Your assertion is made flatly with no basis of truth.
Nope, just all of human history -- when you put more men in power you get "bigger" gov't -- bigger costs -- bigger deficit spending. Show me when we went from small gov't to big gov't and that worked out for "us" (the common man).
When Abdication or Self-Rule goes up so does the "cost" -- welfarism.
With term limits in place and the repeal of the 17th amendment a larger House of Representatives would ensure that everyday citizens who have shown financial prudence could, in time, pursue a Congressional campaign. The math is simple, less people to canvass and inform the less money is needed, thus the variety of candidates will increase.
Wow! Your "math" excludes a lot of common sense. I don't care about the cost of campaigns -- I care that people "think" they need a representative.
You do not understand Consumer-Minarchism. The "consumer" leads -- not the 'workers' not the 'propertarians' and not gov't.
Thornton and the "big names" who support this "rule of 30K" thing want "no term limits" -- They will lead the charge not you.
Here's what I support -- 1-Term in Office. Reduce Gov't by 90% at the Federal Level and 80% at the State.
Ron Paul talks about all the department's he'd eliminate and you want to increase representation assuming what -- all those people will pick libertarians? Once you have 10,000 representatives, what they are going to vote for greater self-rule?
How can a minarchist NOT support smaller campaigns with more choices?
Easy -- It cost $607M (non-hidden costs) to support the idiots we have now (535) -- chosen by the same intelligence (civilians) you want to put in charge to pick an even larger number of people.
Now if we follow Thornton's rule of 1 rep per 30,000 civilians then that means we need 10,233. The total cost for that debacle (salary and yearly budget) will be over $10B.
So, 1.8M with an average salary of $50K currently cost $90,000,000,000 (90 billion).
Will the proposed 10,233 increase this cost, decrease it, or keep it the same?
Why would a Consumer - Individualist such as your self invoke the name of the (non) leader of the (non) movement? I do enjoy your stance on many topics, I do not enjoy stifling conversation on what very well could be part of the transitional phase of government.
Who's the non-leader of the non-movement? Are you talking about "Rothbard?"
---Well Rockwell and Thornton the biggest names in this push for "30K" (the Constitution) are both Rothbardians.
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: