The parody of John Stossel “Should Some People Not Vote?” has five times the Youtube count as the original. Why am I not surprised?
P.S. I wish I was as persuasive as the guy who’s supposed to be me…
The parody of John Stossel “Should Some People Not Vote?” has five times the Youtube count as the original. Why am I not surprised?
P.S. I wish I was as persuasive as the guy who’s supposed to be me…
Oct 29 2008
Brad DeLong sounds like he advocates ostracizing Douglas Holtz-Eakin for (a) working for McCain and (b) calling Obama a "redistributionist." At least that's how I read Brad's approving quotation of an unnamed source saying:Someone needs to tell Holtz-Eakin he can't say this sort of **** and then expect to rejoin ...
Oct 29 2008
No one in the Cato Unbound exchange on Charles Murray's education book responded to my closing questions. I asked Murray:In your view, why precisely does the market financially reward students for taking lots of classes that at best seem distantly related to job performance? You don't seem ready to sign on ...
Oct 29 2008
The parody of John Stossel "Should Some People Not Vote?" has five times the Youtube count as the original. Why am I not surprised?P.S. I wish I was as persuasive as the guy who's supposed to be me...
READER COMMENTS
Daniel Klein
Oct 29 2008 at 1:09pm
Fascinating.
By dwelling on the possibility I think they advance critical thinking. Congrats to you and to Stossel.
Gary Rogers
Oct 29 2008 at 3:45pm
I think there is also a case to be made for the conflict of interest when a voter is paid by the government. If the voter works for the government, he or she should be under the direction of the citizens, not directing them, and therefore would be ineligible to vote. If the voter is supported by welfare they should not be able to vote themself more welfare. I would, of course, not include Social Security because Social Security is financed by its recipients through involuntary confiscation of income. SS benefits are no more than getting back a portion of the the legitimately earned income confiscated in prior years. You do not need to be a taxpayer to vote, but if you are a net recipient of taxpayer money, you have an inherent conflict of interest when it comes time to vote.
I say this tongue in cheek, but there has to be a way to prevent politicians from buying votes with someone elses money, especially my money.
the0ther
Oct 29 2008 at 10:50pm
things seem so screwed up right now, i’m ready to just go ahead and say let’s implement moldbug’s american king restoration and put some selection of doctors and pilots in positions of power. just hit the reset button.
Swimmy
Oct 30 2008 at 12:35am
It’s kind of an unfortunate parody. Stossel’s piece did focus too much on the youngsters, and the truth that the video points out is that many older citizens are just as uninformed. Your analysis is still correct, however; it doesn’t follow that everyone should vote, it follows that it may be lots of older citizen’s duty to not vote as well.
Isak
Oct 30 2008 at 3:14am
And I thought parodies supposed to be witty and funny.
mensarefugee
Oct 30 2008 at 7:43am
Barring special interest cases, older voters always are more knowledgeable than younger voters.
By concentrating on the fact that so many older voters are totally ignorant, the second video sidesteps the also very real fact that those same voters would even more ignorant when young.
This should be a comparison between young and old, not an absolute summary of either.
We really should raise the voting age.
Sheldon Richman
Oct 30 2008 at 10:26am
Which one was you?
Ted Craig
Oct 30 2008 at 10:53am
I agree that the parody actually just reinforces the idea that most people shouldn’t vote.
Bryan Caplan
Oct 30 2008 at 11:07am
The guy who quipped that the elderly are bad drivers. 🙂
JWB
Oct 30 2008 at 2:14pm
All federal and state employees should be unable to vote until they all take at least a 25% pay cut and this includes Senators and congresspersons as well as Pentagon employees.
Comments are closed.