A Modest Proposal: Limiting the Franchise

[Ironside]

CR's point is not based on the idea that being a taxpayer will make someone a wiser or more knowledgeable voter.

The goal is to rely on enlightened self interest. If someone is paying for something, they tend to pay attention and try to get more value out of it. I think you can make an argument that this is over-simplifying, but then again, maybe not.

As Lemur pointed out, it's the combination of lowering taxes combined with more entitlements. According to the enlighted self interest, it should be the middle class voter, since the guy paying no taxes shouldn't have a problem rising them... That tax money also suffer from a certain abstraction, adding that many people can barely handle their own money properly and that we have considerble evidence that enlighted self interest is a myth in most cases.

I am disturbed that people find this is a good thing.

It's a population boom suggestion, combined with a crypto communist plot to bring down the current economic system. Or they didn't think this through, but I like my suggestion better.


I think I covered the complications with the suggestions in the other thread, but I will add that the lower class has often been using a very successful (for the surviviors...) method when the power dissonance is too large. Create chaos, like riots (in the rich areas) or uprisings. Gets cheaper to increase rights or lower taxes than dealing with the disruptions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Restriction of sufferage, in America of all places?

Why not take the vote away from married women, and those not of "natural" American origin. This whole proposal is deeply disturbing, and the fact that so many Orgas are giving it any consideration is, frankly, shameful.

[Lemur]

This whole proposal is deeply disturbing, and the fact that so many Orgas are giving it any consideration is, frankly, shameful.

As I said in the OP, this would require a constitutional amendment, and if you think an amendment stripping a large percentage of the population of the franchinse would ever pass ... um, no. Just no.

This is a thought exercise. We're taking CR's radical, politically impossible proposal, and we're treating it seriously, poking it from several angles and asking lots of questions. Why should this be "shameful"?

Personally, I'm still hung up on how to differentiate who's a net government payer versus payee. Tricky stuff.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As I said in the OP, this would require a constitutional amendment, and if you think an amendment stripping a large percentage of the population of the franchinse would ever pass ... um, no. Just no.

This is a thought exercise. We're taking CR's radical, politically impossible proposal, and we're treating it seriously, poking it from several angles and asking lots of questions. Why should this be "shameful"?

Personally, I'm still hung up on how to differentiate who's a net government payer versus payee. Tricky stuff.

why is this "shameful", because universal suffrage should be an unquestionable right in a democracy, especially one like America which fought two Civil Wars and had about a Century of unrest over the issue.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

We don't have universal suffrage, no country does.

And there is a reason given for it, what is your reason for "taking away the vote from married women"?

[Rhyfelwyr]

what is your reason for "taking away the vote from married women"?

It would be like giving a second vote to their husbands, and therefore be unfair on single men.

[drone]

especially one like America which fought two Civil Wars and had about a Century of unrest over the issue.

[CountArach]

I fail to accept the premise that decreasing Government spending is desirable. Until a convincing argument can be made for that then I think any further debate on how is completely and utterly superfluous.

Oh and I'm glad to hear that I'm a "leech" and not worthy of the vote. Thanks for that guys.

[InsaneApache]

In a play on words. No representation without taxation.

It's gone downhill since women got the vote.

[PanzerJaeger]

I fail to accept the premise that decreasing Government spending is desirable. Until a convincing argument can be made for that then I think any further debate on how is completely and utterly superfluous.

Greece.

Oh and I'm glad to hear that I'm a "leech" and not worthy of the vote. Thanks for that guys.

Do you plan on living off of the government for the rest of your life without paying taxes? From what I know about you, I assume that, in fact, you are planning on being a productive member of society. Thus, you are not a leech.

Utilizing government aid for education or short-term assistance isn't the problem. That's what it's there for. It's the people who live off of welfare programs all year and then get a nice check from the government while the rest of us are writing one.

The brilliant Dr. Sowell makes the case well, all the way back in the 80s. How far things have fallen...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A Civil War over not voting for politicians in London, then another over slavery and state's Rights, then the Klan etc., etc., until the Civil Rights movement (mostly) brought them down in the 1960's.

[KukriKhan]

A Civil War over not voting for politicians in London, then another over slavery and state's Rights, then the Klan etc., etc., until the Civil Rights movement (mostly) brought them down in the 1960's.

I got that, after a moment's pause (from the POV of UK, our so-called Revolutionary War WAS a UK/Colonial Civil War).

As we've seen throughout history, "rights" (or entitlements), once given, are almost impossible to rescind later. So, as noted by the OP, limiting the franchise is next to impossible, particularly given the entanglement of subsidies, shared resources (highways, military, etc).

Perhaps a better approach to the "what about the Receivers of Tax money?" dilema is: consider received tax money as a Retainer Fee, like a lawyer to whom one pays a small fee for routine consultations (more, and hourly, charges for specific work). So every recipient of tax dollars is a potential - and sometimes actual - government employee. Getting welfare & food stamps? I might need you to pick up trash in Memorial Park on Tuesdays. Getting subsidies for milk production on your farm? Howsabout helping the road crew filling potholes on I-75 at mile marker 27 next Thursday, near your property?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

why is this "shameful", because universal suffrage should be an unquestionable right in a democracy, especially one like America which fought two Civil Wars and had about a Century of unrest over the issue.

We are not now and never have been a democracy. Our founders crafted a republic that embodied many democratic principles. Many (most) of them LOATHED the idea of universal suffrage viewing it as nothing more than a semi-formalized mob rule. They wanted voters to be persons with a stake in their community, persons who would be impacted by the results of their selections for government offices and who would pay attention.

I actually believe that Rabbit's suggestion in the OP would have met with far more support from the founders than most of us today would expect. It was not at all uncommon for there to be property restrictions on voters in the early states (insuring that "stake in the community" quality) and the Constitution itself did NOT obviate such restrictions on the part of the several states. If I recall correctly, there was even some discussion about basing representation on number of voters rather than on population, but that this was shot down by the Southern states whose states had far fewer voters than people (especially when the enslaved population was included).

[Megas Methuselah]

Why not take the vote away from ... those not of "natural" American origin.

I would TOTALLY support that!

[Beskar]

I believe Natives have a tax-free status or something similar? I am not completely sure, as I have nothing to do with America.

But if so, it would be removing their right to vote with CR's policies.

[Megas Methuselah]

I believe Natives have a tax-free status or something similar? I am not completely sure, as I have nothing to do with America.

But if so, it would be removing their right to vote with CR's policies.

I have no idea how it works below that little border to the south, but here in Canada, we don't pay taxes on reserve land only; but I've grown up in an urban area, so I don't really understand the full extent of that. Anyways, with the creation of the little urban reserve plots in the city, native-controlled gas stations emerged and they are very popular. Not only do they sell cheap gas (which is popular in itself), but if you have a treaty card with ya, taxes are... gone.

Bah, human beings only arrived in North America 12,000–10,000 years ago, which means we're all Johnny-come-latelies.

The earliest I've heard was 40,000, and the latest 10,000. I might have read that in an aged book (many of my history books are old things, bought from old peoples' flea markets and garage sales), but if you have some supporting evidence, I'd be willing to re-check my source(s).

[Beskar]

The French natives were the first, acrossing over the frozen north of the atlantic during the ice age, following game.

[Lemur]

The earliest I've heard was 40,000, and the latest 10,000. I might have read that in an aged book (many of my history books are old things, bought from old peoples' flea markets and garage sales), but if you have some supporting evidence, I'd be willing to re-check my source(s).

Gonna make this a quickie so I don't permanently derail my own thread (although it looks as though CR isn't going to respond in defense of his thesis, so I guess this topic's done for anyway):

Source: A new study published November 26, 2007 (see PLoS Genetics), which was led by University of Michigan and University College London researchers, seems to suggest that the Bering land bridge migration occurred during one specific time period which was 12,000 years ago, that every human who migrated across the land bridge all came from Eastern Siberia during that time period, and that every native American is directly descended from that same group of Eastern Siberian migrants. The claim suggests that a "unique genetic variant widespread in natives across both continents - suggesting that the first humans in the Americas came in a single migration or multiple waves from a single source, not in waves of migrations from different sources".

[Beskar]

although it looks as though CR isn't going to respond in defense of his thesis, so I guess this topic's done for anyway

Wherever capitalism appears, in pursuit of its mission of exploitation, there will Socialism, fertilized by misery, watered by tears, and vitalized by agitation be also found, unfurling its class-struggle banner and proclaiming its mission of emancipation.

[Lemur]

I would TOTALLY support that!

Bah, human beings only arrived in North America 12,000–10,000 years ago, which means we're all Johnny-come-latelies.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am disturbed that people find this is a good thing.

Restriction of sufferage, in America of all places?

Why not take the vote away from married women, and those not of "natural" American origin. This whole proposal is deeply disturbing, and the fact that so many Orgas are giving it any consideration is, frankly, shameful.

I agree with these two completely. It is utterly shameful to have this right wing dream be considered as valid even for moment. All it is, is a proposal to take away the vote from people who live a life that the right wing people here disagree with. I have an idea, lets take away the right to vote to all of those who own another person through the enslavement of capitalism, so they dont perpetuate the economic slavery that we are experiencing in the US. OH WAIT, THAT MAKES ME A CRAZY LEFT WING NUT HAHAHAH DISREGARD THAT. Taking away the vote from people who use the government is perfectly ok because after all they are just lazy while those who run businesses are hard working and as long as they work hard at exploiting people then they deserve a vote. If any business owner was lax in his exploitation however, I would need to sadly inform him he wont be able to vote for the Republican Party this year.