Do You Want to Govern Yourself? Instapundit Talks With Pollster Scott Rasmussen


The latest InstaVision with Instapundit:

Americans, writes famous pollster Scott Rasmussen, don't want to be governed from the left, right, or center – they want to govern themselves. That's why he's written In Search of Self Governance. Rasmussen gives Instapundit Glenn Reynolds a peek inside.

Click above to watch; about 10 minutes well spent.

NEXT: Coming Monday, March 15: Reason Saves Cleveland With Drew Carey!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Good Morning again reason!

    1. Morning SUKI! (((Suki)))

      1. Hi (((PIRS)))!

        How ya doin?

        1. Good this morning. It is a nice day out today. Florida’s monsoon season seems to be over (for now).

          1. Oh, so you are the one who sent the rain all the way up here?

        2. I’ve never seen anybody write with a Lisp.

  2. Am I the only one who is fed up with the neo-con hack Glenn Reynolds?

    1. And maybe one other NAMBLA-tarian peace creep. You guys ought to get gay married

    2. Nah. He still runs one of the better aggregation blogs around, and he has very definite skeptical-libertarian leanings.

      Sure, he (like many others) supported a “forward defense” strategy against militant Islam. He has also been a robust opponent of the domestic terror-police state. His calculation, I believe, was that on balance leaving the militant Islamists to fester overseas would lead to more attacks here, which would in turn feed the terror-police state. Not irrational, in my opinion.

  3. But what about unlimited free healthcare?

    And where’s my fucking pony?

    1. I am not the first President to take up the cause of universal pony access, but I am determined to be the last. (Applause.) It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for univeral pony access. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for universal pony access was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session. (Applause.)

      Our collective failure to meet this challenge — year after year, decade after decade has disappointed many children and ? uh ? some adults. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the ponyless, who live every day just one accident or illness away from never owning one. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can’t get free pony access on the job. Others are self-employed, and can’t afford it, since buying a pony on your own costs you three times as much as price a circus pays. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied ponies due to previous animal cruelty convictions or ordinances that bar them from owning one in city limits. This must change. This is why I fight.

      1. How many more Americans must face poverty and bankruptcy trying to pay for their ponies before something is done?

        1. Universal pony access is a cruel sham without fundamental oats, hay and stable reform.

    2. You only get a pony? I get a unicorn! A magic one at that.

      1. Hoarder!! Speculator!! Enemy of the people!!

      2. Corporate robber-baron scum!

    3. How about Universal Lawn Care?

  4. My lone problem with Scott’s interview is that he claimed that we are a democracy.

    The idea that we are a democracy, and not a republic, is one of the things that is really hurting this country. We are supposed to obey laws, not the whims of 51% of the population, but our political class has forgotten this.

    As long as they can keep the 51% happy, they don’t give a rat’s rectum about the law.

    1. And who makes the laws?

      “Republic” is just snooty for “democracy”. They claim a distinction that doesn’t exist, either etymologically or in practice.

      There is a bit of an etymologic distinction, but not the one they think. Republic = res publica, the people’s thing. Democracy = gov’t by the demos, the district. But of course it refers to the people of the district.

      All forms of gov’t follow laws. Even an absolute monarch has no time to specify every detail and keep changing it hourly, so they make rules. Law is just a snooty word for rule.

        1. -1 for continuing this silly +/-1 thing. Oh, wait…dammit!

      1. If you don’t understand the difference between a Republic and a Democracy, I don’t feel comfortable with you having the right to vote.

        Watch and learn, young Padawan:


        1. Oh, bullshit. I’ve been thru this a million times. It’s a version of the True Scotsman.

          Just tell people what you stand for, instead of obscuring it with phony distinctions like “republic” vs. “democracy”.

          Oh, and BTW, you can never have pure rule by law, unless the law be administered by machines. And as I pointed out above, in any polity larger than, oh, say…2 people, you never have lawlessness either. (Yeah, if it’s just 1 master and 1 slave, the master can more or less sup’v the slave minute by minute and make up everything as s/he goes along. Otherwise, rulers make rules.)

          1. I’d say that the historical existence of “riots” proves that your theory that any group greater than 2 people won’t have lawlessness is a crock of shit.

            Pardon my French.

            1. There are rules on how to riot.

  5. I thought pjtv was charging for access.

    1. They are for some articles – some are still free.

      1. Quite a lot of the content is free with registration. I have yet to hit a paywall for anything I really wanted to check out.

    2. You get a certain amount of free views, then you have to pay.

  6. Ten minutes well spent indeed!
    For those chicken to join me as a peaceful anarchist, perhaps they can dip their toes into the water of self-governance.

    1. Hi David! Just friended you on Facebook!

    2. “For those chicken to join me as a peaceful anarchist, perhaps they can dip their toes into the water of self-governance.”

      Maybe we could get Mr. At Sign to try it.

    3. If anarchy ever comes to fruition, a peaceful anarchist will be a dead anarchist.

      1. That’s why I’m putting you up against the wall first.

        1. Not likely. I would fight to the death on the side of law and order, so if your wet dream of anarchy comes to pass I’ll already be dead. Which is too bad, because the schadenfreude I’d experience watching you and your fellow anarchos suffering under the totalitarian dictatorship that would arise quickly after your little revolution would be as intense as a Klingon orgasm.

      2. I am an anarchist and I am peaceful but NOT a pacifist. I WILL defend myself and other innocent people.

        One need not be a pacifist to be peaceful. As the old saying goes an armed society is a police society.

        1. “I WILL defend myself and other innocent people.” Any omissions?

        2. an armed society is a police society

          Didn’t one of RC’s LawZ just kick in?

          1. Oh yeah. We have a winnah.

            In fact, that may be one of the best examples ever. Many thanks, PIRS.

        3. Well you’re not going to have much peace then. There would be plenty of nasty folks neither peaceful nor anarchist for you to demonstrate your self-defense abilities against. And of course they have the advantage of not having any qualms about coercing people to help them.

          As I always say, you think our current hierarchy of governments is oppressive? Wait till you see what replaces them.

          1. Never heard of Peace Through Strength(tm)?

            1. I have; I also note that both superpowers were more than willing to initiate coercion when it suited their interests. And if the United States were any other world power from history, Russia would have been raped and pillaged into oblivion after they collapsed.

              1. “And if the United States were any other world power from history, Russia would have been raped and pillaged into oblivion after they collapsed.”

                Yes, we didn’t invade the collapsing USSR because of american exceptionalism (we don’t have troop in former parts of the USSR, right?), certainly nothing to do with stock piles of nuclear weapons, a state bureaucracy that had preemptively surrendered (just as the anarchist had predicted, by the way) or what tend to happen to countries that invade russia.

                It was our big hearts and love of freedom.

                ‘Don’t stop believing, just hold on to that feeling.’

  7. I just dont see it happening dude, I mean seriously.


  8. No, they say they want to govern themselves. Sadly, their revealed preferences are quite different from their stated preferences.

    1. Stormy, have they been given an opportunity to do so without risk of being thrown into a cage?

    2. No, most of them really do want to govern themselves. Unfortunately, many of them also want to govern everyone else.

      1. Hah. Sad but true.

  9. Good interview. I’ll have to look around for that book.

  10. Looks civil libertarians aren’t getting a pony either.

    Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest


    1. Don’t hurt yourself condemning it or anything, John. I have a sense that, because civil libertarians (translation in John-speak: hippies) thought Obama was going to be better, you are basking in partisan glee that he isn’t.

      1. I am laughing my ass off that they were stupid enough to think that he was going to be better. In Obama’s defense he never said anything of the sort. They just assumed that because he was a Democrat and cool I guess, he didn’t really mean it. Civil Libertarians ought to be ashamed of themselves for supporting Obama. He has totally fucked their cause. Since they created the false impression that Obama was better, now all of these policies have become bi-partisan and mainstream. When the Republicans take back over in 2013, they will continue them and when people complain they will say “even Obama thought this was reasonable”. And thanks to their support for Obama, civil libertarians will not be able to say shit.

        And for the record, I think DNA sampling on arrest is complete and utter bullshit. I do support Obama on his continuation of most of Bush’s anti-terror policies. I have always been honest about that. But both sides are insane on DNA sampling.

        1. My lawyer and I are against it too.

          1. I’m for it but since I’m dead, it’s hard to voice my opinion.


          2. Good for you. And sometimes bad people benefit from the rest of us having privacy.

            1. The rest of us? This happens only when or if you get arrested.

              1. Just because you are “arrested” doesn’t mean you are guilty. If you want to sample those convicted, fine. But sampling every arrestee violates the privacy of a whole lot of innocent people. If your sole aim is to stop crime, why not just sample everyone?

                1. Because that’s not the sole aim. The sole aim is to get the DNA of everyone into a database, so that when our royalty gets sick they know right where to go for new organs.

                  1. Sage, I love your paranoia

                    1. Hey, call it paranoid, but somewhere out there is a perfect match to provide a new heart to Nancy Pelosi.

                    2. Sage, I think your dick is safe. Calm down.

                    3. Hey, call it paranoid, but somewhere out there is a perfect match to provide a new heart to Nancy Pelosi.

                      Nancy Pelosi will never need a new heart. Her diet incoroprating the blood of virgins assures this is so.

                    4. Hey, call it paranoid, but somewhere out there is a perfect match to provide a new heart to Nancy Pelosi.

                      This rather assumes that she has one now. Citation, as they say, needed.

                2. John, here’s a clue: recidivism.

                3. I suppose you oppose fingerprinting people who are arrested, too.

                  I’m not convinced DNA sampling is a privacy violation anyway. You’re shedding DNA samples constantly, every second of every day, so I don’t see much expectation of privacy there. So if the DNA is collected from cells that are shed from the body naturally, I don’t see how it requires a conviction (or even an arrest for that matter).

                  However, if the process of DNA sampling involves forcible extraction of body fluids or follicles or whatever, that’s a bodily integrity violation and requires due process (ie, conviction) in my opinion.

                  1. The fingerprint analogy is an interesting one. You may have a point

                  2. DNA sampling requires a cheek swab. Forced penetration of the mouth?

                    1. Also, John, your thinking on this is a little problematic since every part of arresting someone involves force and violation of rights. So either we do it the normal way or we can’t arrest people at all against their will.

                    2. Yeah, I’d say that’s a violation of bodily integrity. I was thinking of sampling from hair and skin cells that the body discards naturally.

                    3. If you lose a pinky don’t you still own it?

                    4. In order to sell your severed pinky you must first own it.

                    5. That’s not a great analogy, since your body doesn’t eject your pinky under normal circumstances. But if you lose it, and abandon it (as you undoubtedly do with the skin cells and hairs that you shed every minute), then no, you don’t own it, any more than you own the rotting TV dinner remnants you threw in the trash can and put out on the street.

                    6. But by choosing to put the garbage out on the street, in public, you are choosing to abandon it. No one chooses to abandon skin cells and hairs. If I lost my wallet in a public space I would still own it because I never voluntarily abandoned it.

                    7. So I guess what I’m saying is, I don’t think the state has the authority to pull out hair follicles and scrape off skin cells without due process. But if agents of the state collect DNA samples from cells your body ejects naturally and you leave behind, I don’t see how that’s a violation of any legitimate individual right.

                    8. How about that it’s just plain fucking creepy and incompatable with a free society?

                    9. Can the state also collect anything I lose?

                4. It’s happening in Britain now in fact. It’s on one of the daily brickbat posts.

                5. CENSUS 2010 WOOT WOOT!

              2. I’ve been arrested for non-violent crimes. Should I (continue to) be treated like a rapist or murderer?

      2. Those of us who KNEW he wasn’t going to be any better are basking in the glory of being proved right. It’s about the only joy I can get out of following politics anymore.

        1. I love the sex scandals;-)

        2. Although many of the liberal Democrat strain of civil libertarian still seem to be in denial on this point.

          1. If you exclude the First Amendment as understood by Reason and ACLU and Greenwald. My guess is most liberal Dems are emphatically not on board with that.

            1. Most liberal Dems (and Repubs) are not on board with the 1st Amendment, yes.

          2. Probably depends on if they consider themselves Democrats first, civil libertarians second, or vice-versa.

  11. We have exchanged a walk on part in the war, for a lead role in a cage.

    1. Shine on you crazy diamond.

  12. happy pi day


    1. We invented it

      1. No, we did

        1. Holy Pharaoh, we did

          1. I did because I have a real name

            1. White guy. It’s mine!

              1. I invented infinitesimal calculus, at the same time as Newton. and btw, Voltaire is a bitch.

                1. refined it and gave computer programmers are hard-on.

                  1. fucked it up, only a little.

                    1. My mother can never find her needles. Ants need to teach algorithms and you can pay us in sugar.

                    2. I started the gang symbol

                    3. I made it cool

  13. PJTV sucks. It’s yet more “conservatives” waging their culture war.

    Give me a break.

  14. Of course I want to govern myself. And govern you, and you, and you…..

  15. We can end recidivism; we just need to empower the police to summarily execute anyone they deem to be criminals.

    What could go wrong?

    1. What goes wrong:

      The United States Department of Justice tracked the rearrest, re-conviction, and re-incarceration of former inmates for 3 years after their release from prisons in 15 states in 1994.[10] Key findings include:

      Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).

      Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. These are the lowest rates of re-arrest for the same category of crime.

      The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.

      1. So what? Some people are career criminals. But what about the people who aren’t? If we locked everyone in the society up, the recidivism rate would be zero.

        1. Ya, what about us? We’re all innocent in prison, you know. Balko just hasn’t gotten to my story. We can protect victims by locking them up in prison and letting us out. John, we promised not to hurt you.

          1. I mean first

            1. Retard Alert!

      2. Sure matches my intuition. One wants to rape or kill a particular individual. What are the odds you’ll find another like that? But people who steal don’t care where they get it from.

      3. If you want the logical outcome of a maximum-law state there’s no better place for you than North Korea.

  16. Surprise! Pelosi was lying when she said she had the votes:

    The House’s chief Democratic headcounter said Sunday he hadn’t rounded up enough votes to pass President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul heading into a make-or-break week, even as the White House’s top political adviser said he was “absolutely confident” in its prospects.

    The administration gave signs of retreating on demands that senators jettison special home-state deals sought by individual lawmakers that have angered the public.

    Oddly enough, the AP article doesn’t mention her contention two days ago, that she already had the votes in place, or her mocking of John Boner saying that she doesn’t rely on him for head counts after he said she didn’t have the votes yesterday.

    1. If they had the votes, they would have voted. I am starting to think they won’t get the votes. They already threw in the student loan giveaway and that apparently didn’t help them. At this point, what threat or bribe can be offered that hasn’t already been offered? And also, the Dems from Republican leaning districts can kill this thing and go home and tell the voters “yeah I voted for TARP and the stimulus, but I helped kill Obamacare”. That at least gives them a fighting chance at re-election.

      1. At this point, what threat or bribe can be offered that hasn’t already been offered?

        Free fucking ponies, godammit.

      2. I agree. They’ve screwed over Bart Stupak and you can tell from what he’s saying that he’s really pissed off about it too, and I’m sure there are at least a few others that feel the same way he does.

        1. Now that they’re only going for 51 votes in the Senate, they’ve hung Nelson, Landrieu, and Blanche out to dry too by putting their deals in with the things to be stripped out during reconciliation. Not that I feel sorry for those whores, but it shows what happens when you deal with the devil.

          1. “they’ve hung Nelson, Landrieu, and Blanche out to dry”

            Jesus would that it were so!

            If the Senate were apportioned along lines that made any sense or fairness we wouldn’t have to give two shits what Nebraska, Arkansas and Louisiana thought. Don’t like what we’re doing, form your own country: Shitsville.

            1. You’ve really, uh, grown in your views of the proper workings of the federal government, since those heady days of 2005 when the Republicans were in control of Congress and the White House.

              1. There’s a searh thingee in the corner that goes way back Tulpa. Can you find where I took an opposite approach back when I posted here during that time?

                1. See the current right-wing radio meme is “the liberals hate the filibuster and counter-majoritarian Senate structure now that they are in charge, but look at how they flip flopped from when the Dems were in charge.” John used it the other day and here Tulpa does it (and not much space between those two ideologically). And they both do it without knowing at all what my actual stance was during those two times, because, ya’know, Hannity told them that this what “liberals” are doing and since I’m a liberal I must….

                  But I’ve always been an opponent of the nutty counter-majoritarian features of the Senate. In 2010, 2005, 2000, 1995, 1990, etc.

                  But keep those airwaves pumping dudes!

                  1. It is not a meme, it is the truth. In 2013 after the country rids itself of Obama, you will love the filibuster. And you and everyone else knows it. Just shut the fuck up and go try to insult someone else’s intelligence.

                    And it is not just you. Google “liberal and filibuster” and you will find nearly every liberal pundit there is praising it in 2005 and hating it now.

                2. Back when you posted as “Mr Nice Guy”, before acronymizing yourself like “Kentucky Fried Chicken” did when they started using turduken:

                  Mr. Nice Guy|4.26.05 @ 11:19AM|#

                  Okay, maybe I’m totally missing something here, but wouldn’t this come back and bite the Republicans in the ass when they become the minority again? Or do these douchebags think the party will go forever?

                  1. And this proves what? This comment is to the effect “The GOP as a matter of strategy might want to remember they will be in the minority one day.” Nowhere did I say that I normatively approve of the Senate processes they may want to preserve for their sake later. Why is that? Because I’ve always been against it,even when the Dems could use them…Try again!

            2. As long as you keep those economic powerhouse blue states like California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and New York, that can’t even pay for their own state government operations, to fund your healthcare boondoggle, it’s a deal.

              1. lol, you’re confusing the governments of NY and CA with their economies. Yes, yes indeed blue states like NY and CA are economic powerhouses while red states like LA and Arkansas are backwaters.

                1. The spending of the state government has no relation to its economy? Fucking retard.

                  1. Er, high spending state governments can be found among the most dynamic state economies throughout the US Zoltan…Google “gdp by state” and find out what YOU can learn “fucking retard.”

            3. MNG again proves that when push comes to shove all liberals are authoritarians at heart. Fuck those people in Nebraska. They will get what the people say they will get and like it. Just feel MNG’s love of the people and representative democracy.

              1. Yes, pointing out that Nebraska (and other low population states) has a disproportionate voice in our political system (more votes per citizen) is not consistent with representative democracy but is (since, a supposed liberal said it) the opposite.

                Typical Libertarian (constitutional conservative more accurately ), clinging to classical liberalism’s conclusions, ignoring the first principles.

    2. lol@ John ‘Boner’

    3. Well duh, if she actually had the votes, the house would be voting on it rather then having her strutting around on TV telling us how many votes she has.

  17. They’re going to ‘pass’ it by deeming it passed. This will allow them to say they voted for ‘conservative’ limitations on ObamaCare that Obama will veto (if the Senate passes it for the same reason). Should the Supreme Court rule against them, then they can tell their base they tried, use the court as an external enemy for blame, and keep the base motivated. If the SC rules for them (or refuses to rule), they get want they want and get to claim to the voters outside the base what they passed wasn’t what any individual congresscritter wanted.


    1. No one with intelligence above cretins like Ezra Klein or Andrew Sullivan will buy that jedi mind trick. That is just insulting people’s intelligence. They would be better off just voting on the bill. At least that is honest.

      1. Given the level of respect the average liberal has for the intelligence of everyone else, I wouldn’t count on this holding them back.

      2. Honest politicians? We have been using the Force and still haven’t found one.

      3. John, I refer you to the Barnum Corollary posted downthread.

    2. They don’t have the votes for that either. Again, the Slaughter rule is prepped and ready to go, so if they had the votes for that it would already have been voted on.

  18. “At this point, what threat or bribe can be offered that hasn’t already been offered?”
    Option #1 threat:
    Rhamn in the shower, poking you.
    Option #2 bribe:
    Rhamn in the shower, poking you.

  19. Americans, writes famous pollster Scott Rasmussen, don’t want to be governed from the left, right, or center ? they want to govern themselves.

    And their neighbors.

    Don’t believe me? Start having atheist wife swapping pot parties meeting at your house and see if your neighbors just want to govern themselves.

    1. Make that “Start having atheist wife swapping pot parties meeting at your house …”

      1. Isn’t it called husband swapping?

        1. Because we live under the patriarchy.
          Sugar Free can provide links to back me up.

          1. to earth. What planet did you say your from?

            1. your = you’re Galexy

    2. As long as they’re invited, there won’t be a fuss.

    3. That famous Mencken quote would suffice here. People hate seeing others enjoy themselves so self-governance is not an option for the rest of the unwashed masses.

  20. Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).


    1. It happens more than you think. Civil service pensions are based on the last three years pay. Which means hourly workers who are in good with their supervisors can get massive amounts of overtime to pad their pension.

      1. Not more than I think. The senior guy gets first crack at overtime. Since OT in those last three years gets compensated at something like 20X time in the course of retirement, they rationally jump at it.

        1. Wasn’t a challenge, or meant as one. Sorry. Most people don’t know how the pension system for municipalities and states works. Especially for the hourly guaranteed 40 people.

  21. Reason Sunday Links:

    Watch the Chinese version of The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/conten…..y_has_some

    Jeremy Clarkson of BBC Top Gear on the British Nanny State:

    1. I don’t click on links posters provide, but I can only imagine what a Chinese verion of the Onion would be like…

      “Today our resolute and caring government admitted it had been mistaken in the following areas: it has cared too much and worked too hard for the well being and dignity of all of us!”

      1. Yeah that’s basically it. Click it, or be damned!

    2. Clarkson rocks. From punching tabloid editors to telling people to fuck off. You gotta like a guy that speaks his mind.

      1. That’s not speaking your mind.

      2. Using that logic hmmm, you must be in the can for Rahmbo.

        1. Na, he’s not a politician. There’s a distinct difference between forcing a view and just letting someone know they stepped over a line.

          1. God fucking bless Jezza.

    3. The crusader for all things kool in the world of cars admits defeat. As a petrol head, this is just sad.


  22. I think it matters what one means by “govern yourself.” If you are talking about matching my wits with every transaction I make in a caveat emptor-ian wonderland, then no, no, I don’t want to “govern myself” in that way. And neither do most sane people outside of intro philosophy class discussions…

    1. It is exactly that type of thinking that proves the corollary to Barnum’s Law of “There’s one born every minute”: The right time and right place and anyone can be rused.

    2. Fine, get someone to govern you, but that doesn’t mean that I have to be governed by that person.

  23. If you are talking about matching my wits

    Yes, but we established some time ago that you are witless.

  24. If you are talking about matching my wits with every transaction

    Yeah, yeah and never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line!

    I had someone yesterday complain about Citizens United and that corporations would now completely control elections. I asked him if his vote always went to the most advertised position, to which he replied of course not. So, then it doesn’t matter how much money is spent does it? Oh, it matters because other people vote based on the advertising.

    The answer to that is not that you need to control who advertises, you have to admit that too many people in this country are allowed to vote. So, how are you gonna fix THAT problem?

    1. Nice movie reference, one of my favorites.

      The answer to the problem? The more of the voting population that is self-reliant and independent of the government assistance, the less one has to worry about irrational voting.

      I submit that because people have willingly allowed to government to permeate so much of their lives, it will be difficult to excise the tumor that is government dependence. Like a heroin addict, it will take essentially take the same type of treatment to wean the electorate from the teat of government (including corporate welfare and subsidies).

    2. You’re right that a person is still totally free to vote against a heavily advertised person/position. And yet empirically there seems to be some connection between how advertised a person/position is and the final amount of votes that person/position gets.

      1. This raises a question though; Is a politician more popular because he spends more money, or does he raise more money because he is popular?

        1. Controlling advertising will actually make it worse, because it will mean that there will be only bauble – the State-approved bauble – dangled before the gullible voter.

          That’s supposed to help, how, exactly?

      2. And yet empirically there seems to be some connection between how advertised a person/position is and the final amount of votes that person/position gets.

        So, some/many people are too easily influenced – that isn’t an indictment of advertising. That says that human minds are so weak that they can be captivated by whatever bauble is dangled before them. Controlling advertising isn’t going to fix that.

        1. I think it is more of people are drawn to success and that feeds into their generosity.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.