Poll: Should people have to pay to vote? (i.e. election tax) [Archive]

nate895

09-30-2010, 05:38 PM

I'd like to see more concerning this point of view. It seems logical, but as I posted before 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'. And it really doesn't make that much sense to me. Please explain further.

The thing is, as the franchise has expanded the government has received an even greater "mandate" from the voting public. When the franchise is restricted, the government cannot receive the mandate that is required to significantly change the structures of government because it is recognized that not everyone who will be affected by these changes has had a say.

When we traded an absolute monarchical system for a democracy (a process that, albeit, took place over a great many centuries), we traded the "Divine Right of Kings" for the "Will of the People." In practice, there is no real difference between the two. The greatest liberty ever accomplished was when we had a mixed system, whereby we had limited franchises and every social group had to agree upon legislation. Nowadays, the government need only appeal to those addicted to welfare and those that feel sympathy for them in order to gain the "Mandate of Heaven."

carmaphob

09-30-2010, 05:43 PM

I see a lot of extortion in that scenario. And we would be paying for it.

Nate-ForLiberty

09-30-2010, 05:49 PM

The thing is, as the franchise has expanded the government has received an even greater "mandate" from the voting public. When the franchise is restricted, the government cannot receive the mandate that is required to significantly change the structures of government because it is recognized that not everyone who will be affected by these changes has had a say.

When we traded an absolute monarchical system for a democracy (a process that, albeit, took place over a great many centuries), we traded the "Divine Right of Kings" for the "Will of the People." In practice, there is no real difference between the two. The greatest liberty ever accomplished was when we had a mixed system, whereby we had limited franchises and every social group had to agree upon legislation. Nowadays, the government need only appeal to those addicted to welfare and those that feel sympathy for them in order to gain the "Mandate of Heaven."

So are we talking about the way our system of government is setup to work or what is actually happening?

RM918

09-30-2010, 05:53 PM

Is it any wonder that the more people that were "allowed" the "right" to vote, the bigger government became? Hmm. I wonder why?

I have no clue how you lot supporting voting restrictions have come to this opinion. Too many people are voting for larger government, so WE should take control of government and take away THEIR right to vote to stop them from voting for things we don't like! You're committing the same goddamn sin as the Republicans and the Democrats who's rights you want to strip, pining for the all-glorious power of Washington to impose your views on them just like they want to do the same to you.

nate895

09-30-2010, 05:54 PM

So are we talking about the way our system of government is setup to work or what is actually happening?

I am afraid I do not understand your question. To clarify: My argument is that since the election franchise is too large in modern democracies (whether they are a democracy via their ancient constitutions or not), the legislature is seen as having a mandate. Any system that sees the government as practically infallible leaves us with the ability of that government to do whatever it wants.

Nate-ForLiberty

09-30-2010, 06:10 PM

nobody's_hero

09-30-2010, 06:12 PM

I am afraid I do not understand your question. To clarify: My argument is that since the election franchise is too large in modern democracies (whether they are a democracy via their ancient constitutions or not), the legislature is seen as having a mandate. Any system that sees the government as practically infallible leaves us with the ability of that government to do whatever it wants.

Well, don't something like 40% of Americans skip out on voting anyway? The other 60% is roughly divided 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats. So, for example, last election, just over 30% of eligible voters who participated in voting caused Congress to believe that it had a mandate from the 'will of the majority' of the American people to do whatever the heck they wanted to do.

Those statistics probably aren't right, but the point is that it doesn't seem to matter what the sample size of voters is, Congress takes it to mean more than it actually does. We know that a sizeable chunk of the population doesn't vote at all.

I sometimes wonder if they were to make voting mandatory, would that other 40% beat the snot out of both of the 30% Dems and 30% Republicans?

RedStripe

09-30-2010, 06:14 PM

Stary Hickory

09-30-2010, 06:15 PM

RedStripe

09-30-2010, 06:16 PM

Humanae Libertas

09-30-2010, 06:19 PM

Yeah, that's Freedom; taking people's right to vote!

Long live the Republican Party!

What's the difference? The Rich/Upper class will vote to give themselves a tax-cut, while the Poor/Middle Working Classes will vote to give themselves a tax-cut. Maybe no one should vote.

nate895

09-30-2010, 06:19 PM

So then it is about proportions, correct? Would more representatives in the House and Senate dilute the problem? I know that has been brought up before. A larger population requires more reps, etc.

The larger the franchise, the greater the problem, under any situation. The most problematic forms of government for liberty are parliamentary democracies with coalition government. When you have small electoral districts, the amount of parties proliferates and when two parties unite to form a coalition, everyone gets screwed (just look at the crap that is going to happen in the UK from Tory-Lib-Dem coalition). A defined opposition whose duty it is to oppose everything the government does is what is needed to maintain liberty. I am actually in the process of rethinking what form of government we ought to have, I do not think an overwhelming democratic element is healthy for liberty because it seems to degenerate too quickly into mob rule.

Stary Hickory

09-30-2010, 06:22 PM

Why not two dollars?

Fine then two dollars really still not significant. Point being if people do not care enough to plop down one dollar to vote they should not be there. At this point we are not even talking about this privileged BS...which I do NOT buy, we have 50% of the population who pay no income taxes and that is ridiculous. Which is a good argument why the income tax ought to be abolished in the first place.

You should not be able to vote yourself someone's else money or labor PERIOD. It is not the role of government to cater to a mob and forcibly remove property from peaceful people. A dollar at the polls would at least get rid of the scummiest voters...if the voting is not worth a dollar to you please stay home during elections, just like if simply knowing who the VP and President is, what our founding document is called..etc is too hard for you then, again, please stay home during elections.

nate895

09-30-2010, 06:23 PM

QueenB4Liberty

09-30-2010, 06:36 PM

I have no clue how you lot supporting voting restrictions have come to this opinion. Too many people are voting for larger government, so WE should take control of government and take away THEIR right to vote to stop them from voting for things we don't like! You're committing the same goddamn sin as the Republicans and the Democrats who's rights you want to strip, pining for the all-glorious power of Washington to impose your views on them just like they want to do the same to you.

There are more people who want big government than there are of us. There's only so many people we are going to reach, as I've said in the other post, I've been talking to the same people for years and not getting anywhere. I'm guessing the majority of the population is like this. They like getting things for free. Until it becomes cut off, they will be the majority. It's what happens in mob rule.

nate895

09-30-2010, 06:42 PM

There are more people who want big government than there are of us. There's only so many people we are going to reach, as I've said in the other post, I've been talking to the same people for years and not getting anywhere. I'm guessing the majority of the population is like this. They like getting things for free. Until it becomes cut off, they will be the majority. It's what happens in mob rule.

Not to mention that the whole idea of democracy is based off the bogus idea of the existence of this thing called the "Will of the People." The fact, there is no such thing. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be democratic elements in some parts of government, but those should based off of the idea that the representatives of the average person should also have to consent if a law is to be passed, not that the "Will of the People" ought to be supreme, when no such "Will" exists.

nobody's_hero

09-30-2010, 07:00 PM

Adding a property requirement would only make things clearer than they already are: the rich, privileged, spoiled ruling class owns this government and uses it to enforce a system which protects it's ill-gotten gains.

Instead being a typical democrat, you might try to think philosophically and historically about something instead of having a knee jerk reaction to anyone who might suggest that liberty is better served under a non-democratic form of government. This is demonstratively true historically speaking. The freest people in history have never lived under universal suffrage. In fact, the government has greater control over us at this point than any monarch is history. Even the cruel tyrants did not control the economy or personal lives to the degree His Majesty, The President of the United States wields over us.

I've read through the thread.

I think you both are correct, in some ways.

----------

[hypothetical scenario]:

Suppose we had two separate Congresses. One Congress could only consider issues of civil liberties. Since everyone, whether they have property or not, can (hopefully?) find some common ground on wishing to remain free, everyone would get to vote for the members of this Congress.

The other Congress could only consider fiscal/property issues. Since only people who have property have a vested interest in maintaining their property (and since these people would be the ones to fund the government via taxation), only those who own property could select the members of this Congress.

This way you aren't pitting two classes (for lack of a better word) against one another and open the door for politicians to exploit this divide to maintain their power.

[end hypothetical scenario]

--------

The government we have today is much more creative in its efforts to maintain power than the British government ever was. During the colonial era, those with property paid taxes to the king, but there wasn't the massive welfare arm of government that our government has today.

So, during those days, you were one of two kinds of people: (A) Someone who owned property and paid taxes to the king, and the king didn't give a damn about you, or (B) someone who didn't own property (maybe even a slave), who didn't pay taxes to the king, and the king didn't give a damn about you. Guess where the common ground was found? The king didn't give a damn about us.

But look at what we have today:

The (A) people pay taxes, and the king doesn't give a damn about them. The (B) people don't pay taxes, but the king pretends to give a damn about them. Not only do they not pay taxes, but they are also given rewards (paid for by people A) for not doing anything for themselves. If this system had existed in 1700s, in my opinion, the War for Independence would never have happened. We would have been far too divided to put up any form of resistance.

------------

I don't think a dollar fee to vote would help. The government would eventually just take $1 from the property owners to give non-property owners a $1 voucher to go and vote.

But, the concept of having property owners being the only ones eligible to vote is understandable, even if we'll never make it back to that point.

Disclaimer: I don't own any property (at least, not enough to brag about) and would probably not be allowed to vote in such a system. The fate of my civil liberties would rest in the vote-casting hands of those RPF members (and all others) who own property. I think that's how we ended up getting away from that system of property-owners-only voting. Therefore, I can also see what Red Stripe is getting at. But 'freedom for all' via voting might have been a trojan horse to implement 'prosperity for none' via voting.

ScoutsHonor

09-30-2010, 07:01 PM

What would be the point of such a law aside from creating new funds for government, who certainly don't need it.

Would it prove patriotism? That you have $2.00 to spare? What? :confused:

erowe1

09-30-2010, 07:01 PM

What in the world does "this is a reasonable government service" mean? Do you people think it's free or something?

phill4paul

09-30-2010, 07:03 PM

Well I guess this is pertaining to the 24th.

Twenty-Fourth Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

This makes me wonder.

Tax evasion can be a felony charge. If I'm not mistaken felony convictions come with a loss of voting "privilege."

Seems like this might make an interesting case.

erowe1

09-30-2010, 07:08 PM

Yes I believe they should have to pay something trivial like one dollar...as I have said before if people will not pay one dollar to vote then they should not be there. At that point it is not even a matter of being able to afford it.

I don't. I think that most government services should be funded with user fees directly related to the use of that service. But whatever can't be funded that way should be entirely funded by a poll tax. Those who pay vote. Those who don't want to pay don't have to, and they don't get to have any say over how the money provided by those who do pay gets spent.

And naturally, the people participating in this would not have any right to have the representatives they elect impose any laws on those who don't participate. It would just be a government of mutual consent by those who choose to be involved.

nate895

09-30-2010, 07:12 PM

I've read through the thread.

I think you both are correct, in some ways.

[hypothetical scenario]:

Suppose we had two separate Congresses. One Congress could only consider issues of civil liberties. Since everyone, whether they have property or not, can find some common ground on wishing to remain free, everyone would get to vote for the members of this Congress.

The other Congress could only consider fiscal/property issues. Since only people who have property have a vested interest in maintaining their property (and since these people would be the ones to fund the government via taxation), only those who own property could select the members of this Congress.

This way you aren't pitting two classes against one another and open the door for politicians to exploit this divide to maintain their power.

[end hypothetical scenario]

--------

The government we have today is much more creative in its efforts to maintain power than the British government ever was. During the colonial era, those with property paid taxes to the king, but there wasn't the massive welfare arm of government that our government has today.

So, during those days, you were one of two kinds of people: (A) Someone who owned property and paid taxes to the king, and the king didn't give a damn about you, or (B) someone who didn't own property (maybe even a slave), who didn't pay taxes to the king, and the king didn't give a damn about you. Guess where the common ground was found? The king didn't give a damn about us.

But look at what we have today:

The (A) people pay taxes, and the king doesn't give a damn. The (B) people don't pay taxes, but the king pretends to give a damn. Not only do they not pay taxes, but they are also given rewards (paid for by people A) for not doing anything for themselves. If this system had existed in 1700s, in my opinion, the War for Independence would never have happened.

------------

I don't think a dollar fee to vote would help. The government would eventually just take $1 from the property owners to give non-property owners a $1 voucher to go and vote.

But, the concept of having property owners being the only ones eligible to vote is understandable, even if we'll never make it back to that point.

Disclaimer: I don't own any property (at least, not enough to brag about) and would probably not be allowed to vote in such a system. The fate of my civil liberties would rest in the vote-casting hands of those RPF members (and all others) who own property. I think that's how we ended up getting away from that system of property-owners-only voting. Therefore, I can also see what Red Stripe is getting at.

One, I think your history is a bit off on the whole "paying taxes to the King" thing. The problem the Colonies had was that Parliament was instituting a tax on them without their consent. Legally speaking, the colonists had their own Parliaments in the form of Colonial assemblies. Basically, the Colonists argued that they were, in effect, independent monarchies under the British King. The problem was that the British King took sides with his greater possession: the Kingdom of Great Britain. If the British King was neutral and had done his normal duty, he would have prevented Parliament from passing tax laws on his colonies through the use of the Royal Prerogative. He did not use that prerogative as he should have, which justified his deposition as King in America. That also justifies the deposition of Her Majesty today, since she does not use her prerogative to restrain Parliament against her subjects.

You pay taxes to Parliament, not the monarchy in a British system. The monarchy's only power is that of veto over the Parliament, which is to be exercised in defense of the subjects' natural rights. It doesn't work in practice for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being a lack of a written constitution defining such things.

However, I think that the best solution I have developed so far is the restriction of the franchise for an upper house, and an even greater restriction for the executive (who will also have the ability of an absolute veto), and both houses, and the executive must accede to a law. That way, the two upper houses can restrain the tendency of the commoners to try to rob them, and the lower houses can restrict the tendency of small groups of power holders to attempt to restrict civil liberties.

phill4paul

09-30-2010, 07:16 PM

I don't. I think that most government services should be funded with user fees directly related to the use of that service. But whatever can't be funded that way should be entirely funded by a poll tax. Those who pay vote. Those who don't want to pay don't have to, and they don't get to have any say over how the money provided by those who do pay gets spent.

Everyone pays. Everyday. As long as they are forced to pay they have a right to vote.

And naturally, the people participating in this would not have any right to have the representatives they elect impose any laws on those who don't participate. It would just be a government of mutual consent by those who choose to be involved.

WUT?

RedStripe

09-30-2010, 07:25 PM

Fine then two dollars really still not significant. Point being if people do not care enough to plop down one dollar to vote they should not be there. At this point we are not even talking about this privileged BS...which I do NOT buy, we have 50% of the population who pay no income taxes and that is ridiculous. Which is a good argument why the income tax ought to be abolished in the first place.

You should not be able to vote yourself someone's else money or labor PERIOD. It is not the role of government to cater to a mob and forcibly remove property from peaceful people. A dollar at the polls would at least get rid of the scummiest voters...if the voting is not worth a dollar to you please stay home during elections, just like if simply knowing who the VP and President is, what our founding document is called..etc is too hard for you then, again, please stay home during elections.

How about three dollars?

nobody's_hero

09-30-2010, 07:26 PM

One, I think your history is a bit off on the whole "paying taxes to the King" thing.

I confess that it was an overly simplified post. It wasn't an intentional re-write of history.

The British government (including the king) was sent petition after petition requesting that something be done about the issue of taxation without representation. Their petitions were met with silence, and sometimes, more tax acts. That's why I said that the king didn't give a damn about the colonists in general.

Whatever the case, the point was that the colonists eventually found enough common ground to the extent that there were all sorts of people from various walks of life taking up arms to fight for our independence. I seriously doubt that such a bond could have been found if the British government had, at that time, the 'representative' system complete with welfare (vote buying) that exists today.

However, I think that the best solution I have developed so far is the restriction of the franchise for an upper house, and an even greater restriction for the executive (who will also have the ability of an absolute veto), and both houses, and the executive must accede to a law. That way, the two upper houses can restrain the tendency of the commoners to try to rob them, and the lower houses can restrict the tendency of small groups of power holders to attempt to restrict civil liberties.

That's basically what I was getting at, but couldn't explain it as precisely as you. Agreed.

RedStripe

09-30-2010, 07:27 PM

Instead being a typical democrat, you might try to think philosophically and historically about something instead of having a knee jerk reaction to anyone who might suggest that liberty is better served under a non-democratic form of government. This is demonstratively true historically speaking. The freest people in history have never lived under universal suffrage. In fact, the government has greater control over us at this point than any monarch is history. Even the cruel tyrants did not control the economy or personal lives to the degree His Majesty, The President of the United States wields over us.

You mentioned the freest people in history. Who were they?

I mean, since you've bothered to claim that I am not thinking "philosophically and historically" I suppose you have an actual group of people in mind when you say such things, and are not just pulling random, meaningless phrases out of your ass. So buck up.

newbitech

09-30-2010, 07:29 PM

pay to vote? how about we just let the corporations run the country for us instead. Oh wait..

wormyguy

09-30-2010, 07:34 PM

Absolutely not. Given that this means that the government would be maintaining a list of all people who voted on election day, which could be used to intimidate voters (and was used to intimidate voters, before the abolition of poll taxes), it is an absolutely reprehensible idea.

phill4paul

09-30-2010, 07:36 PM

A dollar at the polls would at least get rid of the scummiest voters..

Yeah that about sums it up right there.

Meaning that you are pretty bigoted in how you view individual worth.

RedStripe

09-30-2010, 07:37 PM

"Yea, it's really the poor people who have been messing up the political system"

-The Most Retarded Person Ever, 2010

nate895

09-30-2010, 07:39 PM

You mentioned the freest people in history. Who were they?

I mean, since you've bothered to claim that I am not thinking "philosophically and historically" I suppose you have an actual group of people in mind when you say such things, and are not just pulling random, meaningless phrases out of your ass. So buck up.

The freest people on Earth for an extended period of time were probably the British (excluding their colonies, including Ireland at the time) between the Glorious Revolution and the early 19th century under a Constitutional Monarchy. Now, I'm not saying it was perfect, but King George and Parliament exercised a very small degree of control compared to modern governments over most aspects of life. Most violations of rights were against Roman Catholics, and should not have happened, but human beings aren't perfect and I do not demand perfection.

An even freer people was the US with limited suffrage from the late 18th century to 19th century, a period of maybe 50 years (and, therefore, not qualifying for "extended") until the institution of "Jacksonian Democracy," which started the crushing of liberty from an overpowering Congress with a mandate from the people.

As for greater arguments, I am in the process of making a well-researched post defending a system of government that I think can combine the best elements of historical governments. To sum up the thesis, I believe the best form of government is a combination of the British and American forms of government under a written constitution and other details from both systems changed.

nate895

09-30-2010, 07:40 PM

RedStripe

09-30-2010, 07:41 PM

The freest people on Earth for an extended period of time were probably the British (excluding their colonies, including Ireland at the time) between the Glorious Revolution and the early 19th century under a Constitutional Monarchy. Now, I'm not saying it was perfect, but King George and Parliament exercised a very small degree of control compared to modern governments over most aspects of life. Most violations of rights were against Roman Catholics, and should not have happened, but human beings aren't perfect and I do not demand perfection.

An even freer people was the US with limited suffrage from the late 18th century to 19th century, a period of maybe 50 years (and, therefore, not qualifying for "extended") until the institution of "Jacksonian Democracy," which started the crushing of liberty from an overpowering Congress with a mandate from the people.

As for greater arguments, I am in the process of making a well-researched post defending a system of government that I think can combine the best elements of historical governments. To sum up the thesis, I believe the best form of government is a combination of the British and American forms of government under a written constitution and other details from both systems changed.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaha

I guess slaves, peasants, children, women, and other simply do not register on your stupid fucking radar.

God no wonder people think that libertarians are a joke. Have you ever expressed your belief that people were "more free" during American slavery than modern times to any normal person? Have you ever told anyone that? Hahaha do you live under a rock?

tjeffersonsghost

09-30-2010, 07:45 PM

Just to let the people who support "Only the people who can pay can vote" Alexander Hamilton would be quite proud of you. He wanted just the "elites" to decide the elected. Thomas Jefferson however saw otherwise. Hamilton responded when Jefferson talked about the peons having a say said the following "Your people, sir, is nothing but a great beast!" So congrats, you people are now Hamiltonians.

http://www.pinzler.com/ushistory/hamjeffpopsupp.html

phill4paul

09-30-2010, 07:46 PM

The freest people on Earth for an extended period of time were probably the British (excluding their colonies, including Ireland at the time) between the Glorious Revolution and the early 19th century under a Constitutional Monarchy.

I'd probably say the freest that people were was from around 2 mil years ago to around 500o BC. But I digress.

nate895

09-30-2010, 07:47 PM

Ahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaha

I guess slaves, peasants, children, women, and other simply do not register on your stupid fucking radar.

God no wonder people think that libertarians are a joke. Have you ever expressed your belief that people were "more free" during American slavery than modern times to any normal person? Have you ever told anyone that? Hahaha do you live under a rock?

Hahahaha...have you not totally demonstrated your lack of knowledge on these subjects?

For one, there were no "peasants" in 18th century England. The last "peasant" was recorded in the mid-17th century. Also, the government did not exercise as great a degree of control as it does today. You can't travel across town without being harassed by government regulations. You could travel from the Shetland Islands to Dover, any you might run across a couple of policeman who you were glad to see because that meant there were no highwaymen in the vicinity.

Furthermore, you seem to equate liberty with suffrage. That is not the classical definition of liberty, and makes your whole argument circular anyway since the whole debate here is whether liberty is better served with universal suffrage.

BTW, I love how you invoke a deity despite the fact you lack a belief in one.

RedStripe

09-30-2010, 07:48 PM

Just to let the people who support "Only the people who can pay can vote" Alexander Hamilton would be quite proud of you. He wanted just the "elites" to decide the elected. Thomas Jefferson however saw otherwise. Hamilton responded when Jefferson talked about the peons having a say said the following "Your people, sir, is nothing but a great beast!" So congrats, you people are now Hamiltonians.

Agreed.

TJ was so awesome partly because he was a class traitor intellectually.

Fuck Hamilton.

nobody's_hero

09-30-2010, 07:48 PM

Ahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaha

I guess slaves, peasants, children, women, and other simply do not register on your stupid fucking radar.

God no wonder people think that libertarians are a joke. Have you ever expressed your belief that people were "more free" during American slavery than modern times to any normal person? Have you ever told anyone that? Hahaha do you live under a rock?

I don't believe we ever left the 'American slavery' period. The overseers simply had a change of shifts. They no longer use whips to break your spirit, or chains to bind you down. This is all accomplished in 'modern times' through a very meticulously constructed propaganda and conditioning system.

It's hard to relate mental slavery to physical slavery, so I would not say for certain that we are more or less free than our ancestors, but I do not believe that we are as free as we should have been by now, because at some point, we started going backwards (1913 comes to mind).

RedStripe

09-30-2010, 07:49 PM

I'd probably say the freest that people were was from around 2 mil years ago to around 500o BC. But I digress.

I'd say 8,000 BC but yea.

Hunter/gatherers were probably, by and large, much freer than anyone living today.

nate895

09-30-2010, 07:52 PM

I'd probably say the freest that people were was from around 2 mil years ago to around 500o BC. But I digress.

But those people were never recorded and I don't believe such people, or time, existed.

tjeffersonsghost

09-30-2010, 07:52 PM

I don't believe we ever left the 'American slavery' period. The overseers simply had a change of shifts. They no longer use whips to break your spirit, or chains to bind you down. This is all accomplished in 'modern times' through a very meticulously constructed propaganda and conditioning system.

It's hard to relate mental slavery to physical slavery, so I would not say for certain that we are more or less free than our ancestors, but I do not believe that we are as free as we should have been by now, because at some point, we started going backwards (1913 comes to mind).

Amen.

The slaves had to work all day and in return they got food, clothing, and housing.

Most modern day peons work all day and in return they get food, clothing, and housing. Many who work full time cant even afford that.

Instead of whips they use propaganda and a conditioning system, so well put.

phill4paul

09-30-2010, 07:53 PM

But those people were never recorded and I don't believe such people, or time, existed.

You don't believe the Summarian Empire existed?

Baptist

09-30-2010, 07:56 PM

You guys need to buy Schiff's How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes. In his Vlogs he has stated multiple times why it is wrong for people who don't pay taxes to be allowed to vote. He articulates it well in his book too.

When I first heard of this type of thinking my first reaction was to get offended. But now I agree with it. Basically I believe that the Founders had the right idea that you can only vote if you have a stake in the game. However, if we were to structure something like this again, I would only be for it if there was nothing to hinder everyone from making a stake in the game. So if "property owners" are the only people allowed to vote, I am fine with that as long as we all are allowed the same opportunity to own property and there is no government discrimination (IE institutionalized slavery that prevents blacks from owning property, corporatism that benefits the wealthy, etc.) that prevents any minority or group from owning property.

nate895

09-30-2010, 07:56 PM

You don't believe the Summarian Empire existed?

Sumerian Empire existed 4-5,000 years ago, which translates to 2-3,000 BC. You said 5,000 BC.

Nate-ForLiberty

09-30-2010, 07:58 PM

phill4paul

09-30-2010, 08:00 PM

Sumerian Empire existed 4-5,000 years ago, which translated to 2-3,000 BC. You said 5,000 BC.

You're correct in that. Sorry. 2-3000 BC was about the time we lost freedom.

RedStripe

09-30-2010, 08:01 PM

Hahahaha...have you not totally demonstrated your lack of knowledge on these subjects?

Nope. But you have.

For one, there were no "peasants" in 18th century England. The last "peasant" was recorded in the mid-17th century. Also, the government did not exercise as great a degree of control as it does today. You can't travel across town without being harassed by government regulations. You could travel from the Shetland Islands to Dover, any you might run across a couple of policeman who you were glad to see because that meant there were no highwaymen in the vicinity.

Hmm, I travel across town without being harassed by government regulations all the time. I haven't even spoken with a police officer in years.

Furthermore, you seem to equate liberty with suffrage.

Haha, this is the conclusion you want to draw (because the argument against suffrage is quick and easy) but the fact is that have not even insinuated that suffrage and liberty are the same. Oh, unless you can prove otherwise! Let's see you 1) use my quotes to show it 2) admit that I never made such an insinuation or 3) dodge the issue. This should be entertaining.

That is not the classical definition of liberty, and makes your whole argument circular anyway since the whole debate here is whether liberty is better served with universal suffrage.

Let me school you on something real quick:

1) You don't know what a circular argument is (check out Wikipedia for help)
2) The argument is whether liberty is served by limiting suffrage by means of some sort of tax.

To the extent that you think such a tax makes a difference you are just as ignorant and misguided as those who think that expanding suffrage will increase liberty.

Haha I forgot who I am talking to. I'm talking to someone who's definition of "liberty" doesn't include the liberty to be free from enslavement, patriarchal bondage, and economic exploitation. You live in a complete fantasy land. You can't pretend to be educated on history and then, with a straight face, try to argue that the current distribution of wealth in society isn't simply an extension of feudalism and ascensions to wealth resulting from law and violence. Oh wait, I guess you can if you live in a fantasy world where we went from feudalism to "a free market" magically overnight. Haha wow how easy and black-and-white things must seem to be in your toddler's view of the world.

BTW, I love how you invoke a deity despite the fact you lack a belief in one.

Don't talk about Zeus like that. (Zeus is God. I prayed to God and when he say "Hello?" I said "Hi... what's your name?" and he said "my name is Zeus, and I have no problem with abortion and homosexuality" and I was like "whoa" (like Neo in the matrix)). He's a pretty chill dude. You should pray to him some time, heathen.

Stary Hickory

09-30-2010, 08:08 PM

"Yea, it's really the poor people who have been messing up the political system"

-The Most Retarded Person Ever, 2010

How about we make it real clear for you. You do not get to go to the polls to decide what to do with the products of OTHER people's labor. Earn it yourself if you do not contribute you do not get to decide what to do with other people's stuff. PERIOD

RedStripe

09-30-2010, 08:11 PM

How about we make it real clear for you. You do not get to go to the polls to decide what to do with the products of OTHER people's labor. Earn it yourself if you do not contribute you do not get to decide what to do with other people's stuff. PERIOD

Oh but if you inherit granddaddy's plantation land you get to decide what to do with the product of your quasi-slave laborer's product. Haha you're so uneducated I honestly pity you.

You should probably spend some time reading up on the theory of just property.

RedStripe

09-30-2010, 08:12 PM

See, I made military equipment using the labor of disenfranchised people who have been, due to government policies, pressured to sell their labor to me. HOW DARE THEY VOTE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE!!! durrrr im a big dummy who doesn't understand how the actual economy works.

Promontorium

09-30-2010, 08:13 PM

Is it any wonder that the more people that were "allowed" the "right" to vote, the bigger government became? Hmm. I wonder why?
OC
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/promontorium/what.jpg

nate895

09-30-2010, 08:16 PM

Nope. But you have.

How? I have stated no falsehoods concerning fact. You haven't claimed a fact. You have just rebuked me without even giving an argument. You have none. I have given an argument.

Hmm, I travel across town without being harassed by government regulations all the time. I haven't even spoken with a police officer in years.

Not being harassed by police officers is different from being involved with government regulations. If you have a driver's license, that is too much regulation to deal with. It is a natural liberty to travel across town by whatever conveyance you choose, so long as you have not proven that you are incapable to use said conveyance. Furthermore, when in the normal operation of your conveyance, you can subjected to all sorts of searches and seizures that no carriage in 18th century England (despite the fact it is generally harder to operate a horse-drawn carriage than a motor vehicle, and are just as deadly) ever had to submit to unless under suspicion of harboring a highwayman or other criminal, something that is no longer a problem due to the fast speed of motor vehicles.

Haha, this is the conclusion you want to draw (because the argument against suffrage is quick and easy) but the fact is that have not even insinuated that suffrage and liberty are the same. Oh, unless you can prove otherwise! Let's see you 1) use my quotes to show it 2) admit that I never made such an insinuation or 3) dodge the issue. This should be entertaining.

How were women discriminated against then. They had equal rights to own property as men, for the most part. They had pretty much all the rights of men without voting.

Let me school you on something real quick:

1) You don't know what a circular argument is (check out Wikipedia for help)
2) The argument is whether liberty is served by limiting suffrage by means of some sort of tax.

To the extent that you think such a tax makes a difference you are just as ignorant and misguided as those who think that expanding suffrage will increase liberty.

1) A circular argument is where you fundamentally assume the premises in a way that isn't begging the question (i.e., We should have a right to vote because we should have a right to vote). A circular argument would go:

(1) Part of liberty is having the right to vote.
(2) Therefore, the best way to serve liberty is to give everyone the right to vote.

2) That is not what I am arguing. I am talking about a limitation of the voting franchise in general. I am non-committal as to how.

Haha I forgot who I am talking to. I'm talking to someone who's definition of "liberty" doesn't include the liberty to be free from enslavement, patriarchal bondage, and economic exploitation. You live in a complete fantasy land. You can't pretend to be educated on history and then, with a straight face, try to argue that the current distribution of wealth in society isn't simply an extension of feudalism and ascensions to wealth resulting from law and violence. Oh wait, I guess you can if you live in a fantasy world where we went from feudalism to "a free market" magically overnight. Haha wow how easy and black-and-white things must seem to be in your toddler's view of the world.

This paragraph is so evidently bogus, I merely quote it to show your lack of critical thinking capacities.

wormyguy

09-30-2010, 08:19 PM

nate895

09-30-2010, 08:27 PM

Do you seriously think that if we limited the franchise only to the wealthy, that they wouldn't simply vote in even more corporate welfare up the gazook? Not to mention all the various other big government crap large segments if not majorities of the wealthy support, like environmentalism and banning McDonalds and invading foreign countries.

Face it, there's no specific demographic in this country that consistently supports libertarian, small-government principals.

That is a problem with the nouveau riche. That is a problem with American wealth. The fact of the matter is, the European Aristocracy, while not libertarian (and neither am I) in the sense you think of it, they haven't voted for an expansion of government powers in a long time. That is why the House of Lords in the UK is constantly losing power whenever New Labour gets into office: The hereditary peers in the House of Lords are overwhelming traditionalist conservatives opposed to the modern liberal agenda of global big government. They support small, national government in Britain, along the lines of Burkean conservatism.

Promontorium

09-30-2010, 08:29 PM

nate895

09-30-2010, 08:34 PM

The answer is to limit what can be made law.
Forbid rights from being voted on, or from being passed through representatives.
The US government tried. Apparently more must be done in the constitution department. A constitution that provides much more clarity, redundancy, and authorizes more explicit forms of civilian oversight.

I am nearing completion of a constitution myself. What do you know! It will revolutionize humanity (if anyone would ever read it).

I think the problem is too many untried innovations in governments. I think a combination of the best elements from past governments is needed. Of course, that is the fundamental difference between radicalism and conservatism. Radicals think they know everything, and they could create the perfect system if only we radically changed the government via Constitutional revolutions. A conservative says we stand on the shoulders of giants, and the combination of the good elements of past governments is what is needed, and change should only occur after debate at length.

phill4paul

09-30-2010, 08:45 PM

How about we make it real clear for you. You do not get to go to the polls to decide what to do with the products of OTHER people's labor. Earn it yourself if you do not contribute you do not get to decide what to do with other people's stuff. PERIOD

With the exception of Theocrats rants about the government killing gays unless they repent I have not read a more asinine post on RPFs.

I have said it before and I will say it again. Everyone pays. Everyday.

If you haven't figured out then I will help. The problem is not who can vote. Or if "scummiest" individuals vote in opposition to your beliefs.

The problem lies in the system itself.

Stary Hickory

09-30-2010, 08:53 PM

With the exception of Theocrats rants about the government killing gays unless they repent I have not read a more asinine post on RPFs.

I have said it before and I will say it again. Everyone pays. Everyday.

If you haven't figured out then I will help. The problem is not who can vote. Or if "scummiest" individuals vote in opposition to your beliefs.

The problem lies in the system itself.

Oh really explain how it is asinine? To demand that people who do not contribute not have a say in how what is collected is spent is perfectly reasonable. I will reiterate it, if you do not contribute you do not get to decide what happens with what is collected PERIOD.

If there is going to be coercive action..let me remind you COERCIVE collection from individuals then at the very least those who are collected from should decide how the money in the pot is spent. I really get tired of people here taking the position that it is ok for people who receive via forcible THEFT to continue to vote themselves more and more of others people's stuff. And let me remind you once more, the wealth that is collected is done at gunpoint if need be.

Anyone who votes to use force (you can get shot right in the face you know?) to take from others is scum, a disgusting pile of krap. I don't care what your position in life is. I do not support it for the rich and likewise I do not support it for the poor. So again prove you position and again prove how it is moral to not pay for a service yet expect to receive and direct how these services are rendered by using a government gun.

Knightskye

09-30-2010, 08:55 PM

People who rent don't own property.

Peter Schiff couldn't vote!

CUnknown

09-30-2010, 08:58 PM

This topic is offensive to me. The fact that some 20% of people on this forum think that voting should be in any way restricted is a disgrace.

Fox McCloud

09-30-2010, 09:00 PM

Yes; at the poll; don't pay, don't vote--with property taxes, its no longer voluntary.

This way it forces voting to be a bit more rational, and would force voters to really think about candidates/issues when they did vote "gee, it cost me $50 to vote; how much will this program cost me in other areas of society?"

phill4paul

09-30-2010, 09:05 PM

Oh really explain how it is asinine? To demand that people who do not contribute not have a say in how what is collected is spent is perfectly reasonable. I will reiterate it, if you do not contribute you do not get to decide what happens with what is collected PERIOD.

If there is going to be coercive action..let me remind you COERCIVE collection from individuals then at the very least those who are collected from should decide how the money in the pot is spent. I really get tired of people here taking the position that it is ok for people who receive via forcible THEFT to continue to vote themselves more and more of others people's stuff. And let me remind you once more, the wealth that is collected is done at gunpoint if need be.

Anyone who votes to use force (you can get shot right in the face you know?) to take from others is scum, a disgusting pile of krap. I don't care what your position in life is. I do not support it for the rich and likewise I do not support it for the poor. So again prove you position and again prove how it is moral to not pay for a service yet expect to receive and direct how these services are rendered by using a government gun.

Everyone pays. Everyday.

Or put another way. Everyone CONTRIBUTES everyday. EVERYONE.

Everyone pays into the system. Some make more from the system than they contribute.

Much like disbursement of Federal Tax Revenue. Some states contribute more and get less.

Should we just disallow votes from states that receive more than they give?

CUnknown

09-30-2010, 09:16 PM

Instead of restricting people from voting, we need to be encouraging more people to vote and encouraging also more people to vote their conscience instead of the lesser of two evils. My opinion is that the better the opinions of the people are reflected in the government, the better the government will work for them. If we instead continue to listen only to the "experts" and the elite, our government will continue to function very efficiently only for the experts and the elite.

Because to say that our government is run badly is not quite accurate. This is only true if you think the government is supposed to work for the people. Our government is actually extremely effective at what it sees as priorities: attempting world domination, enriching the already rich, the corporations, and enslaving everyone else. It is ineffective or actually antagonistic to the priorities that most people see as the true functions of government, such as national defense, fostering a positive economic environment, etc.

I would go so far as to say that the more liberals vote, and vote their conscience, the better things will become for conservatives, and vice versa.

phill4paul

09-30-2010, 09:25 PM

brandon

09-30-2010, 09:27 PM

Instead of restricting people from voting, we need to be encouraging more people to vote

Oh yea this will definitely help.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:kR-0fYKSPMGaMM:http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm232/mintkiller/facepalm.jpg&t=1

phill4paul

09-30-2010, 09:31 PM

Oh yea this will definitely help.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:kR-0fYKSPMGaMM:http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm232/mintkiller/facepalm.jpg&t=1

I think he meant we should be encouraging more people to vote in a more liberty minded manner. Dunno though. That's what I got.

phill4paul

09-30-2010, 09:40 PM

OK.

So based on some of the views here that those that do not contribute should not be allowed to vote I will take this idiotic hypothesis one step further.

The following states receive more in federal tax dollars than they give.

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

So every individual in these states should be denied a right to vote as they as a collective suckle too long and hard at the teat.

Obviously a bunch of degenerate ne'er-do-well liberals.

But wait, what is this.....

The report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States.

WUT???? Conservatives suckle off the teat more than liberals.

Guess it'd just be best to let liberals vote.

Vessol

09-30-2010, 09:44 PM

I'm not a Marxist or anything close to that, but giving property owners the right to vote only smacks of bourgeois.

Considering voting is just tyranny under the form of majority hiding behind the polling booth, I don't support the idea of a electorial government at all.

Voting is another form of coercion.

CUnknown

09-30-2010, 09:45 PM

I think he meant we should be encouraging more people to vote in a more liberty minded manner. Dunno though. That's what I got.

Of course we should be doing that, but I was actually saying "vote" in general there. If our two options are: 1) restrict voting rights, or 2) encourage more people to vote, even if they vote against liberty, I honestly think option #2 gives far better outcomes.

I would go further to say that if more people voted today, and voted their conscience, we'd be in better shape as a nation. It doesn't matter if they are liberals, conservatives, socialists, or libertarians. The more people are active in the political process, the better things will be for the rest of us. Restricting the right to vote, even if somehow we could restrict it to only liberty-lovers, would hurt all of us, yes, even those who believe in liberty, because it would further contribute to the decay of society and of democratic values.

TastyWheat

09-30-2010, 09:46 PM

erowe1

09-30-2010, 09:50 PM

Those of you who don't support tying voting rights to taxation in some way, would you support expanding voting rights out to include noncitizens (and we don't need to stop at noncitizens within the USA's borders either, we could expand it out to the population of the world)? Or should only US citizens be allowed to vote?

If you do think that only citizens should be allowed to vote, then please explain why.

As I see it, citizenship, taxation, and suffrage, should all be wrapped up together in one voluntary arrangement. Those who want to participate and willingly place themselves within this arrangement, complete with all its responsibilities, laws, taxes, services, and privileges would have to pay for the cost of it and would have a say on the governance of it. But nobody should be forced to be a part of this arrangement, and those who do choose to be a part of it shouldn't be forced to accede to the wishes those outside of it would have for them.

LibertyEagle

09-30-2010, 09:50 PM

I don't think anyone who is feeding at the government trough should be allowed to vote.

nate895

09-30-2010, 09:51 PM

OK.

So based on some of the views here that those that do not contribute should not be allowed to vote I will take this idiotic hypothesis one step further.

The following states receive more in federal tax dollars than they give.

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

So every individual in these states should be denied a right to vote as they as a collective suckle too long and hard at the teat.

Obviously a bunch of degenerate ne'er-do-well liberals.

But wait, what is this.....

WUT???? Conservatives suckle off the teat more than liberals.

Guess it'd just be best to let liberals vote.

This whole argument is a non sequitur. Just because states that tend to have more conservatives tend to get more federal aid does not mean that individuals get more than they pay in taxes.

brandon

09-30-2010, 09:52 PM

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ah9E6G9_eeE/RwEUzyRT8qI/AAAAAAAAAS0/4p-pp7Ty71w/s1600/voi.jpg

CUnknown

09-30-2010, 09:53 PM

It costs money to administer an election. If it's to be paid for with taxes then only taxpayers should be able to vote. Otherwise a fee-based system should be established, either ballot fees (from candidates) or poll fees (from voters). It should be a state issue either way. In a pragmatic sense though, I do agree we'd see fewer apathetic voters if poll fees existed.

I plead with you to reconsider this post in its entirety. If we succeeded in eliminating the income tax, and only had corporate taxes and tarrifs, should only corporations and importers / exporters be able to vote?

Poll fees smack of totalitarianism. The question here is if you believe in democracy, or oligarchy. Don't be a smart ass and say the country is a Republic -- a Republic is a democratic form of government.

I can't believe we are even having this conversation on this forum. I would assume that all people here believed in the right of the people to govern themselves without restriction.

So, do some of you here actually want an oligarchy, just not this oligarchy?

erowe1

09-30-2010, 09:59 PM

This whole argument is a non sequitur. Just because states that tend to have more conservatives tend to get more federal aid does not mean that individuals get more than they pay in taxes.

That data is also not about getting money back to spend how you want, but getting money spent by the federal government in those states.

To say that the states getting more money spent in them than they paid in taxes are somehow benefiting would be like saying I'm doing you a favor if I make you pay me $100 in exchange for me buying something for you that costs $120, only it's not something you want to have, just something I want you to have, and I don't allow you to choose not to pay that $100.

Interestingly, such a situation wouldn't obtain if I just allowed you to decide how your $100 was going to be spent, since you're the one paying it, rather than forcing you to accede to the choice someone else who didn't pay that $100 makes regarding how it is to be spent.

phill4paul

09-30-2010, 09:59 PM

It costs money to administer an election. If it's to be paid for with taxes then only taxpayers should be able to vote. Otherwise a fee-based system should be established, either ballot fees (from candidates) or poll fees (from voters). It should be a state issue either way. In a pragmatic sense though, I do agree we'd see fewer apathetic voters if poll fees existed.

For the nth time. Everyone pays.

If it is a national election then hell no it shouldn't be a state issue.

WTF?

One more time to those that don't get it.

Democracy is not the flaw in the system. Everyone has a right to vote.

Loss of Republic is the flaw.

Pro-tip.: Those that vote are not the ones changing the Republics laws. It does not matter who is voted in those in power will change law to there own purpose.

CUnknown

09-30-2010, 10:03 PM

[...]

If you do think that only citizens should be allowed to vote, then please explain why.

As I see it, citizenship, taxation, and suffrage, should all be wrapped up together in one voluntary arrangement. Those who want to participate and willingly place themselves within this arrangement, complete with all its responsibilities, laws, taxes, services, and privileges would have to pay for the cost of it and would have a say on the governance of it. [...]

So should people who object to paying the income tax and refuse to do so (e.g. anti-war activists such as Adam Kokesh) not be allowed to vote?

If you're referring to poor people who are not required to pay taxes -- why is it their fault that the IRS and Congress decides not to attempt to extract money from them? They have a right to vote that is completely separate from the workings of the IRS. You should explain why you think they are in any way linked.

I believe self-governance is a right.

An important point that should be made in this thread is that poor people rarely, if ever, vote.

erowe1

09-30-2010, 10:04 PM

I plead with you to reconsider this post in its entirety. If we succeeded in eliminating the income tax, and only had corporate taxes and tarrifs, should only corporations and importers / exporters be able to vote?

Yes. That's why you shouldn't do that.

Instead, you should eliminate the income tax and also eliminate tariffs and corporate taxes and replace them all with user fees and a poll tax, where only those who pay the poll tax can vote, and only those who pay the user fees can use the services those fees are for.

Naturally, this would also entail that those who choose not to participate by paying the poll tax and voting would not have any obligation to respect the laws of those who do participate as in any way binding on them. The voting (much like shareholder voting in corporations) would only be an in-house matter for those citizen/taxpayer/voters that mutually agree with one another to bind themselves to the governance their voting on.

CUnknown

09-30-2010, 10:04 PM

For the nth time. Everyone pays.

If it is a national election then hell no it shouldn't be a state issue.

WTF?

One more time to those that don't get it.

Democracy is not the flaw in the system. Everyone has a right to vote.

Loss of Republic is the flaw.

Pro-tip.: Those that vote are not the ones changing the Republics laws. It does not matter who is voted in those in power will change law to there own purpose.

Yes. I'm glad some people understand this! Actually it seems from the poll that most people here understand this, but it's shocking and disappointing to me that even ~20% of the people here don't.

phill4paul

09-30-2010, 10:04 PM

This whole argument is a non sequitur. Just because states that tend to have more conservatives tend to get more federal aid does not mean that individuals get more than they pay in taxes.

No it is not non sequitur. It is in direct proportion to some of the idiotic beliefs posited.

If individuals then why not whole townships? Counties? States?

CUnknown

09-30-2010, 10:07 PM

Yes. That's why you shouldn't do that.

Instead, you should eliminate the income tax and also eliminate tariffs and corporate taxes and replace them all with user fees and a poll tax, where only those who pay the poll tax can vote, and only those who pay the user fees can use the services those fees are for.

Naturally, this would also entail that those who choose not to participate by paying the poll tax and voting would not have any obligation to respect the laws of those who do participate as in any way binding on them. The voting (much like shareholder voting in corporations) would only be an in-house matter for those citizen/taxpayer/voters that mutually agree with one another to bind themselves to the governance their voting on.

So, you're essentially an anarchist then? There should be no authority, whatsoever?

Murder, for example, would be legal as long as the person who did it didn't vote?

erowe1

09-30-2010, 10:09 PM

So should people who object to paying the income tax and refuse to do so (e.g. anti-war activists such as Adam Kokesh) not be allowed to vote?

If you're referring to poor people who are not required to pay taxes -- why is it their fault that the IRS and Congress decides not to attempt to extract money from them? They have a right to vote that is completely separate from the workings of the IRS. You should explain why you think they are in any way linked.

I believe self-governance is a right.

An important point that should be made in this thread is that poor people rarely, if ever, vote.

I don't see how any of that relates to anything I said or is an answer to the question I asked.

But to answer your question. No, I don't see any connection between the income tax and voting. Nor do I support the existence of the income tax at all.

Now, since you bring it up, I could envision a scenario where a group of people choose to bind themselves to some form of governance that would be funded by an income tax levied on those who choose to participate, and that in such a situation, naturally I wouldn't expect those people to allow those who do not choose to participate in their system and pay their income tax to be allowed to vote on any decisions related to the governance of that arrangement they mutually and voluntarily choose to bind themselves to.

But since that's very different than the income tax we have, where it's forced on people whether they like it or not, it's apples and oranges.

phill4paul

09-30-2010, 10:10 PM

Naturally, this would also entail that those who choose not to participate by paying the poll tax and voting would not have any obligation to respect the laws of those who do participate as in any way binding on them. The voting (much like shareholder voting in corporations) would only be an in-house matter for those citizen/taxpayer/voters that mutually agree with one another to bind themselves to the governance their voting on.

Good luck with that one. Society being what it is and freeholder land being non-existent.

geewhzz

09-30-2010, 10:12 PM

if a vote costs nothing it's worth nothing

phill4paul

09-30-2010, 10:14 PM

Now, since you bring it up, I could envision a scenario where a group of people choose to bind themselves to some form of governance that would be funded by an income tax levied on those who choose to participate, and that in such a situation, naturally I wouldn't expect those people to allow those who do not choose to participate in their system and pay their income tax to be allowed to vote on any decisions related to the governance of that arrangement they mutually and voluntarily choose to bind themselves to.

But since that's very different than the income tax we have, where it's forced on people whether they like it or not, it's apples and oranges.

Well since your envisioning a pink unicorn and rainbow scenario then any debate regarding actual politics of this day is kinda apples and oranges.

erowe1

09-30-2010, 10:16 PM

So, you're essentially an anarchist then? There should be no authority, whatsoever?

Murder, for example, would be legal as long as the person who did it didn't vote?

If anarchy means no governance, then no.

If we got rid of the state, I would get together with a bunch of other people and enter into a mutual agreement with one another that would include governance among ourselves that would prohibit violence within our group (among other things, such as homosexuality), protect us from violence from outside it, would be funded by some arrangement we who belong to the group agree on, and would involve a decision making process that we also agree on. Naturally, I would not want that decision making process to involve allowing others outside our group who didn't participate in that voluntarily entered funding arrangement to have any say over the governance of our group. So I would support tying the funding responsibilities and the voting rights for our group together, much like they are for shareholders in corporate governance. Of course we also would have no right to impose the laws we choose to bind ourselves with onto other people outside our group, effectively ruling them by conquest.

erowe1

09-30-2010, 10:17 PM

Well since your envisioning a pink unicorn and rainbow scenario then any debate regarding actual politics of this day is kinda apples and oranges.

But we're not debating actual politics of the day. We all know there's not going to be a poll tax. We're debating ethical principles about how things ought to be. I'm taking the side of right. How about you?

phill4paul

09-30-2010, 10:17 PM

if a vote costs nothing it's worth nothing

If everyone doesn't have a right to say then no one does.

erowe1

09-30-2010, 10:22 PM

If everyone doesn't have a right to say then no one does.

But it never has been nor ever will be the case that everyone has a right to say. Nor do I believe you even really think everyone should have that right.

phill4paul

09-30-2010, 10:25 PM

But we're not debating actual politics of the day. We all know there's not going to be a poll tax. We're debating ethical principles about how things ought to be. I'm taking the side of right. How about you?

I'm sorry. I thought this discussion was based upon whether people, living today, in America, under the Constitution had a right to vote without or without paying a fee.

Saying that your opinion is the "side of right" is pretty disingenuous. At the very least subjective.

I think I've made my point abundantly clear.

Which part are you having problems with?

Nate-ForLiberty

09-30-2010, 10:32 PM

One thing that hasn't been pointed out is that of Dr. Paul's use of voting while in congress. He has repeatedly used his voting power to deny (Dr. No!) the government from thieving. However, as I read a lot of the pro-tax positions, there is a consistent attempt to relate voting itself to theft. Now if you were to vote for measures that would redistribute wealth, that would be theft, or to authorize secret assassinations that would be murder. So why do you want to throw the baby out with the bath water?

erowe1

09-30-2010, 10:47 PM

However, as I read a lot of the pro-tax positions, there is a consistent attempt to relate voting itself to theft.

It's not a "pro-tax position." Nobody here is necessarily pro-tax. It's more a question of, given that there is a tax, and given that there is voting, whether that taxation and representation be linked together, or they be separated.

erowe1

09-30-2010, 10:48 PM

I think I've made my point abundantly clear.

Which part are you having problems with?

I actually don't know what your position is (something about "everybody pays," and something about how red states get more back than they pay in).

So do you think that taxation and representation should be linked together? Or should they not be? Your point about how everybody pays suggests to me that you think they should be. But some other things you've said have suggested to me the opposite.

Edit: You're right about the bit I put in about my being on the side of right. I shouldn't have said that part.

Nate-ForLiberty

09-30-2010, 10:49 PM

It's not a "pro-tax position." Nobody here is necessarily pro-tax. It's more a question of, given that there is a tax, and given that there is voting, whether that taxation and representation be linked together, or they be separated.

ok, fine, now can you respond to the part of voting against theft?

erowe1

09-30-2010, 10:58 PM

ok, fine, now can you respond to the part of voting against theft?

I am not among those who relate voting itself to theft (I'm not sure anyone else is either, but if they are, I'm not).

However, what is theft is any means of funding either the cost of an election itself, or of the cost of enforcement of laws that result from the election or from the government it delegates power to, that is involuntarily imposed on people.

Vessol

09-30-2010, 11:13 PM

Voting is theft in multiple ways.

The first being of course that you are jockeying amongst many others in order to elect your particular candidate whom you prefer to steal from you and others.

Not to mention how is the costs of an election handled? Through theft of course.

tangent4ronpaul

10-01-2010, 01:48 AM

The problem with pay at the poll to vote is that they would keep raising the cost so that only the rich (land developers, etc) could afford to vote - pricing us "common folk" out of equation.

That said, a minor fee or proof of paying property taxes would probably be a good thing. Something like $20 that anyone should be able to afford would be enough to detract those without a serious interest and knowledge of what's going on. Yes, elections cost money and being able to just hand out voter registration lists or at reasonable cost would be a huge plus for the political process.

The other thing is that every election we have a bunch of options to borrow money for things that people would like. They generally always pass. I was talking to a libertarian leaning candidate for county council today (looks like he's going to win - YEAH!) who spilled the beans about what a hole we are in. These things have piled up debt on the county and we are in the hole for BILLIONS already! The county is currently paying over 100 MILLION a year in interest! :eek: Having to pony up $20 at the door could pay this off in a few years and cover future things like that. But we keep electing these damn dems who just SPEND, SPEND, SPEND! That results in property taxes that keep getting hiked - mine have risen to the point that it would almost be cheaper to rent and sales taxes keep getting hiked. As a result, many businesses and people are moving out of the county and the state.

If the people that were approving these extra expenses by voting were paying for what they were voting for - that would be a HUGE improvement!

-t

EndDaFed

10-01-2010, 03:13 AM

The debt is a consequence of the way in which the monetary system is setup. If you go back and look at the debt to GDP ratio going back the past 150 years the debts were always paid down to a reasonable level before the full removal of the gold standard in the 1970's. No amount of voting will fix this because the challenge of reform is outside the scope of an election cycle. The short term pain would be too much for any politician to consider such an option, because the possibility of being tossed out of office is great.

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/3464/totalusdebtvsgdp791588.png

Now you will see a huge spike around the great depression. You have to keep in mind that this is an anomaly. The debts remained fixed for the most part during this period, but the economy fell away.

We shouldn't go back to a gold standard given the scarcity of gold is too much in per-portion to the number of goods in the market today. A new standard should be drawn up that would consist of many metals in order to make sure there is enough money in the system to allow for commerce to move smoothly. I doubt anything like that will come along until the major currency crisis hits. It's not a question of if but when.

erowe1

10-01-2010, 05:08 AM

The problem with pay at the poll to vote is that they would keep raising the cost so that only the rich (land developers, etc) could afford to vote - pricing us "common folk" out of equation.

I'm fine with that.

If they got rid of your income tax and replaced it with a $10,000 poll tax that all you have to do to avoid paying is not vote, wouldn't you consider that a wonderful thing?

erowe1

10-01-2010, 05:11 AM

The other thing is that every election we have a bunch of options to borrow money for things that people would like. They generally always pass. I was talking to a libertarian leaning candidate for county council today (looks like he's going to win - YEAH!) who spilled the beans about what a hole we are in. These things have piled up debt on the county and we are in the hole for BILLIONS already! The county is currently paying over 100 MILLION a year in interest! :eek: Having to pony up $20 at the door could pay this off in a few years and cover future things like that.

Oh no. No way. If you're talking about some new tax to give the government more revenue to help it get out of debt (because everybody believes they'd do that, rather than just use the extra revenue as an excuse to spend more), then I'm not for it any more. I'm only for a poll tax, whether it be small or large, if it replaces some existing tax.

EndDaFed

10-01-2010, 05:12 AM

I'm fine with that.

If they got rid of your income tax and replaced it with a $10,000 poll tax that all you have to do to avoid paying is not vote, wouldn't you consider that a wonderful thing?

Then they could vote to enslave those who can't pay that tax. It's a dumb idea.

erowe1

10-01-2010, 05:37 AM

Then they could vote to enslave those who can't pay that tax. It's a dumb idea.

So I'd be a slave, but wouldn't have to pay any taxes? Sounds like I'd be less of a slave than I am now, not more of one.

And let's follow the reasoning more, because I'm missing how you got to your conclusion.

Right now we only let citizens vote. Does that result in citizens using their vote to enslave noncitizens? And if so, then does that mean that restricting the vote to citizens is a dumb idea?

phill4paul

10-01-2010, 03:45 PM

I actually don't know what your position is (something about "everybody pays," and something about how red states get more back than they pay in).

So do you think that taxation and representation should be linked together? Or should they not be? Your point about how everybody pays suggests to me that you think they should be. But some other things you've said have suggested to me the opposite.

Edit: You're right about the bit I put in about my being on the side of right. I shouldn't have said that part.

Alright let me see if I can be a bit clearer.

When I say everyone pays that is exactly what I mean. Everyone truly does. Whether it is at a gas pump or a sin tax on a pack of smokes. It all goes into one big fund that is parceled out across a wide spectrum of expenditures.

Those calling for a poll tax, even as little as one dollar, would be infringing on an individuals right to choose their representative.

A wino who collects cans for his evening vino contributes through his purchase to the system. Possibly this wino may need public health care.
This might put him into the negative contribution. Which by many remarks here would mean that he shouldn't get a vote.
However, he HAS contributed. This is what I mean when I say everybody pays. Everyday. In some manner everyone contributes to the system.

Which leads to the part regarding red states.

Since many here feel that those that do not contribute should not get a vote I took it one step farther.
Basically what they are saying is that people on welfare that live off the state should not get a vote as they will only vote for more personal benefits. They are just not being straight up.
Well the same thing in microcosm, individuals, could be applied on a larger scale.
Since there are whole states that receive more than they give then why should we allow citizens of these states to vote themselves benefits at the cost of other states. Surprising that the red states, "conservative" states, receive more no?

So for clarity let me say this. It is not about "taxation without representation." It is about a representative form of government within enumerated parameters.
It is about a Republic in which voters choose those that best represent their beliefs as to how the government should function.
Because even that individual that is on welfare might not wish for an interventionist policy that may bring war upon them.
The individual that works their ass off and can only rent instead of being a landowner may wish to end the War on Drugs.
Every citizen has a stake in this. Therefore every citizen should have a vote.

Lastly I apologize to you. I was getting a bit heated when others were spouting their "people that live off the system should have no say in the system drivel."

I do my part to work within the system that we have. Would I like another system. The idea is very entertaining. And for discussion sake could hold my attention for an evening. However, upon awakening the next morning I would still find myself in the system that we now have and so try to ensure that everyone has a say in it.

erowe1

10-01-2010, 05:25 PM

Alright let me see if I can be a bit clearer.

When I say everyone pays that is exactly what I mean. Everyone truly does. Whether it is at a gas pump or a sin tax on a pack of smokes. It all goes into one big fund that is parceled out across a wide spectrum of expenditures.

It still seems to me like your argument is that there should not be a poll tax because everybody already pays, which implies that you agree with the premise that their right to vote is somehow connected to the fact that they pay some kind of tax. But if you agree with that premise, then I don't see how it is that your position is anti-poll tax.

It seems like at bottom you're pro-poll tax and just think that everybody has already paid that poll tax in one way or another. The difference between me and you is that I think that tax should be directly connected to voting, rather than indirectly. And it shouldn't be something that everybody is forced to pay, but only those people who choose to pay it so as to be able to vote, where others who wish to forgo their vote and keep their money should be able to.

Your argument also, if I understand it correctly, brings me back to my citizenship question. Do you think the vote should be restricted to citizens? Or should noncitizens be allowed to vote too, since, after all, they are part of the everybody who already pays?

Those calling for a poll tax, even as little as one dollar, would be infringing on an individuals right to choose their representative.
Where do you get this idea that anybody has a right to vote? And who specifically has this right? Everybody? Or just some people? If everybody, then that includes noncitizens, right? If just some people, then how do you decide whom to include and whom to exclude, and why are your criteria better than a criterion that ties representation and taxation together.

Well the same thing in microcosm, individuals, could be applied on a larger scale.
No, it can't. It's apples and oranges.

Since there are whole states that receive more than they give then why should we allow citizens of these states to vote themselves benefits at the cost of other states.
On that we all agree. Nobody, either as an individual or as a state, should ever be allowed to do that, unless it's in a system where participation is voluntary and those who choose to be a part of the system willingly surrender their money to whatever the outcome of a vote turns out to be. One way this could be done is with a poll tax, where those who don't want to pay don't have to, and naturally also wouldn't get a say on how the money raised in that poll tax is spent.

Surprising that the red states, "conservative" states, receive more no?
No, it's not surprising. It's old news that the left loves to harp on as if the taxpayers of those red states are somehow benefiting from federal central management of the nation's economy, when they aren't. Those tax payers would be better off keeping the $1.00 they are forced against their wills to pay in taxes and spending or investing it however they would choose, rather than to have the federal government spend $1.20 on some government program in their state. But if that dollar were collected from them voluntarily, such as in a poll tax, rather than involuntarily, that problem would not exist.

So for clarity let me say this. It is not about "taxation without representation." It is about a representative form of government within enumerated parameters.
It is about a Republic in which voters choose those that best represent their beliefs as to how the government should function.
Because even that individual that is on welfare might not wish for an interventionist policy that may bring war upon them.
The individual that works their ass off and can only rent instead of being a landowner may wish to end the War on Drugs.
Every citizen has a stake in this. Therefore every citizen should have a vote.

But it's not just citizens who have a stake in it. Noncitizens do too. Some noncitizens on the other side of the world, such as in Iran, have more at stake than most citizens do. Should they get to vote on my representatives as well? If not, why not?

heavenlyboy34

10-01-2010, 05:45 PM

The thing is, as the franchise has expanded the government has received an even greater "mandate" from the voting public. When the franchise is restricted, the government cannot receive the mandate that is required to significantly change the structures of government because it is recognized that not everyone who will be affected by these changes has had a say.

When we traded an absolute monarchical system for a democracy (a process that, albeit, took place over a great many centuries), we traded the "Divine Right of Kings" for the "Will of the People." In practice, there is no real difference between the two. The greatest liberty ever accomplished was when we had a mixed system, whereby we had limited franchises and every social group had to agree upon legislation. Nowadays, the government need only appeal to those addicted to welfare and those that feel sympathy for them in order to gain the "Mandate of Heaven."

I agree 100%. :cool: In regards to the OP question, people shouldn't vote at all-they should form voluntary governments.