From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: PAC's  Lets have a real democracy
Summary: Democracy and freedom are incompatible
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:10:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.45744
Distribution: alt
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Apr14.105308.23977@hellgate.utah.edu> tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:

>  Currently, our candidates run for president on money that is given to
>them by special interests.  Therefore, they  serve special interests,
>and not the good of the country.  We do not have a real democracy.

>  We should eliminate PAC's, eliminate funding from anyone or any group
>for control of the government.  We have a bought house!  Any sort of private
>funding whatsoever should not go into campaigns, including one's own money.

So you would deny the right of free speech.  Short of starting a newspaper,
or a television station, nobody would have any access to the public except
what the owners of those would give them.  Even "equal time" does not help;
those owners would be able to decide which spokespersons would be selected.

Whoops!  Money can buy or start a newspaper or television station!  So that
means that we must regulate the newspapers as well!  Any attempt to have
freedom of the press runs into this problem; those with money can create
presses!

>  Currently, our government is a farce because it must cater to special
>interest groups.  It does not function for the good of the people, except
>when the good of the people corresponds to the interests of someone trying
>to make a buck.  Our media and some outstanding individuals have made a 
>very tiny dent in this, but it is insufficient.

It is true that the government does not function for the good of the people,
because the people need freedom to accomplish.  Freedom means the lack of
government control.

We do not need direction, but more anarchy.  We have far too much government
direction of everything; our research is being stifled by government, the
advocates of the obviously inefficient mass transit want to take our money
to do it,  Progress is made by those who do not think like the common man.

>  How would they run for government?  Well, this would be provided for by
>the government, as in a free public forum.  Every candidate would have
>to get a certain number of supporters to continue to have coverage.
>Taking out a page in the New York Times once a week would be adequate,
>along with public debates on television for an hour or two.  The current
>method of platform ideas through sound bytes is ridiculous and inadequate.

I agree.  I do not think that one voter in a thousand has any idea of what
the candidates stand for.  

But even if they do, it is likely to be that they stand for lack of freedom.
It is tempting to say that we will take from the rich and give to the poor,
but that will only make everyone poor.  It is tempting to promise "adequate"
health care for everyone, but that only means such health care as the
gummint is willing to provide.

>  Until these changes take place, we are living in a pseudo democracy.
>What is our problem?

The problem is that democracy is the most extreme form of totalitarianism
possible!  Societies are almost always intolerant of individual freedom,
which means the right to do what society does not want you to do, as long
as it does not directly harm others.  The Athenian democracy did have some
restrictions; a meeting of the assembly could not order death, and could
only exile one person, usually the leader of the opposition.  If it were
a pure democracy, it could have ordered the death of even all members of
the opposition.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)