the franchise

#51
#51
fl0at said:
It isn't the same, but I am still not a "net tax payer." And as stated, that means I don't have the right to vote.

It is ideas like these, poorly worded and without thought to implications that result in bad laws. And we already have enough of those.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

You are indeed not a net tax payer and as such you should not have the right to tell the people supplying the money how to spend the money. Graduate and be productive... or work and pay your way through college like a lot of us did (except for my schollies). I completely understand the implications. You may call them bugs, I call them features.
 
#52
#52
RespectTradition said:
You are indeed not a net tax payer and as such you should not have the right to tell the people supplying the money how to spend the money. Graduate and be productive... or work and pay your way through college like a lot of us did (except for my schollies). I completely understand the implications. You may call them bugs, I call them features.
Click to expand...

You worked through medical school?

Because, I left with my two undergrad degrees debt free.

But really? You worked through med school? Wow, you are awesome. And paid the $53k/year cost? Without loans? Amazing.

Or unbelievable. I'll go with unbelievable.
 
#53
#53
fl0at said:
You worked through medical school?

Because, I left with my two undergrad degrees debt free.

But really? You worked through med school? Wow, you are awesome. And paid the $53k/year cost? Without loans? Amazing.

Or unbelievable. I'll go with unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Didn't go to med school. Had no desire. I don't see how that changes the basic proposition. (side note: The high costs of a medical degree are directly related to the artificial scarcity of spots in accredited programs. That could be solved and prices reduced, but that would involve getting the govt out of another part of our lives they have no business in.)

Either way, do you think you should have the right to tell the people who pay for services you receive how that money should be spent if you are not one of the people paying? Why?
 
#54
#54
RespectTradition said:
Didn't go to med school. Had no desire. I don't see how that changes the basic proposition. (side note: The high costs of a medical degree are directly related to the artificial scarcity of spots in accredited programs. That could be solved and prices reduced, but that would involve getting the govt out of another part of our lives they have no business in.)

Either way, do you think you should have the right to tell the people who pay for services you receive how that money should be spent if you are not one of the people paying? Why?
Click to expand...


Should we give weighted votes to those who pay more taxes? Your logic points to that since your argument is that only those that pay should vote. Sounds to me much like a large oligarchy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#55
#55
JayVols said:
Should we give weighted votes to those who pay more taxes? Your logic points to that since your argument that only those that pay should vote. Sounds to me much like a large oligarchy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

No, I am just saying that if you don't throw into the pool you shouldn't get to tell everyone else how to spend it. It's not necessary to take the next step, but I can see how one could think it appropriate. Aren't we doing just the opposite now? If I pay $1 in taxes and you pay $100, we both get one vote. My voice is disproportionately loud. Is that fair to you? If you and I both invested in a company and you paid $100 for a share and I paid $1 for a share worth as much as yours, would you find that acceptable?

However, in my ideal world, your question wouldn't matter because I think everyone should pay the same taxes. I fail to see how it is fair to charge different people different amounts for essentially the same goods and services.
 
#56
#56
But why should those who throw less in the pool tell those that contribute more and receive more benefit/dollar what to do with their larger contributions? It's a never ending argument. Someone will alwsays have an argument that they are being treated unfairly.

I am just trying to get you to understand how the change could go. When we take rights away from certain groups people, we all lose a bit of our freedom. There are better ways to address the problem than disenfranchisement.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#57
#57
I understand and agree to a large degree. What I can't wrap my head around is how to fix the problems when we have more net takers than net givers. How do you prevent legal robbery?
 
#58
#58
RespectTradition said:
I understand and agree to a large degree. What I can't wrap my head around is how to fix the problems when we have more net takers than net givers. How do you prevent legal robbery?
Click to expand...

I gave my thoughts last night. Workfare/time limits on assistance. We do need more people paying in the pot; I agree 100% with that.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#59
#59
JayVols said:
I gave my thoughts last night. Workfare/time limits on assistance. We do need more people paying in the pot; I agree 100% with that.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I understand. The problem is see is, how do you make the reforms you advocated if more voters benefit from the status quo? How do you institute workfare if you know you will be voted out and be replaced with someone who will remove it?
 
#60
#60
RespectTradition said:
I understand. The problem is see is, how do you make the reforms you advocated if more voters benefit from the status quo? How do you institute workfare if you know you will be voted out and be replaced with someone who will remove it?
Click to expand...

Political courage, near extinct trait.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#63
#63
RespectTradition said:
Either way, do you think you should have the right to tell the people who pay for services you receive how that money should be spent if you are not one of the people paying? Why?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, because, such decisions directly and indirectly affect me, personally.

You stating that government has no business in parts of the lives of its people... and then advocating that people have no part in their own lives, via disenfranchisement, all the WHILE injecting that YOU, or others like you, SHOULD be allowed in the lives of others, because you... pay for such an intervention, is a bit contradictory.

Let me ask you this, if I advocate that only veterans should be allowed to vote, a la Stormship Troopers, because they have put their country above their own life, and not simply their checkbook, would you agree?

If not, I can end by saying that once you understand why you dismiss all other possible voting restrictions, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
 
#64
#64
fl0at said:
Absolutely, because, such decisions directly and indirectly affect me, personally.

You stating that government has no business in parts of the lives of its people... and then advocating that people have no part in their own lives, via disenfranchisement, all the WHILE injecting that YOU, or others like you, SHOULD be allowed in the lives of others, because you... pay for such an intervention, is a bit contradictory.

Let me ask you this, if I advocate that only veterans should be allowed to vote, a la Stormship Troopers, because they have put their country above their own life, and not simply their checkbook, would you agree?

If not, I can end by saying that once you understand why you dismiss all other possible voting restrictions, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Click to expand...

I will try and be clearer. I have never suggested taking anyone's right to vote. My suggestion essentially means removing welfare from the people who do vote. You can then sell your vote to receive welfare. Is that better? No one TAKES anything. You CHOOSE to GIVE it away.

I don't dismiss all voting restrictions and neither do you. However, because one approves of certain restrictions doesn't mean one approves of all. It is not an all or nothing proposition. That is the classic false choice fallacy.

If you want to advocate the Starship Troopers franchise rules, then I would respectfully listen to your reasons. If your reasons are better than mine, I will change my mind. However, I wouldn't think less of you for having a different opinion. (btw, I know you don't advocate that, I was just following your example.)

While you have brought up Starship Troopers, however, I would suggest the adoption of another of Heinlein's ideas, the hypothetical 27th (?) amendment. The one that states only people of serving age can vote to go to war. Those who vote yes are automatically inducted. That way, the people who are most directly putting their lives on the line are the ones deciding if the war is worth it. I think we would be involved in a lot less wars if the people who have to go fight them are the ones deciding.

I don't see how my belief that the government should stay out of virtually everything is contrary to my basic thesis. If the government was not involved in wealth transfer, then everyone would get to vote. My position is actually quite consistent.
 
#65
#65
The topic here gets to what Jefferson, among other brilliant folks, saw as the ultimate downfall of our republic. His fear was that the masses would eventually get to the point of voting themselves pay raises and would destroy the system. He was absolutely right. The system advocated here would preclude the demise he foresaw.

I don't like that the system would limit freedom so I struggle with it. I think term limits accomplish something similar in that it limits the need for fundraising on the part of incumbents and limits the power of deep pockets. True campaign finance reform would get us closer.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#66
#66
RespectTradition said:
I will try and be clearer. I have never suggested taking anyone's right to vote. My suggestion essentially means removing welfare from the people who do vote. You can then sell your vote to receive welfare. Is that better? No one TAKES anything. You CHOOSE to GIVE it away.
Click to expand...

This is not a choice. If you require such means, you would be essentially forced to give up your vote, and be relegated to second class citizenship.

It is a choice, in the same way that a draconian measure of police questioning state: You can sign this statement of guilt, or we can take you out back and hang you.

A choice between life and status is not a choice.


RespectTradition said:
I don't dismiss all voting restrictions and neither do you. However, because one approves of certain restrictions doesn't mean one approves of all. It is not an all or nothing proposition. That is the classic false choice fallacy.
Click to expand...

It was not an all or nothing, that was not the point. It was a play on an atheist quote, "Once you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Whether you missed it or not, or whether you state you did or not is of no consequence.



RespectTradition said:
If you want to advocate the Starship Troopers franchise rules, then I would respectfully listen to your reasons. If your reasons are better than mine, I will change my mind. However, I wouldn't think less of you for having a different opinion. (btw, I know you don't advocate that, I was just following your example.)

While you have brought up Starship Troopers, however, I would suggest the adoption of another of Heinlein's ideas, the hypothetical 27th (?) amendment. The one that states only people of serving age can vote to go to war. Those who vote yes are automatically inducted. That way, the people who are most directly putting their lives on the line are the ones deciding if the war is worth it. I think we would be involved in a lot less wars if the people who have to go fight them are the ones deciding.
Click to expand...

As a Vet who volunteered to enter, volunteered for deployments and volunteered to do so in the infantry... I'd take both my take on who can vote and the amendment well before the view that self-success translates to a higher form of citizenship.


RespectTradition said:
I don't see how my belief that the government should stay out of virtually everything is contrary to my basic thesis. If the government was not involved in wealth transfer, then everyone would get to vote. My position is actually quite consistent.
Click to expand...

The government should stay out of virtually everything. This includes additional government action necessary to restrict voting to an additional category.

In this fantasy, who determines net taxes? I'm assuming the IRS, yea? Isn't that a government organization?

So, by saying that government should stay out of everything, you advocate more government involvement, by allowing a government agency to determine who is franchised and who isn't?

What if you are audited that year? Did you pay enough taxes? Sorry, no vote for you in 2012.

Are you behind in your taxes? Sorry, no vote for you, business owner.

If you truly advocate limited government involvement, the last thing you would actually advocate would be more restrictions.

That this seems to be consistent, to you, is interesting, to me.
 
#67
#67
BigPapaVol said:
The topic here gets to what Jefferson, among other brilliant folks, saw as the ultimate downfall of our republic. His fear was that the masses would eventually get to the point of voting themselves pay raises and would destroy the system. He was absolutely right. The system advocated here would preclude the demise he foresaw.
Click to expand...

BPV, much respect. But, limiting who can vote does not limit how, once voted in, one votes.

Term limits, pay caps and other such measures are absolutely, as you state, far more effective.

Limiting who has the franchise means politics becomes more narrow, not more broad. The several wealthy groups who actually have the vote... won't mind if their "good ol' boy" votes himself a pay raise, so long as he continues to vote in their interests.

I don't see how this system would preclude Jefferson's premonition.
 
#68
#68
fl0at said:
This is not a choice. If you require such means, you would be essentially forced to give up your vote, and be relegated to second class citizenship.

It is a choice, in the same way that a draconian measure of police questioning state: You can sign this statement of guilt, or we can take you out back and hang you.

A choice between life and status is not a choice.




It was not an all or nothing, that was not the point. It was a play on an atheist quote, "Once you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Whether you missed it or not, or whether you state you did or not is of no consequence.





As a Vet who volunteered to enter, volunteered for deployments and volunteered to do so in the infantry... I'd take both my take on who can vote and the amendment well before the view that self-success translates to a higher form of citizenship.




The government should stay out of virtually everything. This includes additional government action necessary to restrict voting to an additional category.

In this fantasy, who determines net taxes? I'm assuming the IRS, yea? Isn't that a government organization?

So, by saying that government should stay out of everything, you advocate more government involvement, by allowing a government agency to determine who is franchised and who isn't?

What if you are audited that year? Did you pay enough taxes? Sorry, no vote for you in 2012.

Are you behind in your taxes? Sorry, no vote for you, business owner.

If you truly advocate limited government involvement, the last thing you would actually advocate would be more restrictions.

That this seems to be consistent, to you, is interesting, to me.
Click to expand...

I will try to explain my consistency. I want the government to provide absolutely no wealth transfer at all of any kind. If such a world existed, then everyone would be eligible by default since no one could possibly be a net consumer of tax dollars.

All I suggested, was that in an absence of the perfect world I prefer, we make the consequences for being a parasite distasteful enough that people choose, on their own, not to be one. That is not inconsistent with the above statement.
 
#69
#69
RespectTradition said:
I will try to explain my consistency. I want the government to provide absolutely no wealth transfer at all of any kind. If such a world existed, then everyone would be eligible by default since no one could possibly be a net consumer of tax dollars.

All I suggested, was that in an absence of the perfect world I prefer, we make the consequences for being a parasite distasteful enough that people choose, on their own, not to be one. That is not inconsistent with the above statement.
Click to expand...

Nobody would be a net consumer of tax dollars?

Defense contracting? New Public works by privately owned contractors? Haliburton? Research grants?

Are you advocating Federal or State run business, so that the return is to the Fed? If not, there will always be net consumption of tax dollars by someone.

Whether that someone is an individual, or a corporation or other entity, there will always be net consumption.
 
#70
#70
fl0at said:
Nobody would be a net consumer of tax dollars?

Defense contracting? New Public works by privately owned contractors? Haliburton? Research grants?

Are you advocating Federal or State run business, so that the return is to the Fed? If not, there will always be net consumption of tax dollars by someone.

Whether that someone is an individual, or a corporation or other entity, there will always be net consumption.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I wasn't clear, my bad.

I am referring to cases where money is given out but not in exchange for services or products. I wasn't counting things such as defense contracting or the police. I thought it was understood we were talking about welfare-like spending, my bad.

However, now that you bring it up, I am against government research grants as well.
 
#72
#72
RespectTradition said:
Sorry, I wasn't clear, my bad.

I am referring to cases where money is given out but not in exchange for services or products. I wasn't counting things such as defense contracting or the police. I thought it was understood we were talking about welfare-like spending, my bad.

However, now that you bring it up, I am against government research grants as well.
Click to expand...

Contracting and the like is extraordinarily similar to welfare. And in your system, these recipients will be in a position to ensure they continue to receive their benefits, by ensuring that their vote goes to the individual who will supply them with contracts.

How many defense contractors put out a product immediately? Do you consider the F22 to be similar to walking into Target, giving $20 and getting a Lawn chair?

If not, defense contracting is an investment, not a service. Not a product. It is an investment in a future product to be developed, tested and deployed if useful.

Entitlements are also an investment. It is an investment in, at its root (arguably ineffective, but never-the-less), the future of the individual.

Parasites, such as myself, are invested in, so that one day, we can give back. Other "parasites," are invested into, in the hopes that they come out of their situation... and give back.

How is this different than defense contracting? Both require money. Both require time. Both are investments.

And in theory, both give returns in the long term.

I thought we were talking long, but apparently, you are selling short.
 
#74
#74
BigPapaVol said:
The topic here gets to what Jefferson, among other brilliant folks, saw as the ultimate downfall of our republic. His fear was that the masses would eventually get to the point of voting themselves pay raises and would destroy the system. He was absolutely right. The system advocated here would preclude the demise he foresaw.

I don't like that the system would limit freedom so I struggle with it. I think term limits accomplish something similar in that it limits the need for fundraising on the part of incumbents and limits the power of deep pockets. True campaign finance reform would get us closer.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Well said.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#75
#75
fl0at said:
Contracting and the like is extraordinarily similar to welfare. And in your system, these recipients will be in a position to ensure they continue to receive their benefits, by ensuring that their vote goes to the individual who will supply them with contracts.

How many defense contractors put out a product immediately? Do you consider the F22 to be similar to walking into Target, giving $20 and getting a Lawn chair?

If not, defense contracting is an investment, not a service. Not a product. It is an investment in a future product to be developed, tested and deployed if useful.

Entitlements are also an investment. It is an investment in, at its root (arguably ineffective, but never-the-less), the future of the individual.

Parasites, such as myself, are invested in, so that one day, we can give back. Other "parasites," are invested into, in the hopes that they come out of their situation... and give back.

How is this different than defense contracting? Both require money. Both require time. Both are investments.

And in theory, both give returns in the long term.

I thought we were talking long, but apparently, you are selling short.
Click to expand...



I agree with you on voting rights. I do wish measures could be taken to lessen the influence of of large contributors on politicians.

BTW, you are NOT a parasite. You and those like you are an investment in America's future.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top