Better to Rent or Vote?

[c1ue]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

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."

But Sharky, you still haven't responded to my point: that there is no assurance that having any type of poll tax guarantees a better voting result.

It is equally unclear how guarantee of individual rights can occur when the first act is the removal of the voting rights of many.

What you've said above is in many respects a rewording of 'compassionate conservatism' - the idea that the rich conservatives will provide for the poor and unfortunate via their own private efforts and thus government does not need to do so.

Yet historically this has NEVER happened on any type of nationwide basis.

Similarly you didn't address the juxtaposition of FIRE interests paying for their political dogs: after all, why shouldn't the FIRE banksters use their campaign contributions to control how much taxes they are charged and how their tax money is spent?

The point is simple: a civil society requires equal opportunity - NOT equal outcome.

Equal opportunity requires a far higher minimum of physical and human infrastructure.

This infrastructure requires more taxes than Laissez Faire economies are voluntarily willing to surrender.

It is perfectly reasonable to want a better outcome, but never in history has restriction of the franchise been the way to do it. As Lord Acton said:

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely

Putting control of the US government in the hands of a few is exactly absolute power.

[Sharky]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

But Sharky, you still haven't responded to my point: that there is no assurance that having any type of poll tax guarantees a better voting result.

I can't say whether the actual results will be better. My claim is that removing the moral hazard of being able to vote to have stuff taken away from others for your benefit is an important and necessary step in the right direction.

It is equally unclear how guarantee of individual rights can occur when the first act is the removal of the voting rights of many.

It seems to me that voting is a privilege, and not a right. Even the Founders recognized that fact.

What you've said above is in many respects a rewording of 'compassionate conservatism' - the idea that the rich conservatives will provide for the poor and unfortunate via their own private efforts and thus government does not need to do so.

Except many so-called "rich conservatives" work directly or indirectly for government, and so they, too, would not be eligible to vote. The whole military-industrial complex, for example.

Similarly you didn't address the juxtaposition of FIRE interests paying for their political dogs: after all, why shouldn't the FIRE banksters use their campaign contributions to control how much taxes they are charged and how their tax money is spent?

That kind of manipulation is really nothing short of bribery, and should be illegal, even under existing common law.

The point is simple: a civil society requires equal opportunity - NOT equal outcome.

I agree about the goal. The question is how to best get there from where we are now.

[c1ue]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

I can't say whether the actual results will be better. My claim is that removing the moral hazard of being able to vote to have stuff taken away from others for your benefit is an important and necessary step in the right direction.

I understand your goal and I applaud it.

I merely note that moral hazard encompasses more than just money.

The devolution of American society into a 3rd world banana republic, for example, would be my counterpoint: a society where the top 5% live in amazing grace and the remainder in amazing squalor.

Having your future, your potential be taken away by rentiers is to my mind far worse than the rentiers losing a little money.

It seems to me that voting is a privilege, and not a right. Even the Founders recognized that fact.

The problem is identifying who deserves that privilege? And who ensures the choosers don't get corrupted?

Except many so-called "rich conservatives" work directly or indirectly for government, and so they, too, would not be eligible to vote. The whole military-industrial complex, for example.

I think that if you look closely, you'll be really hard pressed to find a single person in the entire United States who doesn't in some way derive income from the US government as you define it.

For example, is a shopkeeper who has a store in Washington DC considered 'tainted'? He himself doesn't work for government, but I guarantee a majority of his customers do.

What about the private sector? How much percentage of revenue must be government related before all employees of said corporation are prohibited? Would Oracle - which derives high single digit revenue from federal government contracts - be prohibited (and all its employees)? This is billions of dollars.

And on and on. Welfare shoppers at grocery stores. City, local, and municipal government workers with dry cleaners. Law enforcement and gun manufacturers. Soldiers, their families, and garment manufacturers.

Might be a pretty shallow pool.

And whatever the choice above is, you also now make the ones who CAN vote, worth more. What's to stop the AFL-CIO from paying $1000 a head for an eligible voter via 'special shop privileges'?

I'm sure you can see lots of ways a smaller pool of voters could be abused.

That kind of manipulation is really nothing short of bribery, and should be illegal, even under existing common law.

It is all more or less legal under existing voting and campaign finance laws.

It is why IMO that all outside contributions should be prohibited.

I agree about the goal. The question is how to best get there from where we are now.

From my view, who is in government is less an issue than what the laws are.

Dr. Michael Hudson has extensively documented how laws skewed toward FIRE interests have rippled all through the US economy. Righting these skews under the present system is quite achievable - the only way to do that is education and economics Mao-ism (i.e. the worse, the better).

Fortunately Obama is doing a yeoman's job of the latter.

[shiny!]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

Getting into this late, but how about:

1. All polls and ballots must be English-only.

2. Anyone who wants to vote must take and pass the U.S. Citizenship test that is given to people who wish to become U.S. Citizens. They must pay at least a nominal fee for classes and/or learning materials and the test, the same as they are willing to pay to get a Driver's License. I'm willing to do it!

This would insure some degree of literacy and education, and a sincere motivation to vote. The literacy requirements of old were definitely intended to keep blacks from voting, but nowdays with public education available to all for free, there is absolutely no legitimate excuse to be illiterate.

Not being allowed to vote while on Public Assistance sounds fair, but what might be the negative unintended consequences? Would this apply to the elderly on SS and Medicare? What about the former Middle Class, formerly employed, formerly tax-paying Americans who are now without jobs and homes? Should they lose their franchise? How will it skew elections if the loss of Middle Class voters causes a majority of voters to be from the wealthy Elites?

*****

On a separate but related note:

We also need to ensure having decent candidates to vote for! No more being forced to vote for "the lesser of two evils". I think all ballots should have an option for "None of the Above". If "NotA" gets the majority of votes, then new candidates must be fielded and the election held again.

Term Limits.

Short campaigns starting six weeks before elections, with debates on the public airwaves (which we taxpayers subsidize), with no corporate or personal financial donations accepted.

These three things would go a long way to get the financial oligarchy and corruption out of politics, but the chances of it happening are slim to none.

[Mashuri]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

Could end up with something like Starship Troopers (the book, not the wretched movie) by Robert Heinlein where only those with military service qualified to vote (btw: the book itself makes for some fascinating reading)

Great book and this quote from it sums up the tyranny of democracy quite well:

"When you vote, you are exercising political authority. You are using force, and force, my friends, is violence -- the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived."

C1ue has a great point. If voting is limited only to the productive, what's to stop them from using their political authority, backed by threat of violence, to further their own interests at the expense of others? That's pretty much what we have now anyway. The political elite really run the show with their campaign contributions, while our elections are merely a dog and pony show giving us mundanes an illusion of control. Choosing one's slave masters every few years does not make one free.

[don]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

Getting into this late, but how about:

1. All polls and ballots must be English-only.

2. Anyone who wants to vote must take and pass the U.S. Citizenship test that is given to people who wish to become U.S. Citizens. They must pay at least a nominal fee for classes and/or learning materials and the test, the same as they are willing to pay to get a Driver's License. I'm willing to do it!

This would insure some degree of literacy and education, and a sincere motivation to vote. The literacy requirements of old were definitely intended to keep blacks from voting, but nowdays with public education available to all for free, there is absolutely no legitimate excuse to be illiterate.

Not being allowed to vote while on Public Assistance sounds fair, but what might be the negative unintended consequences? Would this apply to the elderly on SS and Medicare? What about the former Middle Class, formerly employed, formerly tax-paying Americans who are now without jobs and homes? Should they lose their franchise? How will it skew elections if the loss of Middle Class voters causes a majority of voters to be from the wealthy Elites?

*****

Not just slim to none but foregoing #1 and 2 would torpedo the rather brilliant think tank operation of pitting the natives against the foreigners. Do away with enough of these manufactured distraction and more and more of the sheeple will awaken. Jeez Louise!