ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax


Fascinating.
By dwelling on the possibility I think they advance critical thinking. Congrats to you and to Stossel.
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.
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.
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.
And I thought parodies supposed to be witty and funny.
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.
Which one was you?
I agree that the parody actually just reinforces the idea that most people shouldn't vote.
The guy who quipped that the elderly are bad drivers. :-)
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.