If I still lived in Missouri, I would probably vote against all of them.
Why? Well, with the exception of part of Prop A that removes loss limits, none of those props or amendments actually increase or preserve individual freedoms (though I don't know of Amendment #2 really applies).
That's my rule when voting. "Does this increase or protect individual freedom?" If yes, I vote for it. If no, I vote against.
Prop A: Schools shouldn't be getting strong-arm money. Casinos shouldn't have to brown-nose government.
Prop B: It shouldn't be the role of government to involve itself in such matters. Dollars to donuts that this 'council' is the pet project of some senator or rep who has favors (cushy new govt jobs) to dole out.
Prob C: Government can't predict what market forces there will be in the future. It is silly to limit the flexibility of how power is obtained simply because it has feel-good language. If renewable energy is cheap and efficient, it will take over on its own merits.
Amendment #1: I'd say that it is an interesting test of xenophobia at best.
Amendment #2: This is something that should be funded with existing monies. I'm going to assume they need a constitutional amendment in order to levy some sort of new tax or other scheme to generate revenue they have spent unwisely in other areas.
Libertarians often miss (or willfully ignore) the fact that government & laws can create freedom, because they tend to think of freedom in a purely negative sense, as "the absence of restrictions". For example, I definitely have more freedom because government built roads and sidewalks and enforces the rules on how they're used that maximize freedom for everyone; or because government provides social services that keep some people who might inconvenience of hurt me from doing so which makes me freer to wander around and do what I want to, etc. A typical libertarian would never look at funding social services in this light, they only see "it forces me to pay tax money to help someone else" and therefore doesn't increase freedom.
"Less" government is a mostly meaningless concept because the very same law or amendment might mean "less" to some people and "more" to others. I don't think it's a helpful lens through which to view how these things actually affect the world, or oneself, anyway.
So, not knowing the specifics of most of these ballot questions, I still find myself extremely suspicious of mantispid's comment. Were I in Missouri and forced to vote on these questions right now without time to look into them further, with only that comment to go on, I'd probably vote the opposite of whatever mantispid suggests on any question where I couldn't figure out a strong reason to vote for or against from the question itself :)
Why? Well, with the exception of part of Prop A that removes loss limits, none of those props or amendments actually increase or preserve individual freedoms (though I don't know of Amendment #2 really applies).
That's my rule when voting. "Does this increase or protect individual freedom?" If yes, I vote for it. If no, I vote against.
Prop A: Schools shouldn't be getting strong-arm money. Casinos shouldn't have to brown-nose government.
Prop B: It shouldn't be the role of government to involve itself in such matters. Dollars to donuts that this 'council' is the pet project of some senator or rep who has favors (cushy new govt jobs) to dole out.
Prob C: Government can't predict what market forces there will be in the future. It is silly to limit the flexibility of how power is obtained simply because it has feel-good language. If renewable energy is cheap and efficient, it will take over on its own merits.
Amendment #1: I'd say that it is an interesting test of xenophobia at best.
Amendment #2: This is something that should be funded with existing monies. I'm going to assume they need a constitutional amendment in order to levy some sort of new tax or other scheme to generate revenue they have spent unwisely in other areas.
Reply
The general rule of thumb I use when voting is less government. Bigger and bigger government doesn't seem to be solving our problems.
But I easily get distracted. "...but more money for schools sounds good..."
:-)
Thanks again.
Reply
"Less" government is a mostly meaningless concept because the very same law or amendment might mean "less" to some people and "more" to others. I don't think it's a helpful lens through which to view how these things actually affect the world, or oneself, anyway.
So, not knowing the specifics of most of these ballot questions, I still find myself extremely suspicious of mantispid's comment. Were I in Missouri and forced to vote on these questions right now without time to look into them further, with only that comment to go on, I'd probably vote the opposite of whatever mantispid suggests on any question where I couldn't figure out a strong reason to vote for or against from the question itself :)
Reply
Leave a comment