I ran across this and had to put my own thoughts down. I don’t know Tom Blodget , who is identified as a writer and college instructor. He calls his list “In the Land of the Free.”
In the land of the free, people are so brave that they freely speak their minds without fear.
Yes, that?s how it is here. Oh, you mean fear of embarrassment or a contradictory opinion.
In the land of the free, the average person has access to the media.
Let?s see…how much does it cost to operate a radio or TV station? Should that all be donated by the owner?
In the land of the free, people are free to be educated.
True in every community in this country. Many don?t take advantage of it.
In the land of the free, all citizens have access to health care.
Nobody in this country is turned away from needed care
In the land of the free, there are no homeless.
Except by choice
In the land of the free, no one is chronically hungry.
Again, except by choice
The land of the free does not invade other countries without provocation.
Obviously, my definition of provocation may differ from yours. Is that okay in a free country?
The land of the free does not need a standing army in over two-thirds of the world?s countries in order to defend itself.
The standing army in two-thirds of the world?s countries is there to defend them. We certainly don?t need them there except to support allies and their economies.
The land of the free does not have over one percent of its population in prison.
Regardless of reason? What percentage is acceptable?
In the land of the free, the earth and its life forms are responsibly respected so that people may continue to live, generation after generation.
Is your definition of respect different than mine?
In the land of the free, diverse lifestyles and harmless behaviors are appreciated or tolerated.
Tolerated. I don?t need to appreciate them for them to be free.
The land of the free is known by the freedom of its people to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for the redress of wrongs.
Kinda like WTO protests? How about the Watts riots? Or do you mean in the Martin Luther King tradition?
The land of the free reminds others, anywhere in the world, of justice and an honest search for the truth in all matters.
Some just don?t want to hear the truth. That?s why we have diplomacy and armies.
In the land of the free, the common person is free to live simply, and simply live.
Reasonably possible. Most don?t want to live simply. Is that okay, too?
In the land of the free, people are free from fear.
An impossible task. Were you afraid of monsters under your bed?
In the land of the free, people feel secure in their homes.
As long as I can reach my gun, and that one percent is in prison.
In the land of the free, people can walk anywhere at any time of day or night without fear.
As long as I can carry my gun, and that one percent is in prison.
In the land of the truly free, doors are not locked, and possessions are left lying about in the open.
As long as that one percent remain in prison.
In the land of the free, children are sacred.
Not aborted?
In the land of the free, people worship God as they please (or not).
And let others worship God, or not.
In the land of the free, the elderly are revered and listened to.
When they deserve reverence and being listened to.
In the land of the free, everything is constantly being improved for everyone.
Except by that one percent in prison.
In the land of the free, people live in community as a fish swims in water.
Huh?
In the land of the free, everyone has an intelligent opinion, as a result of a culture which rewards truth-seeking, honesty, common sense, and open-mindedness.
If they take advantage of the free education offered in every community.
In the land of the free, dialog, open-mindedness, and honest inquiry are the norm.
As long as only facts are presented as such.
In the land of the free, political decisions are mostly local.
As soon as we eliminate political parties.
In the land of the free, the people elect their leaders directly, and by “instant run-off” voting — where people?s second choice will be counted if their first choice fails — in a balloting process that is transparent and rig-free.
Never worked where tried. Direct democracy is mob rule.
In the land of the free, money is a means to and end, not an end in itself.
He who dies with the most toys…
In the land of the free, micro capital loans are available to all.
Shouldn?t we just make money free? Who can?t get a loan today except those who have shown an inability or disinclination to repay loans?
In the land of the free, people freely share; philanthropy, goodwill, volunteerism, and service are the norm.
Worked well until the government began sticking its nose into society?s business.
The land of the free does not tolerate corruption, secrecy, selfishness, arrogance, or aggression.
Except when someone we like is corrupt, secretive, selfish, arrogant, or aggressive.
The land of the free functions as if without effort, as a harmonious, self-regulating system.
Except for that one percent in prison and those people we like who are corrupt, secretive, selfish, arrogant, or aggressive.
Upon arriving in the land of the free for the first time, all pretense and neuroses disappear; all worries wash away, and all restlessness comes to rest.
Isn?t that the definition of Heaven?
The land of the free is at hand, and is always at hand, would that people see it, and take up residence there.
And quit being so selfish as to want to decide for themselves how to spend or save or donate what they earn.
Yes, the world would be a wonderful place if not inhabited by people. Oh. I guess nobody could enjoy it then.
Good fisking. One small nit: Actually Instant Runoff Voting is used in Australia for the people to choose those who govern them. It is representative democracy not a direct one, and seems to be working OK.
Tom Blodget was not trying to replace representative democracy with direct democracy. He said, “In the land of the free, the people elect their leaders directly, and by “instant run-off” voting — where people?s second choice will be counted if their first choice fails — in a balloting process that is transparent and rig-free.” He did not say “the people pass their laws directly”. It sounds like he doesn’t like primaries and the Electoral College, but the Instant Runoff Voting system could easily be used to elect Congressmen, Senators, and Electors by changing state laws only, without even touching the Constitution. States could even bow out of the caucus/primary/convention system of choosing the major party Presidential candidates, but this would disadvantage them unless ALL the states did it, although if NEw York and California did it, I think the rest of the states would have to follow.
Here’s how IRV works. Instead of picking one candidate you rank them. If a candidate gets a majority of the first place votes he wins. If not the last place candidate is thrown out, and all his voters second place votes become first place, third place become second place and so on. If one of the remaining candidates gets a majority of the first place votes he wins. Repeat until someone wins. In this system no primaries are needed, or really even desirable.
IVR does have several merits. It gets rid of primaries, so voters who are not members of the dominate party in their districts have a say, even if their party does not field a candidate. I suspect we would also get slightly higher voter participation. It may increase the power of third parties, however, and I don’t know if it does in a good way. I would favor it if I could be sure that it would not weaken the moderating effects of our first-past-the-post two-party system. It might very well strengthen those moderating effects. Game theory could help figure this out. I am intrigued by the possibilities.
Yours,
Wince
Comment by Wince and Nod — February 13, 2004 @ 9:13 am