Slashdot Mirror
Scott Adams Proposes a Fourth Branch of Government
LoLobey writes "Dilbert creator Scott Adams is proposing a fourth branch of government in the WSJ. He describes it as 'smallish and economical, operating independently, with a mission to build and maintain a friendly user interface for citizens to manage their government.' It's a humorous article with some interesting ideas including internet access as a constitutional right and a constitutional ban on all election contributions for any candidate that polls above 10%. He's primarily proposing a method of getting verifiably accurate information on various issues to aid voters in making decisions, but despairs on his own blog about reader's comments on the article."
How about getting rid of corruption? Corporate donations, professional lobbyists, etc.
Just make it flat out illegal, and consider it treason.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
The Sanity Check Branch.
Composed of 251 adult citizens with college educations (5 from each state, 1 from DC) selected at random for 1 year terms. Each law after presidential signing or Congressional override must be read aloud and provided in writing to the branch. They vote on it in secret. If it does not get 60% of the votes, it dies.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Yikes. An obligatory XKCD for a Scott Adams article. Times have changed!
im sick of corporations in uncle sam's pocket. corporate donations to joe-schmo really create a negative influence. im a conservative pro small govt, pro freedom kinda tea party-ish kind of guy but not so that Pfizer can get its next anal leakage product to market more smoothly.
It's called the press. Of course Adams knows that, and I wonder if this is not all tongue-in-cheek because the idea of putting the government responsible for posting "objective analyses" of the issues sounds like something out of Dilbert.
Because we all know that the government should be the one to decide what is true or not.
Scott Adams has reached his level of incompetence.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
How can a democracy function effectively when the government is more complex than the average voter can understand?
In order to make intelligent decisions, voters need to understand what they're controlling. If they can't do that, you've got to remove some functionality.
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
More government to fix the problem of too much government?
Makes sense if one accepts the idea that too much debt can be fixed with more debt.
Too many wars can be fixed with a bigger war.
This is how you start, not with more government, with less government.
You can't handle the truth.
Unless you can find a way to make voters care, nothing else matters. I'm afraid the UI they want has 2 big buttons "R" and "D" for voting and discussion boards where only like-minded people can post.
But really the government has got way to complex for us. The ultra rich have resources to work with it thus any new rule and regulation that popular demand puts up they will find a way around. Leaving the middle class to do the heavy lifting and getting screwed.
I remember I was working at a small business. They were trying to get a grant "Geared to help train employees at small businesses" They filled out the paper work, they got rejected because the training needed to be in state, they did it again, because they deemed the training to be too specialized...
The Democrats make government services that only the rich have the resources to take advantage of.
The Republicans try to get rid of services so the rich don't have to pay for them.
In short we loose with a two party system.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I think I've seen something like this already...
Adams was at one time a funny guy, but he's long past his sell date. His cartoons are uniformly boring and predictable.
And his ideas about anything outside of mocking office stupidity are simply breathtaking for their sheer wilful ignorance. I've read some of his other political blatherings. I filed them in the same bird cage where I keep David Brooks' meaningless self-aggrandizing bullshit, which is piled on top of the now thank-fucking-god-that-stupid-bastard-is-dead David Broder's similar excrescences.
God save us from over-wealthy fools who think that money equals intelligence.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Perhaps what we need is a fourth branch of government, smallish and economical, ...
No branch of our government will remain smallish nor economical!
Your representatives are all bought and paid for, it ain't going to happen.
Deleted
The press is the fourth branch of government and it is doing a horrible job. People are busy and expect the press to research and appraise things fairly, instead we receive sensational stories or someones biased opinion. Half the time we get side tracked on discussing the wrong issues. The press as it is has failed and I hope that it is replaced with something that better informs the populace.
This plan sounds a lot like what we're trying to accomplish at ElectNext.com, although we don't want to be a fourth branch of government. We are building a database of candidate profiles so we can match voters to the candidates who would best represent them. We also let people debate the issues in a community-moderated forum like StackOverflow or Quora. We're just getting started, so I'd love whatever feedback people have to offer.
Believe me, it already exists. But perhaps that's the point of the article.
To those reading THIS sentence, do you belong to the Legislative, Executive, or Judicial branches of Government? If no, congratulations! You are in the fourth branch of Government called the electorate.
And yes, we do have power and occasionally wield it from time to time. Sadly it requires massive amounts of electorate numbers to offset the power that has been relinquished to the other branches, if our branch wants change the other branches aren't providing. At dire times, the extreme length that this branch sometimes has to resort to, is something called REVOLUTION.
"Today, thanks to the Internet, we can summon the collective intelligence of millions. "
Just go and read the comments on the story and the average CNN story to see just how little intelligence that is.
Some times if you add in enough loud dumb it will over whelm the smart.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
-The Politburo
-The Civilian National Security Force that has nuclear capabilities
Twitter: @dainsanefh
How can a democracy function effectively when the government is more complex than the average voter can understand?
You could ask the same thing about science or business. How can science function when the average person does not understand organic chemistry? How can a business function when most people know little about corporate accounting. The answer is that they don't have to. We elect or appoint specialists to manage those functions but retain the right to remove them from office. Any reasonably large organization is more complicated than a single person can fully comprehend but that doesn't mean they can't work.
Besides, the US at least is not and never has been a democracy. Properly speaking it is a republic.
are remarkably puerile and shallow, which is surprising for someone who shows such a great comprehension of the pathologies that exist in heavily bureaucratic corporations.
Dog is my co-pilot.
I agree with Adams to an extent. Why is there such a huge conceptual disconnect between The Constitution, and technology? Super PACs, the repeal of Glass-Steagel, Countrywide's contribution to the financial meltdown, Ted Stevens, etc... are all evidence that there are very real problems with our political system. I don't think technology is a silver bullet, but our political system is right out of the 1700's (with duct tape and bubble gum here and there). Why is travel necessary for campaigning? Why isn't there a group verifying what politicians have done/voted on as well as facts underlying their arguments?
Give the states parliamentary control over all three branches.
-If 3/4 of a state legislature issues a vote of no confidence in its congressional delegation, they're all removed and a new election is called.
-If 2/3 of the states issue one within 2 years, the entire Congress is disbanded and an emergency national election is called.
-If 2/3 of the states issue one for the Supreme Court or Presidency, either the entire SCOTUS or the entire appointed/elected executive branch are removed.
-If a simple majority issue resolutions declaring null and void any federal law, executive order or SCOTUS precedent, it is removed.
I'm a Dilbert fan without being an Adams fan, but I like some of what he's written in this opinion piece, which is essentially about creating a more informed and more engaged voting public. What I read into this is that we already have a fourth branch of government, it's the American people, and government should make it easier for them to play a part into it. I think that's admirable.
At one point in the essay, Adams talks about an online forum where people can debate ideas and learn about issues. It reminded me of Dr. David Brin's Disputation Arenas, where people can publicly debate an issue in a moderated forum, maybe have referees to flag logical fallacies or off-topic statements, figure out what everyone can agree on, set those aspects aside and figure out where the ideal mean lies for us as a people.
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
The fact you actually believe it'll work when there are several good (both extinct and extant) examples on why it doesn't makes me think this is actually a troll post.
Nobody cares what the CAPTCHA for your post was.
I am at all not convinced by arguments that the problem with the current government of the United States is that it is too complex. During the late 18th century, when the U.S. Constitution was written, debated, signed and ratified, even the most optimistic views of Colonial literacy rates held them at a point 10-15% below current rates. In addition the people who founded the current government were among some of the most distinguished and learned people of the era. Many Congressional delegates were well read in both British Common Law and in old world continental classics -- which they could read in Greek an Latin. So, to use a modern analogy, it would be as if Richard Feynman had participated in the drafting of the Constitution.
The system of checks and balances that operates under the current U.S. system is a commonplace today, but so is the idea that light is both a particle and a wave, inasmuch as both are basic elements of secondary education. While the full math behind quantum theory is not taught, many of the concepts are -- and with general success. So let's please move past this idea that government is too complex and return to the crux of the problem.
The crux of the problem is two-fold:
1) That there are some forms of social organization that our framers did not foresee, both inside and outside of government. It is up to to those of us living today to deal with these directly and it is up to us to determine what is best. Throwback arguments by either the right or the left merely give comfort to hypocritical opportunists who are willing to clothe themselves in a mythic past to conceal the pursuit of their own selfish ends.
2) Most people are too fond of willful ignorance, wishful thinking, and daydreaming to take on the responsibility associated with (1).
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool. -Richard Feynman
Legally-enforced prohibition never solved anything. Look what it has done for alcohol, narcotics, and traitors. They've been reduced, but haven't gone away. If you want to eliminate something then you need to destroy its habitat, and the natural habitat of the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex predator is the unchecked flow of money that drives the current political process. As Scott alludes, Campaign Finance Reform (http://www.publicampaign.org/) is the single most important political issue in this country for any party, persuasion, or constituency. Our current system is built on the premise that money is equivalent to "speech", and that since speech cannot be restricted (1st Amendment), neither can financial support of campaigns. This is no more true than the idea that a corporation is a "person". Unlike money, speech is effective for its quality, not its quantity.
In Taiwan they have the Control Yuan - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Yuan - one of the five branches of the Republic of China government in Taipei. It is an investigatory agency that monitors the other branches of government. It may be compared to the Court of Auditors of the European Union, the Government Accountability Office of the United States, a political ombudsman, or a standing commission for administrative inquiry.
Its nothing new, but limit all bills to a maximum of 10 pages, and enforce that they must only cover one single topic or section of the law at a time.
This will eliminate massive bills that no one has time, or wants to read (including the politicians that vote on them). It will also eliminate the vast majority of bills that have unrelated earmarks or clauses that alter unrelated areas of the law, which from what I can see is how the vast majority of lobbyists get their way for their "clients". Then if a single clause amendment needs to be put through it would literally be an entire bill (1 page or less) dedicated to that one clause. If its a corrupt clause or has hugely negative side effects the people will know exactly who voted on it so they can be hung out to dry at the next election.
It should also serve to focus the politicians and prevent all the earmarks/backscratching that goes into bills just to get a few additional votes.
Try voting in Ohio. Today on Issue 1, it didn't matter if you voted for or against it, you voted to repeal Section 6 amendments 19 and 22 of the Ohio constitution (it didn't list what they were)
http://www.co.greene.oh.us/BOE/forms/2011/Nov_11_State_Issues.pdf
As much as I hate to say it, money that buys biased media pieces will make it easier for people to vote. The press isn't doing their job to be objective in covering the boring stuff and finding corruption and power grabs in government.
Scott Adams is proposing a "Fact Checking" 4th branch, but this already exists. Groups like Politifact are already evaluating politicians statements and rating them according to their veracity. For example, here is their check of Rick Perry claiming that everyone would get a tax cut under his plan: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/nov/07/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-under-his-tax-plan-everyone-will-b/
They also equally hit both sides of the aisle. Here they are disproving Obama saying that he's completed 60% of his campaign promises: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/01/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-60-percent-his-promises-are-done/
The two problems with groups like Politifact are that 1) their response isn't immediate and 2) relatively few people will read their responses. In the case of the former, A politician will say something at a rally or on TV and they will check into it and get their response up a day later. It's the nature of fact-checking, but by then the soundbite has sunk in. It doesn't matter if "Everyone gets a tax cut" is true or not because thousands heard it. Likely, if at a rally, thousands heard it over and over said in a sincere sounding voice. The "that's just not true" delayed response is weaker. (If it was just as strong, then Snopes would have made urban legend e-mails a thing of the past.)
As for the latter, I don't know the readership of Politifact offhand, but I'm sure it is under the amount of people who hear the candidates speak. Thus, even if you *do* get the real story later, you are in the minority. Most folks have continued on their way thinking "Everyone gets a tax cut" must be true because their candidate said so. (Blindly accepting a candidate's word because they are in "your party" is a completely different problem, of course. No amount of fact-checking will cure this.)
That said, making them part of the government would only open the door for their fact checked reports to be manipulated by special interests or political bosses. "We can't release that report saying that everyone doesn't get tax cuts. The party chairman said it was true and we can't embarrass him like that. Politifact might not make a big impact, but at least it is outside of the control* of the political parties.
* Ok, everything can be controlled if you try hard enough, but it would be harder to control Politifact now than it would be if it was a government agency.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
"but despairs on his own blog about reader's comments on the article."
Scott Adams is a troll extraordinaire. His MO consists of posting some horrible, awful opinion on his blog, waiting for the people calling him on it to roll in, and then claiming that they were all just too stupid to understand the logic of a genius like him. He also enjoys sockpuppetry, resorting to using bogus accounts to talk about what an awesome person Scott Adams is. Oh, he's not a big fan of women, either, equating them to children.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sort of. It's called factcheck.org, and it has a liberal bias. Whoever the "professional abritrators" are will determine which facts are used and how the claims are interpreted to be true or false.
You're an idiot. In no frame of reference does Scott ever allude to such a thing. I'm sure you're referring to the backlash from his Pegs and Holes article where various parties chose to misconstrue what he said in pursuit of they're own agenda. You're just another jerk trying to use an ad hominem attack instead of presenting a valid argument.
We have nothing to fear but fear itself! And Spiders!
Um ok, so Scott Adams is proposing the U.S. Government Accountability Office?
http://www.gao.gov/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Office
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How independent really are the branches of government anyways? How much power checking have we actually seen from one branch over another?
Some examples:
National security letters allow warrantless taps,
War in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya undeclared by Congress
Fed board members appointed by president
Perhaps what we need is a fourth branch of government, smallish and economical, operating independently, with a mission to build and maintain a friendly user interface for citizens to manage their government. Apple could have pulled that off in its glory years, when Steve Jobs was doing all the work and his 60,000 employees filled their time spreading spiteful anecdotes about him.
I have some questions to help me decide if Scott is coining a newer and darker style of satire or succumbing to some form of dissonance: You suggest creating a new branch of government with the sole purpose of educating voters. I appreciate the satire in your article, but do you really think that giving the government more scope and authority will resolve the misgivings people have about their government? If yes, then do you think an officially sanctioned and funded government media wing will lead to selfless and unbiased expression of the facts to the voting public? If yes then do you think that transparent, open and unbiased government communications will continue in perpetuity; even if such discourse contradicts the ideologies, reasoning and actions of the government itself? If yes then why do you suggest that such a government PR agency, guided only by the greater good of the public to provide transparent, open and unbiased knowledge to the voting public need engage in glitzy Apple-style marketing? Surely this egalitarian, unmandated house of government would be more akin to national public radio rather than an iTuneseque media engine?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The problem is not with the government or corporations. The problem is with the citizens and the consumers. It is not the goal or purpose of either a government or business entity to bolster citizens or consumers. That repsonsibility has, and will always, fall upon the individual. Self reliance is not only a good thing; but collectivley, it is the only thing that has a chance at saving this county.
It really is disheartening. The Fair & Balanced channel is anything but. The others news outlets are biased left to very far left.
Candidates such as Mitt Romney, who enjoy a popularity among a core group, keep getting misrepresented by those in his same party (hint, Romney is Conservative, has a conservative record, has always voted and signed bills with conservatism in mind, his statements have always been conservative - despite quotes taken out-of-context and misrepresented. I will grant he is right of center and not fanatically right - but when you've got 2008 Rush Limbaugh saying he has all 3 legs of conservatism and 2011 Rush Limbaugh saying "He's not conservative" and it isn't Romney that has changed in 3 years... what have you got?)
Herman Cain, if falsely accused, will suffer irreparable damage to his character during the campaign season because of it and it shows the Liberal hypocrisy between their treatment of Cain and Clinton. If he is guilty, the accusers are becoming victims again as the Conservative bloviators show their hypocrisy between their treatment of Clinton and Cain.
I could go on, but I've said my peace.
it's called the free press.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Citizens of the U.S. should have some kind of a secure, authenticated electronic interface (using SSN) that allows us to collectively eject public officials from office whenever deemed appropriate. Undoubtedly, Bush would've been out in a hurry if we'd had this in the 00's. The technology is here. The time has come.
"You're an idiot"
"You're just another jerk trying to use an ad hominem attack instead of presenting a valid argument."
I'm confused. Are you arguing in favor of or in opposition to ad hominem attack???
And, is it you Scotty? Since we know Scott's not at all averse to using pseudonyms to attack his critics:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/demotion-dilbert-continues-no-comic-relief-creator-172503679.html
I want to hear from the Scott Adams that made those cool text adventure games back in the day? Maybe he has some good ideas.
"Never give up, for that is just the time and place when the tide will change." -Harriet Beecher Stowe ^_^
n/t
The unlimited power of corporations and the ultra-wealthy to game the system has brought everything to the verge of collapse. If you really want to revive the country you have to break their stranglehold on wealth and power.
Corporations must lose their status as "artificial persons," which gives them all of the rights of natural persons with none of the responsibilities. The ultra-wealthy must not be entrenched aristocracies nor 100% peopled by sociopaths and they cannot be insulated or excused from their own misdeeds, shortcomings, failures, and crimes. If you crash the economy you need to instantly lose everything you have and face prison for the rest of your life, if not a firing squad.
The next step after that is to fire every single person in our current government from the President, Congress, and SCOTUS down to the state houses and the utterly corrupt city councilmembers. We hold a constitutional convention, and apply the empirical data from the past 200+ years of what works and what doesn't to design a better document that will carry us through the next 200 years. National transportation infrastructure and defense work. Professional politicians don't. Supporting entrepreneurship and innovation work. Locking in the status quo doesn't. Companies that produce real value work. Goldman Sachs and its ilk don't.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
It seems to me that people are not informed because the media tend to cover politics like they are a sporting event. " Gee Bret, Rommeny would have done much better in he Iowa straw poll if he ran further right on the tax issue and then cut back up the centre on abortion rights." -- All we get are poll results, tactics and points spreads. Great if your making book on the election in Vegas, but it doesn't lead to an informed electorate.
The fact you actually believe it'll work when there are several good (both extinct and extant) examples on why it doesn't makes me think this is actually a troll post.
fucktarded USians
This wasn't a giveaway?
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Constitutional amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of business, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
There's no constitutional requirement that the House be limited to 435 members, and in fact it was historically increased after each census until 1920 or so. As a result of the fixed number of Reps, the ratio of people to representatives has exploded from what the framers originally intended (around 40 or 50k to one) to an average of 700k to one, with disproportionate representation given to people who live in states with less than 1/435 of the total US population because of the requirement that every state have at least one. 435 is a comparatively small number of targets for lobbyists and special interests, and it allows incumbents to become too easily entrenched. With modern technology like televised (and video recorded) debates and committee hearings, remote voting, etc., coupled with a major overhaul of the House rules, it seems like it should be possible to manage a House with a thousand or 1500 members, maybe more. Reduce the influence of special interest money by reducing the influence of individual representatives, making it no longer cost effective to buy one off. At the same time, you increase the power of the general populace: since a representative will be less attractive to special interests, he'll have focus more on pleasing his constituency to maintain his job--a constituency which will then have easier access to his time and attention. This is how the system was supposed to work in the first place, the artificial cap on representatives has just knocked it out of whack.
oooo and look, I provided a valid argument in between there. (not an argument so much as evidence to the contrary). You're point about the sock puppet incident is valid however, although I think it was naivete on Scott's part as opposed to anything particularly nefarious. bocyomd
We have nothing to fear but fear itself! And Spiders!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I had thought that the way to reclaim the elections for the people was to (a) remove private funding of campaigns and (b) put all the candidates' platforms on the internet. The part I hadn't seen yet was how to narrow the field enough to make this practical, which, of course, he hit upon with removing private funding of candidates ABOVE 10% popularity. I think this idea is 90%+ implementable as is.
The corporations will still have some control over who makes it to the 10% level, but it should become a much greater money sink to do so, substantially reducing their rate of return.
Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
Sigh...
Plus it doesn't do its torturous best to explain away irregularities in the statements of liberal politicians (candidate Obama's stance on gun rights for example), while requiring strict third-party verifiable truth in conservatives.
I have been saying the same thing about computers for years. Why do they have to keep getting more complicated? If I can't understand how it works, I don't want to use it.
Well, it would be fine if we actually followed it.
Our government was designed to be limited, and citizen juries are designed to be a check and balance against tyrannical laws.
The career politicians have slipped free from the enumerated powers and the 10th amendment.
No laws were changed, they just found the system to limiting, so reinterpreted it.
Citizen juries are told they cannot judge laws -- and this is the sole purpose of citizen juries - consent of the governed.
We have a sweet little system, too bad the insiders have stolen it from us.
There are no public servants - we are all servants to the public sector.
It was not supposed to be like this...
He's pretty good at pointing out flaws, but he's incapable of building a coherent system: he can't see his own errors. His politics generally are off base.
Out of the many paragraphs in TFA, I found only two sentences that weren't substantially flawed:
Two things are required to temporarily fix the US gov't: cut the size by 80% and remove the tyrant who is currently president.
Long term, the Constitution needs to be rejiggered to make it much harder for the gov't to grow, and the populace needs to be better educated.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Nice, Scott. That was the so-called "Fifth Estate". Funny how that turned out, huh?
...if people felt that voting matters. There are two main problems I see with the current style of voting:
1. "My vote is one in a few million"
2. Each option is a party with which one may agree with some points, but disagree with other points. So whichever party you vote for does not represent what you want to vote for.
The way I see it, 2 is the main reason people see little point to voting. I would like to see a different way of handling votes. It looks more complex, but it allows people to be as general or specific as they like... and that should do away with 2.
Voting at three stages:
1. General party vote (what we have now, in democratic countries)
2. Portfolio vote (ie. an exception to the General party vote)
3. Topic vote (ie. Screw the parties I voted for, for this specific vote this is the option I want. Requires internet voting to work, so not feasible now.)
Only option 1 would be mandatory (voting is mandatory in some countries).
Also, voting for a party should not help determine how many members a party should get in parliament, but should specify which party gets to allocate your vote. (Different things.)
So, if you vote for party A in the general vote then, generally, party A gets to allocate your vote as they choose.
Unless the topic of the vote falls into a specific portfolio and you voted for party B in that portfolio, then party B gets to allocate your vote.
Unless you specify the exact option in a vote, then you yourself take control of your vote.
Many things have been pointed out that would really help; however, the current major stakeholders have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.
It's actually quite impressive how many of these problems have been solved, but we can't seem to get the solutions into use. This applies not only at the federal government level, but in fact at nearly every level of activity of mankind. You name it, and someone has probably already found a better way to do it, and yet most people will keep on doing it the hard way.
As far as US government, various ideas stand out:
- Require politicians to read the bills before they can vote on them.
- Require nearly complete transparency in government (via the Internet), showing every meeting and every dollar spent.
- Require every political ad to include a link to indicate the detailed sources of funding for the ad.
- Don't indicate any party affiliations on ballots, nor allow any "straight ticket" votes.
- Use a revision control system on the actual laws, with HTML links to relevant court decisions, and a wiki-type entry for each
to allow controlled discussion on the actual fallout of each law.
I'd really like to see some way to keep stupidity out of politics, but that's really quite a difficult challenge.
Either the ideas don't scale or generalize well, or else there's some way to co-opt them by the underhanded.
But I'm sure there are some people who've put much more thought into this than I have.
I setup a petition at "We the People" to setup a similar system. Sign it if you agree! http://wh.gov/bKl
Call me crazy, but I'm not interested in political ideas coming from a guy who supports rape.
Wherein anyone can petition for the beheading of anyone else. If 60% of the population agree, OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!
Rather than internet access, I'd have thought the right to a decent education, housing, food and employment would have priority. But that's probably a bit socialist for most Americans.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
After he made this suggestion, did he create dozens of fake accounts to congratulate Scott Adams on being a certified genius with excellent ideas?
So lets add some more to fix it.
Sounds like a Dilbert situation.
Having a goto site to present all sides of the issues is a great idea,
but it should be run by citizens, not the govt.
Poe's Law says no=(
Nobody cares what the CAPTCHA for your post was.