Originally posted by generalissimoDisagree.
It has been observed that the general population is relatively ignorant when it comes to the political process and public policy and are highly susceptible to the dangers of populism, and the often corroding influence of the media.
In order to prevent the rule of mobs the logical solution to create a system which is comprised of truly competent lead ...[text shortened]... s, ethics, political philosophy, and knowledge of current events.
.....
agree or disagree?
Clearly, some citizens are more qualified than others to vote, just as some people are more qualified to serve on juries than others are. We may differ on what the qualifications should be; but most people agree that some people are more fit to serve than others.
However, the problem is that, to separate the worthy wheat from the unworthy chaff, someone else has to decide who is worthy and unworthy, and to use the machinery of the state to enforce that decision. Given the sordid history of self-appointed elites creating dystopias in pursuit of utopia, it's too risky to let anyone in power make that determination. Everyone should have at least some say.
However, if one combines as welfare state with a progressive tax system, then I think an additional case could be made for giving those who pay a greater proportion of income or expenditure in tax having a proportionally greater say in elections, assuming it would be practicable to implement such a system. That strikes me as entirely fair and appropriate: if I am required to pay more, then I get a greater say in how that money should be spent.
P.S. To "acquire the previlege to vote", is the ability to spell correctly required? 🙂
Originally posted by generalissimoPeople are ignorant about politics because their involvement with it is minimal. They get to vote once every two years for tweedle dee or tweedle dum. A vote which will change very little about how the country is run. The people intuitively sense this. They know that the rich will still run the show behind the scenes regardless of how the hoi polloi should happen to vote.
It has been observed that the general population is relatively ignorant when it comes to the political process and public policy and are highly susceptible to the dangers of populism, and the often corroding influence of the media.
In order to prevent the rule of mobs the logical solution to create a system which is comprised of truly competent lead ...[text shortened]... s, ethics, political philosophy, and knowledge of current events.
.....
agree or disagree?
The people's general knowledge of politics will increase in direct proportion to their actual involvement with it. If they have some substantive involvement with the political system then their knowledge and interest in it will increase. If all that is asked of them is to remain passive spectators for all but once every two or four years, then in all likelihood they will remain politically ignorant.
Originally posted by EladarIf we the people decide that we'd like a system to be in place in order to protect ourselves if we get laid off, and then we set up a system, and then pay for that system with part of our wages, we are damn well entitled to benefit from that system. If you don't want to pay for it, then lobby your congressman. What you and your ilk don't understand is that the very social infrastructure that makes it possible for there to be business and commerce, for you to work for a wage, have your money protected and insured, etc. is paid for by the state; that is, by us all. The state is there to provide for the common good and to protect the rights of citizens. If you don't like it, then move into the woods. You're like those fat, sick southerners at Tea-Party conventions, screaming about socialism from the seats of their scooters while sucking off an oxygen tank paid for by medicare. You know what? I'm sick of citizens like you freeloading on the system of social benefits without doing your part to maintain that system. I think there should be an option for you to opt out of the whole system. You won't have to pay any taxes at all, just usage fees. If you need a police officer, you can pay them in cash. You want to use the roads, you can pay the tolls. You need to take somebody to court, you can drop off a check to the court clerk. You get hit by a bus, you better keep enough money in your wallet to cover the medical care, because you will not be fronted the service. This idea is really starting to grow on me. What should we charge part-time citizens like you to vote? $20? $50? The electoral system doesn't pay for itself, you know.
[b]Wait, let me get this straight. My wages are taxed to fund unemployment benefits, but if I become unemployed and benefit from the very system that I help fund, you think I shouldn't be able to vote. Are you serious?
Your taxes are for funding the government. The government decides how to spend that money. Paying taxes does not give you the ri ...[text shortened]... Go on strike!
Don't go to the government. It's just another form of corporate welfare.[/b]
So you have two levels of unemployment benefits which means you do not have to pay in to qualify for benefits. They are both forms of unemployment.
Yes, unemployment and welfare in general sounds great, but as I said earlier, you get what you subsidize. That's the problem with Socialism/Communism. It doesn't take into account human nature. It works great when there are enough people pulling the cart.
It seems to me that if a country wants to have a welfare net, then the decision should be made by those pulling the cart, not by those enjoying the ride.
Originally posted by EladarAnd apparently you have too.
So you have two levels of unemployment benefits which means you do not have to pay in to qualify for benefits. They are both forms of unemployment.
Yes, unemployment and welfare in general sounds great, but as I said earlier, you get what you subsidize. That's the problem with Socialism/Communism. It doesn't take into account human nature. It works g ...[text shortened]... t, then the decision should be made by those pulling the cart, not by those enjoying the ride.
Facts contradict your sentiment - employment levels in Northern and Western European countries with very generous benefits are generally high:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_employment_rate
So it seems while there are always a few people who are intent on freeloading, the vast majority of people don't want to feel useless and want to be successful and achieve high social status; that's just human nature I guess.
Originally posted by EladarBut morons are statistically rare, and the more harmful delusions require some intelligence to entertain.
People who should not have the right to vote:
People on public assistance -> accept public assistance in exchange for giving up your right to vote
People with IQ lower than 80 -> Extremely stupid people shouldn't be allowed to vote.
I say we let in the low IQ people in.
I also think that those on public assistance should have some say; but perhaps less than those who provide that assistance.
Originally posted by IshDaGeggYeah, something like a graduated poll tax, that's the ticket! 🙄
But morons are statistically rare, and the more harmful delusions require some intelligence to entertain.
I say we let in the low IQ people in.
I also think that those on public assistance should have some say; but perhaps less than those who provide that assistance.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrWhether it's the ticket or not, I don't see what it is necessarily more moral or sensible to have Peter, who is taxed at 50%, and Paul who is subsided at 50%, possess the same degree of electoral clout--where one of the primary functions of the resulting government is to determine how earnings are confiscated, reassigned, and otherwise spent--than it would be to have Peter possess more electoral clout than Paul.
Yeah, something like a graduated poll tax, that's the ticket! 🙄
So I would argue for universal enfranchisement, but for differential levels of enfranchisement based on proportional levels of taxation (note: not merely on income or wealth per se). Under a flat tax, or in a minimal state, levels of enfranchisement would equalize.
Pithily: No progressive taxation without enhanced representation.
Originally posted by bbarr"You're like those fat, sick southerners at Tea-Party conventions, screaming about socialism from the seats of their scooters while sucking off an oxygen tank paid for by medicare."
If we the people decide that we'd like a system to be in place in order to protect ourselves if we get laid off, and then we set up a system, and then pay for that system with part of our wages, we are damn well entitled to benefit from that system. If you don't want to pay for it, then lobby your congressman. What you and your ilk don't understand is that t ...[text shortened]... ns like you to vote? $20? $50? The electoral system doesn't pay for itself, you know.
Is it really only conservatives who have the monopoly on irrational prejudice, simplistic stereotypes, and uncivil discourse? 😉
Originally posted by IshDaGeggWell, laws concerning election campaign funding in the US ensure people with more money already have a bigger say in what happens. Perhaps that is why the government is small and benefits meagre in the US.
Whether it's the ticket or not, I don't see what it is necessarily more moral or sensible to have Peter, who is taxed at 50%, and Paul who is subsided at 50%, possess the same degree of electoral clout--where one of the primary functions of the resulting government is to determine how earnings are confiscated, reassigned, and otherwise spent--than it would ...[text shortened]... chisement would equalize.
Pithily: No progressive taxation without enhanced representation.
Originally posted by IshDaGeggO.K., so give us your argument.
So I would argue for universal enfranchisement, but for differential levels of enfranchisement based on proportional levels of taxation (note: not merely on income or wealth per se). Under a flat tax, or in a minimal state, levels of enfranchisement would equalize.
Originally posted by rwingettTea Party members are politically engaged. Is their engagement sufficient to make them politically informed?
People are ignorant about politics because their involvement with it is minimal. They get to vote once every two years for tweedle dee or tweedle dum. A vote which will change very little about how the country is run. The people intuitively sense this. They know that the rich will still run the show behind the scenes regardless of how the hoi polloi should ...[text shortened]... but once every two or four years, then in all likelihood they will remain politically ignorant.
Originally posted by IshDaGeggI learned it by watching them.
"You're like those fat, sick southerners at Tea-Party conventions, screaming about socialism from the seats of their scooters while sucking off an oxygen tank paid for by medicare."
Is it really only conservatives who have the monopoly on irrational prejudice, simplistic stereotypes, and uncivil discourse? 😉
Originally posted by bbarrTwo arguments: one principled, the other pragmatic.
O.K., so give us your argument.
First, those who pay proportionally more for X should have more say in what is done with X. The tax-proportional electoral representation that I suggest is ultimately based on this intuitive premise. I think this premise is even more intuitive than the premise that those who pay absolutely more for X should get more say in what is done with X. In my premise, baseline levels of wealth are statistically controlled for.
Second, in a majoritarian democracy, a greater number of subsidized can hold a lesser number of taxed hostage, by voting for a political party who, quite rationally, seeks their majority vote. Although the virtues and vices of such a situation can be debated on many levels, I believe that the situation is on balance undesirable. The tax-proportional electoral representation that I suggest would help to prevent an extremification of this situation.