 comments }

The_Orlonater March 12, 2010 at 5:23 pm

Finally, a good article influenced by public choice economics summarizing some main points on how the institution of democracy actually works. In my opinion, too many libertarians put democracy under a good light without realizing it.

LvMIenthusiast March 12, 2010 at 8:38 pm

Democracy is a very fun game when you are voting (stealing) with someone elses money.

averros March 12, 2010 at 9:51 pm

Yeah, politics cannot be fixed… that’s why we don’t need ANY politics – minimal constitutional kind or not.

Minarchism, like any political “compromise” is logically inconsistent and cannot be rationally defended on any grounds other than “it would be more palatable to the unwashed masses of Believers in Government”.

newson March 14, 2010 at 6:58 pm

the coast guard might draw the line on employing anarchists.

JayDick March 15, 2010 at 1:16 pm

We need a constitutional convention to do two things: 1. Eliminate the constitutional clauses that have been (mis) used to expand central government (commerce and general welfare come to mind immediately); 2. Limit the terms of legislators (2 or 3 2-year terms for house; 2 4-year terms for senate; 10 years total of the two).

James March 15, 2010 at 3:53 pm

D.W. MacKenzie wrote:

However, the proposed alternative of publically financed elections could be worse. It is very obvious that incumbent politicians would use public financing to their own advantage. Public financing could seriously limit political competition. As previously noted, the lack of competition (due in this case to proposed public financing of elections) would give senators and other elected officials greater latitude to implement politics in accord with their own personal ideologies, causing a dilemma in American politics.

Mr. MacKenzie, could you please elaborate on this point, or provide references to articles that do?

John Lott has explained why incumbent politicians have distinct financial advantages over challengers. Is your argument simply that publicly-funded elections would provide all candidates—including incumbents—the same amount of money, which would provide incumbents with an unfair advantage? Or is there more to it than that?

Frank Kirkwood March 19, 2010 at 8:36 am

The idea that publicly funded elections help incumbents is off the mark entirely. Here are references.
Between their high re-election rates (http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php?cycle=2008), the ever-increasing cost of beating an incumbent (http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/cost.php), and the fact that incumbents have a fund raising tool that their challengers don’t have (their ability to vote in Congress), incumbents have a huge advantage under the current corrupt system. This is why many incumbents are so resistant to co-sponsoring public funding bills like the Fair Elections Now Act (HR 1826 and S. 752).
If publicly funded elections were good for incumbents, they would have passed a long time ago.
Check it out – http://www.FixCongressFirst.org

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: