Howdy!

Submitted by davidzet on Sun, 2008-06-08 18:40.

Adam asked me to join y'all with some thoughts and opinions.

I blog on water and related topics at aguanomics so most of my stuff here will be copied from there. (It's a lot of work keeping a blog going!)

I am basically a free-market libertarian, but I am no fan of "unbridled" capitalism. (I've been to China). I think that the State does have a role to play wrt public goods -- either in their provision (laws, standards) or their financing (education, health care). I think that government charity can crowd out private charity, the 10th amendment has been abused too much, the drug war (and illegal prostitution) is a destructive waste of time, money and people, and that taxes should be reformed to reduce distortions (i.e., higher property taxes; zero taxes on corportations). OTOH, I think that corporations deserve no special treatment, and I would like all laws (including free trade agreements) to be one page long.

My number one goal for political reform is neutral redistricting (no gerrymandering). On top of that, I am in favor of gender quotas in the legislature, i.e., merge pairs of districts, then have women compete for the woman seat and men for the men seat.

The State should guarantee basic rights and security for people and then get out of the way. Often people claim that the State is "helping" but the State is really being manipulated by the powerful. See Baptists and Bootleggers

All of this kinda sounds mish-mashy, but life is complicated and simple labels (e.g., democrat, libertarian, white, american, male, etc.) do not capture anyone accurately.

welcome, David!

#6439 On Mon, 2008 06 09 10:18 adam ricketson said,

Thanks for introducing yourself. I look forward to your contributions.

On the topic of electoral reform, I think that neutral redistricting would be a good start -- it is probably the most "common sense" reform to make our electoral system more fair. Didn't CA recently institute some reforms along these lines? Do you have any opinions regarding more fundamental changes to the voting system, such as multi-member districts (selected by Single Transferrable Vote, perhaps)?

As for the "gender" (or would it be "sex") quotas, do you see this as a temporary or permanent institution? Does the existence of trans-gendered or inter-sex individuals make this difficult. Are you concerned that this may institutionalize gender norms at a time when Americans are putting less emphasis on gender?

Welcome

#6440 On Mon, 2008 06 09 13:30 FreedomDemocrats said,

Welcome to the site and I'm glad you'll be contributing your thoughts to our ongoing discussion.

Thanks!

#6441 On Mon, 2008 06 09 17:06 davidzet said,

Hey Adam,

The Terminator proposed such a reform in the 2006 (7?) special election where he went 0-3.

As far as sex is concerned, I'd stick with M/F. Transgender (VERY small %) would have to "declare their loyalty" :)

I think that gender is fundamental (unlike race), so I am not worried that women voting for women (for legislature NOT executive) is going to do anything harmful. Also note that professional classes get MORE gender biased as women get more rights. (can;t recall reference...)