Read all of this Newday opinion piece:What is the same in the Guantanamo cases, and those of Hamdi and Padilla, is the president’s insistence that he alone has the authority to decide who should be locked up and when, if ever, they will be released. It…

It’s been widely noted that the Senate approved the spending of $87.5 billion in Iraq by voice vote. This was done to save at least some senators from having to

Er, maybe I meant quorum, nah, my mistake, then it would have been 45:

“quorum - The number of Senators that must be present for the Senate to do business. The Constitution requires a majority of Senators (51) for a quorum. Often, fewer Senators are actually present on the floor, but the Senate presumes that a quorum is present unless the contrary is shown by a roll call vote or quorum call.” - From the Senate website glossary

Well … leaving aside the actual point you raise for a moment, I would contend that Ayn Rand was a religious fanatic (and keep in mind I like most of what Rand has to say). If you do not believe my assertion, then please explain the logical, empirical evidence for the existence of “free will”?

I see also that you totally failed to address the main point of my post, which was that no one elected me as a voter and therefore I’m not accountable to any constituency, whereas the same can not be said of a Senator.

If 6 were on the floor and 44 were missing, where were the other 50?

Ahhh Mr. Kieffer, it almost sounds as if you are asserting the existence of “Good” and “Evil”. And here I thought all Atheists found such notions quaint and naïve?

I can’t speak for Mr. Kieffer, but one does not need to enroll in a set of religious beliefs in order to decide if something is evil or good. (For the most obvious example, see the writings of Ayn Rand.)

http://www.no-treason.com/comments.php?id=506_0_1_0_C

Basically few of the Senators wanted to have this (their vote) hanging over them, so a deal was brokered. When the voice vote was taken, there were 6, yes 6, Senators present, any one of whom could have called for a quorum, but didn’t. Everyone else was hiding out somewhere else.

The sole nay came from his exhaulted highness, Emporer of West Virginia, Robert C. Byrd (sorry, DC humor). I also know that Sen Ted Stevens (R-AK - President pro tempore) was present. Don’t know about the other 4. BUT 44 OTHER SENATORS were missing. (I did check Thomas, but couldn’t find out who made comments).

So ask your Senator how he/she would have voted IF present. If the Senate is holding hearings on transparency on Wall Street, isn’t it appropriate to ask about transparency on Capitol Hill?

It doesn’t matter how any of them voted because they’re all spending your money, in the very same way that “we” are all represented in the legislature.

The premises of democracy work in both directions: up and down.

It’s quite apparently within the bounds of the authority asserted by your public representatives. You think voters haven’t effectively voted themselves mandatory lunch breaks in many cases?

“If I want to take two hour lunch breaks, I can either quit my job, or find an employer willing to accommodate my wish.”

Or find a politician or political party willing to accommodate your wish. Voters routinely do this.

“But I can’t have what I want when I want it.”

You can vote for what you want when you want it though, can’t you?

You can vote for candidates promising to enact laws requiring two hour lunch breaks, and you may very well achieve your wish through this exercise of power.

Who is ultimately responsible for the many non-voluntary requirements forced upon your employer if not voters?

“By the way, say your neighbor thinks it is the proper function of government to tax people to pay for public schools. Knowing that you voted against the tax increase and the subsequent illiteracy that follows when all the public schools close down, your neighbor would observe that you are depriving his children of what he perceives to be their right and he would modify his dealings with you to take that into account, would he not?”

He very well might. But have you considered the possibility that one of us might be right and the other wrong about the morality of such arrangements? How would you decide which of us was right about whether such public spending is moral? Put it up for a vote?

Senators were elected by their constituents and therefore are accountable to their constituentcy. Voting by secret ballot is not part of the job, regardless of whether or not Senators “want” it to be.

I want to take two hour lunch breaks, but it isn’t within the parameters of my voluntary employment. If I want to take two hour lunch breaks, I can either quit my job, or find an employer willing to accomodate my wish. But I can’t have what I want when I want it.

(By the way, say your neighbor thinks it is the proper function of government to tax people to pay for public schools. Knowing that you voted against the tax increase and the subsequent illiteracy that follows when all the public schools close down, your neighbor would observe that you are depriving his children of what he perceives to be their right and he would madify his dealings with you to take that into account, would he not?

I didn’t say it was the solution to any problem. Making all votes explicit in the Senate won’t fix the Senate either.
I pointed out that Senators wanted the same unaccountability voters have.

Again, you wrote: “I don’t know about everyone else, but I want to know who is spending my money.”

Aren’t voters spending your money? Aren’t they responsible for doing so? If representatives are responsible to carry out the will of voters, who is responsible for that will?

With both Senators and voters we’re talking about an exercise of power that is illegitimate in principle. Doing it in secret facilitates bad behavior, as you recognize in the former case.

“There are those who would advance their own interest even at the expense of others.”

And with your blessing they routinely vote in secret to do so.

However, it is not necessarily in the nature of men to live and let live. There are those who would advance their own interest even at the expense of others. The rights to life, liberty, and property must be secured by government, and that government should represent the people, and be limited to regulatory power over the commons.

Ahhh Mr. Kieffer, it almost sounds as if you are asserting the existence of “Good” and “Evil”. And here I thought all Atheists found such notions quaint and naïve?

Brian Kieffer: In order for people to elect their government without intimidation, either explicit or implicit, they must be able to keep their vote secret. Additionally, that citizens may make sure that their elected officials are carrying out their duty, the voting record of representatives must be open to the public.

Clearly, you feel that the problem is that voters have empowered the government beyond patrolling the commons. I would agree. However, the solution is neither making representative’s votes secret, nor making citizen’s votes public. That would allow yet more corruption and only serve to worsen the problem.

I’d swear I smell a logical contradiction in that statement, but I would have to think about it a bit. Your previous post on this issue makes some good points.

Brian Kieffer: Our system of government is not perfect, but it is the best we have.
I’m not willing to even entertain an argument in favor of an anarchist society as a solution. This isn’t fantasy land.

Well, I’d say that one should ALWAYS be willing to entertain an argument, no matter how “far fetched” it initially sounds. Once upon a time a “round Earth” seemed like a “far fetched’ argument. Although to be honest, I am inclined to agree with you on this point. I see little difference between the “anarchist paradise” and the form of “government” which wild animals live under, and so far no anarchist has ever been able to articulate why it would be otherwise.

Never-the-less, you have re-earned a lot of my respect with this post.

Is this ALWAYS true? What if you are a murderer, a thief, a rapist, or a child molester? Are you claiming that my neighbors and I have no right to wield political power to “arrange your life”?

Perhaps in an “anarchist paradise” we would all just barge into your house in the middle of the night and publicly lynch you without the benefit of a trial?

John Kennedy: See how representatives use an effectively secret vote to evade responsibility for their actions?

On this point I actually agree with you Mr. Kennedy; however, “taking responsibility for actions” is not at all inconsistent with my worldview.

So would I. And it would work if everyone would agree to live and let live; to have the rights to life, liberty, and property strictly on the honor system. That would be great.

However, it is not necessarily in the nature of men to live and let live. There are those who would advance their own interest even at the expense of others. The rights to life, liberty, and property must be secured by government, and that government should represent the people, and be limited to regulatory power over the commons.

In order for people to elect their government without intimidation, either explicit or implicit, they must be able to keep their vote secret. Additionally, that citizens may make sure that their elected officials are carrying out their duty, the voting record of representatives must be open to the public.

Clearly, you feel that the problem is that voters have empowered the government beyond patrolling the commons. I would agree. However, the solution is neither making representative’s votes secret, nor making citizen’s votes public. That would allow yet more corruption and only serve to worsen the problem.

Our system of government is not perfect, but it is the best we have.

I’m not willing to even entertain an argument in favor of an anarchist society as a solution. This isn’t fantasy land.

Now you’re talking sense.

I’d judge them by their actions and by the explanation they offer for those actions.

“As a citizen I have offered no promise to anyone that I will vote in a certain way, hence I am not accountable to anyone for the way that I cast my vote.”

You are not accountable to to someone if you vote, for instance, to raise his taxes either directly or by proxy? Nice deal. Who is responsible for sending me those bills for stuff I don’t want from government if not voters?

And if Senators will cast votes in secret that they would not cast publicly, don’t you think voters do too?

“So again, I ask. How would you hold me accountable for the way I cast my vote?”

Well, for instance, if you voted for an increase in my property taxes explaining you thought we needed better public schools I’d observe that you were a thief conspiring with a gang of thieves and I’d modify my dealings with you to take that into account.