A Modest Proposal: Limiting the Franchise

[Crazed Rabbit]

So let me get this straight. If you would get in a accident and would have no capacity to work.You should not vote anymore as you are not profitable member of society anymore. If you would get a cancer and loose your ability to work you should not vote.If you would be too old to make money anymore after lifetime of work.You should not have right to vote anymore as you create no profit? Whats next? Maybe just put every citizen that is not being profitable out of their misery as they are not creating income. Maybe compassion should be put out of its misery as it is definetely not profitable?

It is far too easy to pick some group and blame problems on them, rather then to try and find a solution to a problem.

This doesn't have anything to do with 'profitability'. Like I said before, it's fine if a person makes zero dollars; they can still vote. It's only when handouts outwiegh taxes that they can't vote.

The key point is that all the people involved were essentially British

More key is the fact that they didn't see themselves as British; the colonies had developed their own identity.

To supsequently reject the principle of universal sufferage that you have established in your Constitution belittles the entire American project, and makes that original war look like nothing but a petty and pointless quibble over taxes levied to pay for British soldiers stationed in the Colonies.

Kindly point out exactly where the constitution mentions universal suffrage.

I'm not a huge fan of your Founding Fathers, I don't think their support of a proposal is an accolade worth having in this day and age.

And that's why Britain is what it is today.

CR

[Seamus Fermanagh]

[QUOTE=Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla;2480868]IA is largely correct. I hesitate to provide a history lesson to our American friends regarding their own nation, but approximately 1/3 of the Colonial Population of the 13 Colonies were loyalists, while many soldiers (like Washington) turned coats and joined the rebels. Also, the US Congress was first formed to present grievences to HM Government, not to start a rebellion. The key point is that all the people involved were essentially British, if you saw the recent Drama John Adams, you may have noticed the accents. They are essentially a varriation on the theme of West Country Yokal, leaning heavily towards Somerset./[QUOTE]

I'd read that things were about 30% Tory, 30% Rebel, and 40% "why don't you all leave me alone so I can raise my family."

Washington was a VA officer, not a British Army or British Army native contingent officer. He was no more a "turncoat" than any other rebel in the USA.

The First Continental Congress was, as you rightly note, a collection of English subject lodging grievances. The Second Continental declared independcy.

Our accents were already divirging, but we were much more closely aligned with English English at the time. We have one little island in the Chesapeake where, until radio, the predominant local accent was closer to Elizebethan-style English than anything else.

In common with all Civil Wars the American Revolutionary War was bloody, with brother slaying brother, and though the Colonial Elite established an initially very British restriction of sufferage, the mythos of the war provoked your country to extend that sufferage continually at a rate that put it (generally speaking) ahead of the UK....To supsequently reject the principle of universal sufferage that you have established in your Constitution belittles the entire American project, and makes that original war look like nothing but a petty and pointless quibble over taxes levied to pay for British soldiers stationed in the Colonies.

Universal suffrage was NEVER a principle enshrined in the Constitution. Yes, I think you make and excellent point that it became part of our collective mythos and that outlook led us to extend the franchise more and more. The Constitution itself, however, is relatively silent about who shall be given the suffrage, leaving that up to the several states.

[Beskar]

And that's why Britain is what it is today.

CR

It is funny that in many ways we are more politically enlightened, but still have the damned monarchy. Would expect us to be the backward ones.

[Centurion1]

^ you like your traditions. nothing wrong with that. at least the british have some pride about their history.

[Beskar]

^ you like your traditions. nothing wrong with that. at least the british have some pride about their history.

Hah, be careful with those "you". I would be happy to see the Monarchy go tomorrow.

[Centurion1]

ok well....... normal brits like their traditions, but 6'6 communist university students DO NOT.

better

[a completely inoffensive name]

First part has some philosophical points worthy of response, but I will table that until later.

I await your thoughts on that matter.

1. The National Highway System was Ike's taking yet another good idea from Germany after the war. Up until the explosion of airlift capacity in the 1970s, Highways were the best way to get troops rapidly from one spot to another. It was considered good for the economy and the American vacationer IN ADDITION (which it has been). This highway system is the closest thing we have to pay as you go taxation, since taxes on fuels and on transport by weight cover a good percentage of its cost.

2. Our military is as you describe, but you cannot credit the Founders for that. They wanted state controlled militias with a very small cadre of professionals. A sizeable percentage of them wanted NO standing army or navy, viewing it as a potential tool of oppression. My problems with the military and military policy today are that we are spending too much for our defense and too little to project our power around the globe. We need to get a handle on what we want to do and fund things accordingly.

3. Land held as part of the "common wealth" has not been a bad idea.

ACIN, you need to remember that most of us conservatives do not want people to starve, do not want people to come down with dreadful illnesses, and do not reject the idea that a federal government plays an important role in things (and should). We SHOULD be receiving more from the government than we give. Government is supposed to help us accomplish those things that there are no reasonable way for an individual to accomplish. The smallest and "lowest" unit of government that can accomplish these things is the level we should want it done at.

1. It doesn't matter where Eisenhower got the idea from. The point is that Eisenhower a fiscal conservative expanded government hugely by signing and pushing that legislation through. Even if it is paid for in gas taxes, Eisenhower put a new responsibility on the Federal government and thus it had to expand to accommodate the new responsibility which has given expansive benefits to all citizens worth way more then the taxes we pay today to upkeep them.

2. The Founders turned their back for the most part on the idea of state run militias. Anyone with a brain recognized the failure of the Articles of Confederation, and even those reluctant and fervent in their beliefs of such limited military power succumbed when the time came. Examples: Washington with the Whiskey Rebellion and Jefferson (possible candidate for the dictionaries picture for idealist) when handling North Africa and France in the lead up to the War of 1812.

Other then that, I agree with the problems on defense spending. Decrease the size of the military and get rid of the expensive bases everywhere and instead fund every possible avenue of Research and Development. Our enemies are no longer governments with large armies and even to those who claim that war with China is on our doorstep (which is impossible if you even look at the economic situation the two have with each other) they have to recognize that what makes American military the best is not its size but its technological superiority.

3. I'm glad to see you are reasonable.

I understand fully that there are conservatives that are completely reasonable and have valid points such as you, (believe it or not I used to subscribe to exactly what you are saying and was thinking once of joining the Ron Paul wagon) but no longer can you say that "most" conservatives are like that. The conservatives of today are those you see in the Tea Parties, people who are unhappy with their lives who have been told that it is because of government, who shout slogans they have heard repeated over and over again by Fox News, who associate with those who have terrible and racist posters of Obama as Hitler and Stalin and as a Tribal Leader of an indigenous African culture. That is conservatism of today, William F. Buckley is dead and his days are long gone.

The conservative ideology is broken and its proponents in the mainstream all seem to be Dick Cheney and the other big neo-cons or the "new wave" of Tea Parties waving offensive signs and showing ignorance and hostility when questioned about details. Obama and the Democrats are the only ones attempting to tackle the problems that need to be fixed while Republicans sit and shout no in unison offering no solutions of their own. This is no longer 1776, our government responds and listens to us when we demand it, and the majority of people live in urban areas and are highly specialized in one field, no longer able to function as an independent individual on the distant lands of Ohio or them new territories west of the mighty Mississippi. It's time we grow up and recognize that social structure is entirely gray and never black and white when we are talking about "getting more gov. handouts then paying back in taxes" and instead of suggesting removing the right to vote to those we disagree with "for the good of the countries fiscal responsibility" lets brainstorm some ideas on how to reform welfare to make sure its only giving to those who actually need it better then before, or even gasp recognize that life doesnt work exactly how you want it and that yes, there will always be some loophole where people abuse the system. As long as it is checked at kept at a minimum, then we should move on to more important things.

[pevergreen]

You guys need a much simpler tax system, like the Australian one.



See, GST is simple!

[Husar]

This doesn't have anything to do with 'profitability'. Like I said before, it's fine if a person makes zero dollars; they can still vote. It's only when handouts outwiegh taxes that they can't vote.

How much bureacracy would it take to figure out how much a person generates in tax money though? There's not just income tax, there's also value added tax, sometimes liquor tax, tax on fuel, tax on this, tax on that, everybody would have to send in their bills and recipes for the government to check on all the taxes they paid over a certain period and that would require a lot of bureacracy which I thought you think costs a lot of money and is a bad thing in general?
And then the people Kage mentions could hardly pay more taxes than they get in handouts as they would have to live from handouts alone, more or less. Aperson that makes zero dollars can hardly pay more taxes than zero, right? Now a person getting a handout of 2000$ a month can hardly pay more taxes than 2000$ right? So anyone who cannot work, even if it is not their own fault, would be excluded from voting as I see it. Or maybe you can show me how a person with zero job income can survive and pay more taxes than they receive in handouts?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

More key is the fact that they didn't see themselves as British; the colonies had developed their own identity.

I dissagree, the fact they complained about taxation without representation and formed a Congree to present grievences to London proves you wrong. Americans became different through rebellion, rather than rebelling because they were different.

Kindly point out exactly where the constitution mentions universal suffrage.

Your Constitution has been ammended to establish that race, gender, property qualifications, wealth, ancestry etc., cannot be used to restrict sufferage.

And that's why Britain is what it is today.

CR

A nation with a democratically elected government, secular liberty, freedom of speech, peace, and the rule of law?

Not to mention a working health service.

I'd read that things were about 30% Tory, 30% Rebel, and 40% "why don't you all leave me alone so I can raise my family."

That's pretty much the defnition of a Civil War then, isn't it?

Washington was a VA officer, not a British Army or British Army native contingent officer. He was no more a "turncoat" than any other rebel in the USA.

His commission might have been in a Colonial militia rather than in a British Regiment of Foot, but he was still clearly a British soldier, who fought the French Canadians and served British generals. He did turn coats when he fought against the British.

Why he chose to do so is a different issue.

Universal suffrage was NEVER a principle enshrined in the Constitution. Yes, I think you make and excellent point that it became part of our collective mythos and that outlook led us to extend the franchise more and more. The Constitution itself, however, is relatively silent about who shall be given the suffrage, leaving that up to the several states.

Your Constitution has since been ammended, what you have suggested in this thread is a reversal of that extension of sufferage.

[KukriKhan]

I guess what's at the heart of CR's "pay to vote" proposal (since I assume he has good intentions, not bad) is not so much restricting the vote; that would be an unintended side-effect. What I think he seeks, is a valuation of the vote by the citizenry, some way to better establish more of a tendancy to cherish and use wisely this right. And this proposal seeks to establish that voting wisdom by mandating more "skin in the game" on the part of the citizenry. Basically: "If it's YOUR money (taxes) being spent that is under discussion, you'd naturally be inclined to be more frugal." vs "It's federal money; let's toss a bit there and there and over there too.".

[Tellos Athenaios]

A good way to go about that is establish a totalitarian regime, oppress some masses and then have a revolution and establish a democracy. That usually does impart a sense of importance of the ballot box on the citizens. ...

Anyway, complicated quid-pro-quo based schemes do not fundamentally work here (there are too many practical complications in assessing the quo, for instance would you need to include charity work as essentially giving back to the community thus supporting/repaying your government/community?); and you will only serve as the high road to political suicide (if not to being lynched by an angry mob or assassinated) for the politician to propose it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This is always the key conservative word thrown around. They didn't earn their money, they didnt earn this and that. Define earn. Did manual labor? Because then illegal immigrants do most of the earning in this country but for some reason you dont want them to vote. Are we including white collar jobs and management? Well, what about the bank and insurance CEOs who got billions of dollars of bonuses, did they earn that money, are you going to take away their vote? Or what about the speculators and manipulators on wall street who simply micro manage buying and selling with a computer doing a thousand transactions a second, making a lot of money that way from the comfort of their house, did they earn that money simply by buying up oil stock and then spreading the rumor that oil is going to disappear in ten years? Are you going to take away their vote? Oh no, because that money didnt come from the government, which automatically means it had to be earned since any money gained from the free market is earned money, oh most definitely.

See CR, this is where I get annoyed. If you want to suggest an idea on making everyone who actually earned their money being the only ones who can vote, then do that and include the CEOs and speculators who pushed the market and the law to the limit. If you want to suggest an idea that simply punishes the poor and promotes the idea that everyone who gets more from the gov then they give is lazy then do that. Don't suggest the latter under the guise of the former.

Well, as CR notes somewhere in one of his responses, he was not saying someone had to earn money to vote, simply that they had to receive equal to or less from the government than they earned.

The point is NOT to castigate those receiving government funding as "lazy," but to disallow the vote to those with a demonstratable personal interest in government payouts as it would make it too easy for some political party/coalition to buy votes and retain power. I suspect that CR is hoping that self interest would cause those on the dole to try to get off that dole so as to be able to exercise the suffrage. The U.S. Constitution, in its current form, does not allow voting for federal office to be limited in this fashion.

You also seem to be "under-whelmed" by the means many individuals choose to seek wealth in a service/financial economy. I have a belief in the value of capitalism and the market (albeit regulated to minimize fraud) as the best available adjudicator of who "wins" and "loses." I do not believe that it would be hard to functionally define income for this suffrage approach. You can certainly disagree with it on a "rights" level, but we've had a large arm of government (the IRS) defining income for some time.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, as CR notes somewhere in one of his responses, he was not saying someone had to earn money to vote, simply that they had to receive equal to or less from the government than they earned.

That's cool. Again, answer my original post by answering what "earned" means. How does one "earn" the money and in what ways does one "not earn" money?

The point is NOT to castigate those receiving government funding as "lazy," but to disallow the vote to those with a demonstratable personal interest in government payouts as it would make it too easy for some political party/coalition to buy votes and retain power. I suspect that CR is hoping that self interest would cause those on the dole to try to get off that dole so as to be able to exercise the suffrage. The U.S. Constitution, in its current form, does not allow voting for federal office to be limited in this fashion.

How about instead of punishing those who are simply working in their own self interest when it comes to the gov. buying their interest (which I thought was prided among conservatives? oh wait, this is gov. so for some reason that is unacceptable while CEOs of banks who did on a scale of a 1000 times more magnitude are simply "taking risks" in the market) you make it so the gov. cant buy the publics interest by putting stricter limits on what goes into a bill or even better imo, take that idea of revoking the 17th amendment (direct election of senators) which i agree with and then have it so that all financial bills must be presented in the Senate only instead of the House only.

You also seem to be "under-whelmed" by the means many individuals choose to seek wealth in a service/financial economy. I have a belief in the value of capitalism and the market (albeit regulated to minimize fraud) as the best available adjudicator of who "wins" and "loses." I do not believe that it would be hard to functionally define income for this suffrage approach. You can certainly disagree with it on a "rights" level, but we've had a large arm of government (the IRS) defining income for some time.

Not really in regards to that first sentence. I'm just "under-whelmed" with how the top executives at many major banks and insurance companies operated to get some large sums of money (betting against themselves while buying up and selling crappy bundles of loans while saying they were certified good buys). I don't have a "belief" in the market, that is just as blinding as a belief in just about anything. I know the positives and benefits capitalism and free markets bring to the public and the world at large but I also recognize its many major cons and detriments to the public. And I don't really care about we define income, my entire beginning of the post was about defining "earned".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The point is NOT to castigate those receiving government funding as "lazy," but to disallow the vote to those with a demonstratable personal interest in government payouts as it would make it too easy for some political party/coalition to buy votes and retain power. I suspect that CR is hoping that self interest would cause those on the dole to try to get off that dole so as to be able to exercise the suffrage. The U.S. Constitution, in its current form, does not allow voting for federal office to be limited in this fashion.

This whole idea assumes that only those recieving a net benefit from the government can be "bought". This is demonstrably untrue, not only does almost everyone recieve a net benefit in infastructure, etc. but the votes of the most wealthy can still be "bought" as well. David Cameron has said he will cut inheritence tax, so that's part of the reason Banquo is voting for him (as is my Uncle).

Two men in the UK's highest tax band.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The difference there is that Banquo and others paying high taxes still contribute more to government coffers than they get in subsidies.

When a political party tries to buy off the poor, then the governments spends much more on those people than it takes in. So, indeed, everyone can be bought, but buying off the poor leads to debt and deficits.

Also, Banquo mentioned a desire to see the inheritance tax reduced because paying it requires selling off assets and firing employees - ie making the less fortunate even less fortunate.

CR

[Husar]

So, indeed, everyone can be bought, but buying off the poor leads to debt and deficits.

So does buying off the rich, unless you also spend less, spending less on the poor for example would be an option, in the end the poor get almost nothing and they can't do anything about it because they cannot vote. So they become criminals for example. Then you have to fight criminality and that costs a lot of money....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The difference there is that Banquo and others paying high taxes still contribute more to government coffers than they get in subsidies.

When a political party tries to buy off the poor, then the governments spends much more on those people than it takes in. So, indeed, everyone can be bought, but buying off the poor leads to debt and deficits.

Also, Banquo mentioned a desire to see the inheritance tax reduced because paying it requires selling off assets and firing employees - ie making the less fortunate even less fortunate.

CR

So it's ok to be bought off if you're Rich?

Long live the American Dream!

Many poor people contribute, just not fiscally. What about the low-wage, state-employed dustman that takes out your rubbish. You'd be pretty screwed without him, but you think he shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[Beskar]

Reminds me of the Heinz's dilemna.

A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.

Should Heinz have broken into the store to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

[Crazed Rabbit]

So it's ok to be bought off if you're Rich?

Long live the American Dream!

Many poor people contribute, just not fiscally. What about the low-wage, state-employed dustman that takes out your rubbish. You'd be pretty screwed without him, but you think he shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Garbagemen in the US are generally paid a decent wage, and by private (state contracted) companies as well.

As for people being 'bought off' by the government ; it's not okay, but it is a fact of life, and at least with rich people they're still net contributors to the government. And reducing the estate tax helps more than just the rich.

Should Heinz have broken into the store to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

Definitely.

One thing about your scenario, what's to stop companies from simply producing the drug as well? And why does the druggist refuse to be paid later? Why does he not consider that charging the maximum people will pay is not always the most profitable way? IN a free market, other companies would have seen the economic profit the druggist was making and entered the market themselves.

It's a very arbitrary scenario. Also, the druggist didn't charge ten times what it cost him to produce the drug; the drug was only ten times as expensive as the materials. Labor, various overhead costs (lab equipment, power, infrastructure, etc.), would have made the drug more expensive than $200 to produce.

CR

[Strike For The South]

I leave cases of beer for my garbage men.

We throw away allot of things, probably some that we shouldnt

[Beskar]

Definitely.

One thing about your scenario, what's to stop companies from simply producing the drug as well? And why does the druggist refuse to be paid later? Why does he not consider that charging the maximum people will pay is not always the most profitable way? IN a free market, other companies would have seen the economic profit the druggist was making and entered the market themselves.

It's a very arbitrary scenario. Also, the druggist didn't charge ten times what it cost him to produce the drug; the drug was only ten times as expensive as the materials. Labor, various overhead costs (lab equipment, power, infrastructure, etc.), would have made the drug more expensive than $200 to produce.

CR

I copy and pasted the scenario, but you can apply it to the real world. People cannot afford the healthcare, because the pharmacies charge people more money than they can pay (obviously upper middle class and above can pay). So Heinz cannot afford the drug, and the companies have it patented (don't forget about that), simply don't care, as they want to get as much bang for their buck as they can.

Especially when you see the drug prices in America, compared to lets say Canada. Because Canada forces the companies to stop ripping people off, the companies end up selling it for far cheaper in Canada, because they can still get the profit.

As much as your intentions for a free market you have idealised to occur, the world doesn't work that way. People are greedy and selfish and they don't care if Heinz dies in a ditch along with his wife. The corperate CEO shrugs his shoulder and brags about his profit margins.

While you may feel I am an idealist, in many ways, I am and accept that. Unfortunately, your Free Market dream in many ways is more of a pipe-line. The reason we have regulation on corperations is to stop their immoral (sometimes arguably amoral) practises. Yes, this means the economy isn't a good as it should be, I sure we could have a far higher GDP by paying $5 a week wage to employees and mass selling our products elsewhere, like they do in India, but it is because we value human life and standard of living, that we don't. One of the perks of living in a Liberal Democracy, we are not treated as as those employees elsewhere in the developing world.

[Ronin]

are you people actually advocating that the right to vote should have to be bought?!?!

have you gone off your medication recently??

[Rhyfelwyr]

The healthiest form of democracy is one that looks after the rights of all its citizens.

With equal voting rights granted to every individual, this naturally allows the largest group to pursue their own benefit to the detriment of the state as a whole.

So if 70% of the population are workers/peasantry, 25% are burgeoisie, and 5% nobility, then with everyone having equal voting rights, 30% of the population will be wholly exluded from the running of the country, and that is hardly acceptable.

Therefore, it would be much better for the good of society as a whole if all classes were represented equally. If there were, say, 90 seats in parliament, 30 should be given to each class, regardless of their population share. This is what a liberal democracy is all about - representing everyone, not just a tyranny of the majority.

Without such checks and balances, the growing benefit-scrounging underclass will simply demand more and more from the government for nothing in return. And then they protest when it all goes wrong - and another Greece happens.

[Beskar]

So if 70% of the population are workers/peasantry, 25% are burgeoisie, and 5% nobility, then with everyone having equal voting rights, 30% of the population will be wholly exluded from the running of the country, and that is hardly acceptable.

Therefore, it would be much better for the good of society as a whole if all classes were represented equally. If there were, say, 90 seats in parliament, 30 should be given to each class, regardless of their population share. This is what a liberal democracy is all about - representing everyone, not just a tyranny of the majority.

Without such checks and balances, the growing benefit-scrounging underclass will simply demand more and more from the government for nothing in return. And then they protest when it all goes wrong - and another Greece happens.

Wait wait, what?!?! 5% of the population should have control of 33.3% the power?!

The nobles/super rich/burgeoisie have enough power as it is, through pure unadulted bribery *cough* lobbying, campaign donations and free board seats *cough*.

That is a terrible idea.


PS: I think you are confusing what burgeoisie are as well. They are the owners of the means of production. May it be a factory, land or shares. The "Middle Class" are simply wealthier proletariat who sometimes mistakenly think themselves as burgeoisie because they like to feel better than the ones below them. This doesn't really include 'small businesses' as well, because the non-chain cornershop owner has nothing on the CEO of Walmart.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

are you people actually advocating that the right to vote should have to be bought?!?!

have you gone off your medication recently??

No one has advocated such. Nor should they.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No one has advocated such. Nor should they.

That first sentence is disingenuous. You are proposing this scenario:

Gov: As long as I am getting more money from you then you are getting from me, you can vote.
Me: Ok, I got a 1000 from you, here is 2000.
Gov: Ok, you may vote.

This is the scenario of having to buy your vote:

Gov: I want some money from you if you want to vote.
Me: Ok here is a 1000.
Gov: Ok, now you can vote.

It's the same thing with different wording. In the end, you want to vote? Give the gov. your money. Hilarious that this is coming from conservatives. I will await your response where you attack the details (why didnt you just give 1001?!?!) instead of confronting the bigger point.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Especially when you see the drug prices in America, compared to lets say Canada. Because Canada forces the companies to stop ripping people off, the companies end up selling it for far cheaper in Canada, because they can still get the profit.

They may make more than it costs to manufacture an already designed drug, but pharmaceutical companies can't make back the literal billions of dollars it takes to design and test new drugs without charging more. If it weren't for Americans paying high prices, there would be not nearly as many new, lifesaving drugs.

I'd rather we find some way to force the freeloading countries to jack up their prices so we Americans aren't paying for the development of new drugs for everyone else.

You moan about patents - guess how many drugs would be made without them? Very, very few. There would be no way to recoup the large investments, so lifesaving drugs wouldn't be made in the first place. And no one would even have the chance to use the drugs. You can't pretend that companies will still spend billions to make drugs when they can't make the money back if your plan was implemented.

Also, it is sad how you dehumanise your political targets.

This is the scenario of having to buy your vote:

Gov: I want some money from you if you want to vote.
Me: Ok here is a 1000.
Gov: Ok, now you can vote.

You are incorrect. No one is proposing that except you.

I said, many times, that is incorrect. The government, in my scenario, does not require money for someone to vote. If you are not getting any handouts from the government, than you don't have to pay anything in taxes.

CR

[jabarto]

They may make more than it costs to manufacture an already designed drug, but pharmaceutical companies can't make back the literal billions of dollars it takes to design and test new drugs without charging more. If it weren't for Americans paying high prices, there would be not nearly as many new, lifesaving drugs.

I'd rather we find some way to force the freeloading countries to jack up their prices so we Americans aren't paying for the development of new drugs for everyone else.

You really shoudln't say things that are demonstrably false. You know, like this.

[a completely inoffensive name]

T
You are incorrect. No one is proposing that except you.

I said, many times, that is incorrect. The government, in my scenario, does not require money for someone to vote. If you are not getting any handouts from the government, than you don't have to pay anything in taxes.

CR

A. I'm not proposing that. I'm saying you are.
B. I have already stated that we all receive more from the gov. then we pay in taxes. Your logic is flawed no matter how you look at it.