Better to Rent or Vote?

[Sharky]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

The Founders had the right idea with regard to preventing mob rule, but I think their implementation in terms of property ownership was off.

I think a better model would be to allow only the productive to vote. For example, government employees or contractors and those who are unemployed or receiving a government benefit should not be allowed to vote. Voting could be used as a way to determine how to spend your own money, but not as a tool to steal from others.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

The Founders had the right idea with regard to preventing mob rule, but I think their implementation in terms of property ownership was off.

I think a better model would be to allow only the productive to vote. For example, government employees or contractors and those who are unemployed or receiving a government benefit should not be allowed to vote. Voting could be used as a way to determine how to spend your own money, but not as a tool to steal from others.

Sounds good at first, but when you think it through some holes show up. You're really talking about trying to eliminate a conflict of interest, that gov’t workers shouldn't be able to vote for politicians who will raise GS pay and increase their numbers.

Why shouldn't a federal civilian accountant at Wright Patterson AFB vote for Governor of Ohio, or the mayor of Dayton? Why can’t she vote for the school board where her children attend?

Doesn't the same conflict of interest exist for an accountant employed at a bridge building company, or at Lockheed Martin? Won’t they also vote to waste tax dollars upon their own wages?

Don’t forget that soldiers are gov’t employees. Should we trust them with artillery and nuclear weapons but not to vote?

In these forums we've exhaustively discussed the conflict of big Wall street banks, the Fed, and the treasury. That conflict recently cost us trillions of dollars, all shot up a hog’s ass. Perhaps we should start by preventing FIRE sector employees from voting.

Have the poll workers ask everyone "Are you now or have you ever worked in real estate, insurance, banking, finance, or the military-industrial complex?"
If the answer comes back "No, I'm an accountant at a paper towel factory" do we turn her away because the government buys a LOT of paper towels?

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

I really like the way that resonates:

"Are you now, or have you ever, been employed in finance, insurance, or real estate?"

[jpatter666]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

I really like the way that resonates:

"Are you now, or have you ever, been employed in finance, insurance, or real estate?"

That's because there is a certain rhyme to it

"Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?"

[don]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

Roman history goes a bit like this:

The Republic functions up until expansion outside of Italy.

Power is then concentrated at the executive head of state. The Senate becomes a debating society, at best. At worse, a dog-and-pony show.

With the wealth of Empire, bread and circuses are used to keep the home fires from spreading.

The Praetorian Guard becomes a major player in selecting the Emperor.

Increasingly mercenaries are employed by the armies of Rome.

Bread & circuses become increasingly violent, slaughtering hundreds in an afternoon.

War hero President Eisenhower warns the nation ... Ops! Wrong narrative

[don]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

"I took the 5th not because I wanted to deny working for Goldman Sachs, but because if I did admit to that, the committee would ask me to name others that did as well. That was something I couldn't do."

[KGW]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

Excuse me, I should have been clearer. . .Those individuals who profit from the behavior of Goldman Sachs. And, anything that would lead to the decoupling of Media from the clutches of those indivduals would help enormously.

Apples and Oranges. Corporations shouldn't be allowed to "vote" either. But they do, with their money. Fixing that still wouldn't fix the "Bread and Circuses" mentality we have today. Any reason we can't fix both?

[cjppjc]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

I'm not sure of your definition of "skin in the game". Would those who toiled in factories, fields and offices and did not own property be disenfranchised?

Yea I liked "skin in the game." as well.

[Sharky]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

Sounds good at first, but when you think it through some holes show up. You're really talking about trying to eliminate a conflict of interest, that gov’t workers shouldn't be able to vote for politicians who will raise GS pay and increase their numbers.

Why shouldn't a federal civilian accountant at Wright Patterson AFB vote for Governor of Ohio, or the mayor of Dayton? Why can’t she vote for the school board where her children attend?

It seems to me that the goal would be to not just eliminate conflict of interest, but to dis-incentivise working for government in the first place, as well as selling to them. So a federal civilian accountant can't vote for the school board where her children attend because she chose to suck off of the government teat instead of participating in the real economy.

Doesn't the same conflict of interest exist for an accountant employed at a bridge building company, or at Lockheed Martin? Won’t they also vote to waste tax dollars upon their own wages?

Such people would be working for government contractors, and as such, according to my suggestion, would not be allowed to vote.

Don’t forget that soldiers are gov’t employees. Should we trust them with artillery and nuclear weapons but not to vote?

Correct. Trust is one thing. Voting is also power, and any mixing of the two should only be done with great care.

Have the poll workers ask everyone "Are you now or have you ever worked in real estate, insurance, banking, finance, or the military-industrial complex?" If the answer comes back "No, I'm an accountant at a paper towel factory" do we turn her away because the government buys a LOT of paper towels?

If the paper towel factory she works at sells to the government, then yes, turn her away. She can choose to work somewhere else if she wants the right to vote.

[sutro]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

The founding fathers were the elites of their time. No surprise they were in favor of a limited franchise. Golden Rule. They also wrote slavery into the constitution. After we reintroduce property qualifications, are we gong to debate the merits of slavery too?

I thought the mess we are in was due to the collapse of the FIRE economy. The deregulation that created the FIRE economy could have been avoided if property qualifications had been maintained all along? The rise of the FIRE economy happened in spite of an extended franchise, not because of it.

I don't think the beneficiaries of the Voting Rights ACT of 1965 or the 26th Amendment have been the beneficiaries of the FIRE economy. Quite the contrary, they are its biggest victims. On the other hand, the elites that have had the franchise all along have gained the most.

[BigBagel]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

The Founders had the right idea with regard to preventing mob rule, but I think their implementation in terms of property ownership was off.

I think a better model would be to allow only the productive to vote. For example, government employees or contractors and those who are unemployed or receiving a government benefit should not be allowed to vote. Voting could be used as a way to determine how to spend your own money, but not as a tool to steal from others.

Under your model the soldiers would be disenfranchised.

[Jay]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

Benevolent dictatorship is the optimal form of government (or so they say). The high point of the Roman empire was from Trajan to Aurelius.

It is easy to be benevolent when you are growing. When your Empire is shrinking, the options are more limited and usually involve some group getting the shaft, hard. The US could have the most benevolent and wise dictator in the history of mankind and things would still be tricky today...

...unless we have growth. Cue the TECI economy here.

[Sharky]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

Under your model the soldiers would be disenfranchised.

For professional soldiers, yes, that's correct. Why should a soldier be able to vote for a bigger military, higher pay and more benefits for themselves, etc? With an all-volunteer force, they would have a choice whether they joined or not, and one of the prices of joining would be giving up the ability to vote.

OTOH, volunteer forces, such as militias, would not be paid by or receive benefits or materiel from government, and so would retain voting privileges.

[c1ue]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

For professional soldiers, yes, that's correct. Why should a soldier be able to vote for a bigger military, higher pay and more benefits for themselves, etc? With an all-volunteer force, they would have a choice whether they joined or not, and one of the prices of joining would be giving up the ability to vote.

OTOH, volunteer forces, such as militias, would not be paid by or receive benefits or materiel from government, and so would retain voting privileges.

Sharky, my friend, I fear you are focusing overmuch on the first order negative effects of voting.

On the one hand, you say bureaucrats, teachers, and soldiers would vote to propagate their own respective empires.

On the other hand, you fail to declare that rich landed people would equally so vote to keep money under their control and to underfund government services which are equally enjoyed by all.

After all, what is our present situation if not a result of the actions of a financial elite? To allow such a class to achieve their goals via a shrinkage of the voting demographic is no better than to allow them to achieve their goals via profligate spending of campaign 'donations'.

What you really want is a voter who will vote for that which benefits everyone overall.

And there is no test for that.

[Sharky]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

On the one hand, you say bureaucrats, teachers, and soldiers would vote to propagate their own respective empires.

Correct.

On the other hand, you fail to declare that rich landed people would equally so vote to keep money under their control and to underfund government services which are equally enjoyed by all.

"Equally enjoyed by all." Hardly! You mean services that are enjoyed by some at the expense of others.

After all, what is our present situation if not a result of the actions of a financial elite? To allow such a class to achieve their goals via a shrinkage of the voting demographic is no better than to allow them to achieve their goals via profligate spending of campaign 'donations'.

What you really want is a voter who will vote for that which benefits everyone overall.

No, that's not what I want at all. First, it's impossible. Second, it's immoral.

What I want is a system where individual rights are the first priority; where I have the ability to control and dispose of my assets as I see fit; where government does not steal from me in the name of "helping someone." Those who earn an honest living in the productive economy should have the right to control how their taxes are spent; those who receive the taxes should not be able to influence how much they receive -- after all, the only answer we can ever expect them to provide is "more."