A Modest Proposal: Limiting the Franchise

[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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

In my system, every individual has 33% of parliament to represent his interests. Without it, 30% of the population will never be able to make their voices heard.

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.

In terms of benefits and taxes etc, the interests of the lower middle-class have probably diverged enough from the proletariat. Although I guess we could make them a fourth estate and give each 25% of the seats.

Surely this system is the best way to ensure that the needs of the workers, employers, and aristocrats are met?

[Beskar]

In my system, every individual has 33% of parliament to represent his interests. Without it, 30% of the population will never be able to make their voices heard.

Surely this system is the best way to ensure that the needs of the workers, employers, and aristocrats are met?

No, it is a horrible idea. I don't want some one randomly born from a family of interbreeding to have the at least the equivalent of 3,135 votes compared to my one, even though I can make a far superior choice than they could.

The blue-bloods should disappear as a footnote on the pages of History.

Needs of the aristocrats.. it is a complete joke, they shouldn't even exist in the 21st century.

At least with the burgeoisie, I will allow them to phase out like a ghost, with the aristocrats, bring in the guillotine.

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, it is a horrible idea. I don't want some one randomly born from a family of interbreeding to have the at least the equivalent of 3,135 votes compared to my one, even though I can make a far superior choice than they could.

Why think in terms of votes? Votes have no value in and of themselves, instead they are simply the means by which we gain our representation. Therefore, instead of dealing with the mechanics of voting, my system tackles representation more directly, giving every person an equal voice in parliament. You still have not adressed the issue whereby the interests of 30% of the population will be wholly made redundant in your system.

We live in modern liberal democracies, not the old-style tyranny of the majority style democracies. For one segment of the population to have a monopoly of seats/power in parliament is unacceptable.

The only issue with my system is that there is the potential for two of the three groups to gang up on the other. To resolve this issue, I propose giving a monarch power equivalent to thirty votes in the parliament (the same number of seats as each group gets). As a non-partisan actor, the monarch could side with the group singled out, and bring things to a stalemate until a decision more acceptable for all is reached.

The blue-bloods should disappear as a footnote on the pages of History.

Needs of the aristocrats.. it is a complete joke, they shouldn't even exist in the 21st century.

At least with the burgeoisie, I will allow them to phase out like a ghost, with the aristocrats, bring in the guillotine.

You sound like some sort of revolutionary... if you place the interests of international class structures over the good of the state in which you participate, then you have no place debating how to further the good of that state for all its citizens. Communist!

[Crazed Rabbit]

aka, I never even said anything postive nor negative against patents, my "moan" was reminding you that they exist. Then you attacked me reminding you they existed, saying I am hurting the poor companies, when it was you who said "what's to stop companies from simply producing the drug as well?"

Is this the end of the free market ideology for Crazed Rabbit? The distressed he showed as he basically attacked his own question? Will this expose the other hypocrisies in his logic and he will turn to the light? Tune in next time.

Don't be ridiculous. You proposed a extremely simplistic scenario. Changing the scenario will of course change my answer. Making it realistic - like adding patents - means getting rid of the nonsense about some druggist making some miracle drug by changing some material. Making a drug requires a large company, years of research, design, and testing, and then years to get government approval.

Patents are part of the free market, like copyrights on books. And the free market effects monopoly pricing as well - driving the cost of a product down to a price that leads to the most profitability overall, not for the most profit per individual drug sold. The druggist in your example doesn't understand the free market. A savvy company might practice stratified pricing - charging more for those willing to pay for it and less for those who aren't able to pay as much. One real life example is Australia's high video game prices.

You say there's a gap in my logic? Can you answer me this; what would happen if you took away patents and put price controls on all drugs? Almost no new drugs. That's no mere hole in your logic, it's an abyss. It represents a fundamental ignorance about how taking incentives away will stop people from creating products and inanely assumes that such creation will always continue and companies can just be forced to sell products for cheaper with no consequence on supply.

To counter Beskar's example you even said other companies would start producing the drug and the price would go down via free market, but that is not possible with patents, except if they can find a different drug with similar effects.
So at first you go and praise the free market and then you say patents are necessary because on a free market the companies couldn't survive.
So how could the companies solve this problem on a free market or does the free market fail whenever reasearch and developent are involved?
Maybe there should be a maximum length for patents, like one or two years, so the companies can get their R&D costs back and then the free market takes over?

Patents for drugs last 20 years. But since companies apply for patents while developing the drugs, and since testing and government approval takes so long, the applicable length is less than 15 years.

I don't want some one randomly born from a family of interbreeding to have the at least the equivalent of 3,135 votes compared to my one, even though I can make a far superior choice than they could.

Lol, it's like racism, but with class instead of race.

Why think in terms of votes? Votes have no value in and of themselves, instead they are simply the means by which we gain our representation. Therefore, instead of dealing with the mechanics of voting, my system tackles representation more directly, giving every person an equal voice in parliament. You still have not adressed the issue whereby the interests of 30% of the population will be wholly made redundant in your system.

I don't like the idea of dividing up classes and giving each one an equal share in government. First, it goes against one man, one vote. Secondly, it assumes that class is the best divisor of society. Third, I'm focusing on limiting the franchise for those who pay more to the IRS than they receive in checks, food stamps, etc., from the government.

CR

[jabarto]

Patents are part of the free market, like copyrights on books. And the free market effects monopoly pricing as well - driving the cost of a product down to a price that leads to the most profitability overall, not for the most profit per individual drug sold. The druggist in your example doesn't understand the free market. A savvy company might practice stratified pricing - charging more for those willing to pay for it and less for those who aren't able to pay as much. One real life example is Australia's high video game prices.

You say there's a gap in my logic? Can you answer me this; what would happen if you took away patents and put price controls on all drugs? Almost no new drugs. That's no mere hole in your logic, it's an abyss. It represents a fundamental ignorance about how taking incentives away will stop people from creating products and inanely assumes that such creation will always continue and companies can just be forced to sell products for cheaper with no consequence on supply.

Forgot to touch on this earlier. All of the above is dead wrong.

First of all, a patent is a state-granted monpoly. That's the exact opposite of the free market. Second, drugs are dirt cheap to produce. There was a study that showed that antidepressants (among many, many other drugs) cost fractions of a penny per tablet. The reason they're expensive is that they get marked up 500,000% (I'm not making that number up) because the drug companies can charge whatever they want. Know why? Because of patents!

Finally, you're correct that patents offer an incentive for innovation. What you don't seem to get is that they're not the only mechanism that does this. The government can do this (surprise, surprise), as can private institutions that already exist.

[Beskar]

Lol, it's like racism, but with class instead of race.

Class is a social construct. Being an aristocrat is not based on any merit, test for superiority, or any effort. Someone by stating their are an aristocrat is de-facto stating they are superior to me. I am saying, I could very well be more qualified through qualifications and experience than they are, except they are meant to be apparently better than me, because of their birth.

Nothing like racism. An aristocrat they are are better than all the plebs is akin to racism. It would like having a 'black' university professor, who is superior through every means of test, in qualifications, experience, usefulness to society, etc, then have some 'white' who is none of that going "lulz, I was born white, therefore I am better than you!!!".

Ah, mon petit Robespierre, that turned out well the last time. And it is telling, just like before, that it comes down to you alone permitting who lives and who dies.

My apologises for the expression. To be fair, I would just strip them of their aristocracy (their unjustified elite status), not actually bring a return of the guillotine, except to use it on the ribbons tying them to the powers of the state.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

ACIN:

Interesting. My conception of this process does NOT include such a gross quid pro quo. I am suggesting that, on an tax-filing unit (person, couple, family) by tax-filing unit basis, no alterations be made to taxation per se. If the total monies outlaid by the tax filing unit exceed the monies received from the government, then that tax filing unit would be eligible to vote. Given total taxation ranges in the 30-50% zone for most Middle Class USA citizens, I think it unlikely that government officials/office holders could manipulate things in such a fashion that it would create the kind of situation you outline. However, to give you your due, such malfeasance is not impossible so the inverted "vote-buying" scheme you suggest could occur. I think it improbable however, given the basics of taxation.

What I was trying to emphasize is that: a) paying to vote, and b) suffrage rights based only on a certain level of wealth are NOT what CR or I have been discussing.


Beskar:

I think you're accidentally using a "straw man" argument against CR. You are, at least by implication, suggesting that CR is in favor of a completely unfettered an un-regulated free market. Suggesting that "patents undercut the whole thing" is forcing him to defend a position that was not his in the first place. I have little doubt that both CR and I would prefer a less regulated marketplace than would you, but neither of us thinks the "invisible hand" is so perfect a form of guidance that no law, regulation, or what not can be beneficial.

Limited monopolies, such as those granted to Pharmaceutical firms, do have their place. Without the opportunity to profit from innovation, innovation will slow to a crawl.

Regulations to deter and to punish fraud are VITAL to a free market. Caveat Emptor is a reasonable standard, Cacat Emptor is not.

At no point in this discussion has either CR or myself suggested that government be dissolved, that taxation be abolished, or that the market be unfettered completely. A little courtesy please.

[a completely inoffensive name]

ACIN:

Interesting. My conception of this process does NOT include such a gross quid pro quo. I am suggesting that, on an tax-filing unit (person, couple, family) by tax-filing unit basis, no alterations be made to taxation per se. If the total monies outlaid by the tax filing unit exceed the monies received from the government, then that tax filing unit would be eligible to vote. Given total taxation ranges in the 30-50% zone for most Middle Class USA citizens, I think it unlikely that government officials/office holders could manipulate things in such a fashion that it would create the kind of situation you outline. However, to give you your due, such malfeasance is not impossible so the inverted "vote-buying" scheme you suggest could occur. I think it improbable however, given the basics of taxation.

What I was trying to emphasize is that: a) paying to vote, and b) suffrage rights based only on a certain level of wealth are NOT what CR or I have been discussing.

Alright I see your point, and I recognize that you are not advocating paying to vote or suffrage rights based on wealth. However what I am trying to get at is that if you inject any amount of realism here you can easily point out that the vast majority of those who are not paying more then they are receiving are going to be naturally lower wealth people then the upper wealth people, so it naturally (you could say de facto) creates suffrage rights based on wealth since there is not an equal amount of "free loaders" as many conservatives would label them throughout each wealth class.

Also I generally challenge the idea that paying more to the government then you are receiving makes you any more qualified at setting the US on the right course when it comes to fiscal responsibility. I'm sure the bank executives and every wall street investor, broker etc... with his or her hand in the pot jumped on the idea of $700 billion of free government bailout money without any restrictions or oversight.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Alright I see your point, and I recognize that you are not advocating paying to vote or suffrage rights based on wealth. However what I am trying to get at is that if you inject any amount of realism here you can easily point out that the vast majority of those who are not paying more then they are receiving are going to be naturally lower wealth people then the upper wealth people, so it naturally (you could say de facto) creates suffrage rights based on wealth since there is not an equal amount of "free loaders" as many conservatives would label them throughout each wealth class.

Also I generally challenge the idea that paying more to the government then you are receiving makes you any more qualified at setting the US on the right course when it comes to fiscal responsibility. I'm sure the bank executives and every wall street investor, broker etc... with his or her hand in the pot jumped on the idea of $700 billion of free government bailout money without any restrictions or oversight.

Well, you're preaching to the choir about bailouts for the financial institutions. The best that can be said of these bailouts is that they attenuated and stretched out time-wise the damage. It's a tough argument whether a short horrific collapse or a slow dismantling is the more painful route to recovery -- lots of folks hurt either way. To the extent that fraud was committed by some Wall Streeters, there are people needing a bit of time in jail as well as asset confiscation.

Yes, in a de facto fashion, using government largesse v tax assessment will likely screen out a higher percentage of lower-income persons. They are screened out, however, not because they are lower income but because they have a vested interest in pushing for higher benefits for themselves at the expense of other taxpayers. How would you address that concern?

[Beskar]

You sound like some sort of revolutionary... if you place the interests of international class structures over the good of the state in which you participate, then you have no place debating how to further the good of that state for all its citizens. Communist!

State is a construct to the serve then people and ultimately, humanity. Getting rid of oppression and discrimknation from unjustified elites is a big part of that. So the "good of the state" is nothing more than the "good of the people", and the people will benefit from the removal of the strangle-hold suffering power held by the elite.

"For one segment of the population to have a monopoly of seats/power in parliament is unacceptable." - Are you talking about men/women ? Then you are correct. If you are talking about those of years of noble birth and status? Then you are incorrect. As once you strip them of their aristocracy, they join another segment of the population. Also, having a bill of rights stops any exploition of any real minorities, based on sex, race and other various measures.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, it is a horrible idea. I don't want some one randomly born from a family of interbreeding to have the at least the equivalent of 3,135 votes compared to my one, even though I can make a far superior choice than they could.

The blue-bloods should disappear as a footnote on the pages of History.

Needs of the aristocrats.. it is a complete joke, they shouldn't even exist in the 21st century.

At least with the burgeoisie, I will allow them to phase out like a ghost, with the aristocrats, bring in the guillotine.

You do realise "aristocrat" is just a word for, "managed to retain property over the generations", right?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You do realise "aristocrat" is just a word for, "managed to retain property over the generations", right?

I'm sure he does. Unless I've missed something, I suspect Beskar is very much of the "escheat to the state upon death" approach to property.

[Banquo's Ghost]

You do realise "aristocrat" is just a word for, "managed to retain property over the generations", right?

To be fair to Beskar, this is incorrect. Aristocracy is a form of government based on power controlled by a hereditary elite. Property usually, but not essentially, forms part of the qualification. One can legitimately argue that aristocracy barely exists now, only nobility remains.

The blue-bloods should disappear as a footnote on the pages of History.

Needs of the aristocrats.. it is a complete joke, they shouldn't even exist in the 21st century.

At least with the burgeoisie, I will allow them to phase out like a ghost, with the aristocrats, bring in the guillotine.

Ah, mon petit Robespierre, that turned out well the last time. And it is telling, just like before, that it comes down to you alone permitting who lives and who dies.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To be fair to Beskar, this is incorrect. Aristocracy is a form of government based on power controlled by a hereditary elite. Property usually, but not essentially, forms part of the qualification. One can legitimately argue that aristocracy barely exists now, only nobility remains.



Ah, mon petit Robespierre, that turned out well the last time. And it is telling, just like before, that it comes down to you alone permitting who lives and who dies.

Please, my Lord! the peasants must have their illusions!

far more seriously, there are "aristocrats" who have managed to squander great family fortunes, and there are those that have only increased their land, wealth and status over the generations. To be fair, there have been some who have also been up and down, repeatedly.

The important thing though, is that the possesion of large amounts of wealth and property, as you know, tends to come with dependants, which translates into power at a local, national, or international level. The aristocracy is composed of those people who maintain those advantages through the generations, which is why you can only be born an aristocrat, not become one.

Arguably, an aristocrat able to maintain all his inherrited advantages, and improve on them, is better than a man who comes up to poer from nothing, because the latter can only go up, while the former has to work hard not to slide down.

Still, I feel like I'm preaching to a bishop writing this. I'm sure you're much more versed in the philosophy I am very clumsily trying to expalin here.

My own opinion is that you shouldn't scorn a man born fortunate, and you certainly shouldn't scorn a man who dies in a poistion equal to or better than the one he began in.