Should those who receive stolen goods be allowed to vote?

[Madison320]

I've thought for a long time that the main problem with most countries is the "one man-one vote" principle. I think this is why most countries move towards socialism until they go bankrupt. The founding fathers warned about this and that's why they wanted us to be a republic, not a democracy. I think it's morally flawed to allow parasites to have the same voting power as the hosts they steal from. If you disagree I have a few questions. Do you feel that criminals should be allowed to vote? If not why should those who knowingly receive stolen goods be allowed to vote? Why do you feel a democracy is superior to a republic?

I'm sure you've all heard of the analogy of two wolves and a sheep voting for what's for dinner. But I've never heard a solution to that analogy. Why should the wolves be allowed to choose to slaughter the sheep?

What I'm suggesting is completely voluntary. If you want stolen goods, you can't vote. If you want to vote, don't take stolen goods.

[acptulsa]

In some jurisdictions, receiving stolen goods is a felony, and felons aren't allowed to vote. So in those places, we're already there.

The problem is we let felons run for office--and often elect them. But they're the connected type of felons who never get arrested and prosecuted. You know--like the Clintons.

[Dr.3D]

In some jurisdictions, receiving stolen goods is a felony, and felons aren't allowed to vote. So in those places, we're already there.

The problem is we let felons run for office--and often elect them. But they're the connected type of felons who never get arrested and prosecuted. You know--like the Clintons.

Yep, and they get paid with stolen money.

[oyarde]

As far as I am concerned anyone accepting any govt benefits other than those pd into ( social sec , medicare ) or those earned ( military service ) should not vote in addition to anyone receiving a tax refund larger than what was pd in .

[Madison320]

As far as I am concerned anyone accepting any govt benefits other than those pd into ( social sec , medicare ) or those earned ( military service ) should not vote in addition to anyone receiving a tax refund larger than what was pd in .

I would even ban those that work for the government from voting. Otherwise you'd be creating a big loophole. All forms of welfare could easily be made to appear as a job. I work for a private company on a defense contract and I'd happily give up my voting privilege.

I like the "net taxpayer" idea, but it might be hard to implement, especially if you don't have an income tax. You wouldn't be able to keep track of how much you were paying is we had a sales tax for example.

[Madison320]

In some jurisdictions, receiving stolen goods is a felony, and felons aren't allowed to vote. So in those places, we're already there.

They still allow people on welfare to vote and they are receiving stolen goods.

[otherone]

Are you talking about government workers?

[acptulsa]

They still allow people on welfare to vote and they are receiving stolen goods.

Uh huh. And do we realistically expect a legislature to actually classify taxation as 'theft'? Because no legislature will ever do that. They'll keep denying that taxation is theft seventeen years after they're dead and buried.

[Madison320]

Uh huh. And do we realistically expect a legislature to actually classify taxation as 'theft'? Because no legislature will ever do that. They'll keep denying that taxation is theft seventeen years after they're dead and buried.

I agree, this is more of a theoretical, moral argument. Politicians love unlimited democracy, it lets them play Santa Claus.

The only possible chance we have of becoming a republic is after we go bankrupt.

[Madison320]

Are you talking about government workers?

Yes. I'd argue that anyone working for the government is also receiving stolen goods.

[oyarde]

Are you talking about government workers?

Of course . Those jobs should also have no pension . Give them a 401K like the free world .

[r3volution 3.0]

There is no such thing as a right to vote, for anyone.

The only rights are property rights, and the form of government which is best is the one which is most likely to protect property rights.

If that's universal suffrage democracy, so be it.

If that's democracy with suffrage restricted to net tax payers, so be it.

If that's not democracy at all (as I would argue), so be it.

P.S. @Madison320, would you elaborate on exactly how this electoral law would work (e.g. the definition of receiving welfare)?

[Krugminator2]

People respond to incentives either from the market or from the government. If you receive a government check, you have an incentive to at least perpetuate what you are receiving. The government should only exist to do what cannot be done conveniently by the private sector, so it makes sense people in the private sector should have the entire say.

A simple a fix is if you receive a government check or don't pay federal taxes, you don't vote in federal elections. You eliminate the conflict of interest. Peter Thiel was somewhat right about letting women vote. My fix wouldn't be sexist. It would naturally let most married women vote and keep the single women who live off of the government from voting. And there is no racial component like the Framers included.

[heavenlyboy34]

People respond to incentives either from the market or from the government. If you receive a government check, you have an incentive to at least perpetuate what you are receiving. The government should only exist to do what cannot be done conveniently by the private sector, so it makes sense people in the private sector should have the entire say.

A simple a fix is if you receive a government check or don't pay federal taxes, you don't vote in federal elections. You eliminate the conflict of interest. Peter Thiel was somewhat right about letting women vote. My fix wouldn't be sexist. It would naturally let most married women vote and keep the single women who live off of the government from voting. And there is no racial component like the Framers included.

The counter-argument for this is going to be something along the lines of "but they paid into the system to get teh SSI disability/food stamps/WIC benefits/whatever". Just something to ponder. The oldsters play the same card whenever we point out the need for SS reform.

[r3volution 3.0]

People respond to incentives either from the market or from the government. If you receive a government check, you have an incentive to at least perpetuate what you are receiving. The government should only exist to do what cannot be done conveniently by the private sector, so it makes sense people in the private sector should have the entire say.

A simple a fix is if you receive a government check or don't pay federal taxes, you don't vote in federal elections. You eliminate the conflict of interest. Peter Thiel was somewhat right about letting women vote. My fix wouldn't be sexist. It would naturally let most married women vote and keep the single women who live off of the government from voting. And there is no racial component like the Framers included.

The problem with this plan is that this electorate has the same perverse incentives as the universal suffrage electorate. For instance, if we have 100 million of these non-welfare-receiving-and-tax-paying voters, 51 million of them have the same incentive to loot the other 49 million as the majority in a universal suffrage system have to loot their own minority. In other words, non-welfare-receiving-and-tax-paying voters have an incentive to become welfare-receiving-and-non-tax-paying-voters.

Of course, the difference is supposed to be that, as soon as the 51 million non-welfare-receiving-and-tax-paying voters vote themselves welfare, they lose the right the vote, and their recent victims reverse the policy, but that doesn't really work in practice.

First, if that did happen (the 51 million voting themselves welfare did indeed lose the right to right), you'd just have a "second round" of the same behavior (i.e. 51% of the 49 million would now do the same thing to their own minority as the 51 million had done to them), and so on. It's incredibly unstable.

Second, and most importantly, it's not at all likely that the 51 million (the majority of the electorate, with control of government) would allow themselves to be disenfranchised in the first place. Ultimately, all constitutional provisions, including those defining the electorate, are a matter of legislation and (perhaps more insidiously) judicial "interpretation." Guess what kind of judges the 51 million will have appointed: the kind who will disenfranchise them once they vote themselves welfare, or the kind who won't? And this is apart from any genuine amendment process, which might also undermine the system (with the welfare-seeking majority of voters obviously having the edge in seeking such an amendment).

Recognizing that incentives drive politics and that those with the best incentives ought to rule is crucial, but this system won't quite work.

[Krugminator2]

T

Second, and most importantly, it's not at all likely that the 51 million (the majority of the electorate, with control of government) would allow themselves to be disenfranchised in the first place.

Of course, it will never happen now. Once you give people something you can never take it away. I am only saying what will work if it were implemented within a constitution.

It is worth noting only like 25% of adults were able to vote for a significant part of this country's history and it worked quite well (minus slavery). The democracy fetish seems to be a new thing that is a result of progressivism.

[Krugminator2]

The counter-argument for this is going to be something along the lines of "but they paid into the system to get teh SSI disability/food stamps/WIC benefits/whatever". Just something to ponder. The oldsters play the same card whenever we point out the need for SS reform.

That is the card they will play, but my argument is who cares? The whole point is getting a check is a conflict of interest. For example the government needs some employees. They should be compensated for their work. But in taking that compensation you no longer can vote.

Republicans never cut Social Security even though it makes more sense to cut than anything. Old people vote Republican. 80% of people on the people on the assistance programs vote Democrat, so the Democrats protect those programs at all cost. If old people and people on welfare couldn't vote, you would have much more efficient programs.

[r3volution 3.0]

Of course, it will never happen now. Once you give people something you can never take it away. I am only saying what will work if it were implemented within a constitution.

It is worth noting only like 25% of adults were able to vote for a significant part of this country's history and it worked quite well (minus slavery). The democracy fetish seems to be a new thing that is a result of progressivism.

Therein lies the problem.

Constitutions are ink on paper. Any system which relies on the sovereign(s) being bound by ink on paper will not last.

If one wants to affect the behavior of those with the ultimate decision-making power, one must rely on self-interest.

[heavenlyboy34]

Therein lies the problem.

Constitutions are ink on paper. Any system which relies on the sovereign(s) being bound by ink on paper will not last.

If one wants to affect the behavior of those with the ultimate decision-making power, one must rely on self-interest.

+rep Authority will only truly be checked by guns bigger than its own.

[r3volution 3.0]

I apologize for quoting myself, but contemplate this:

Therein lies the problem.

Constitutions are ink on paper. Any system which relies on the sovereign(s) being bound by ink on paper will not last.

If one wants to affect the behavior of those with the ultimate decision-making power, one must rely on self-interest.

What makes the market work?

Is it a set of rules written somewhere by the SEC or some other useless agency?

No, it is self-interest.

It's the same with politics.

[Madison320]

There is no such thing as a right to vote, for anyone.

The only rights are property rights, and the form of government which is best is the one which is most likely to protect property rights.

If that's universal suffrage democracy, so be it.

If that's democracy with suffrage restricted to net tax payers, so be it.

If that's not democracy at all (as I would argue), so be it.

P.S. @Madison320, would you elaborate on exactly how this electoral law would work (e.g. the definition of receiving welfare)?

I totally agree that there is no such thing as a "right" to vote. Voting has to be created by government, you don't just "have" it. It's a means to and end, and the end is good government. Or the least bad for you anarchists out there.

I don't know the best way to implement this. If you went with a "net taxpayer" system you'd have to have an income tax to keep track of how much everyone was paying. Lately I've been thinking it might be easier to just focus on the welfare side. If you volunteer to take welfare you can't vote. That way you can just refuse to take the stolen goods and get your voting privileges back.

[Madison320]

The problem with this plan is that this electorate has the same perverse incentives as the universal suffrage electorate. For instance, if we have 100 million of these non-welfare-receiving-and-tax-paying voters, 51 million of them have the same incentive to loot the other 49 million as the majority in a universal suffrage system have to loot their own minority. In other words, non-welfare-receiving-and-tax-paying voters have an incentive to become welfare-receiving-and-non-tax-paying-voters.

I totally disagree. That makes no sense. Suppose John Smith is making 2 million a year and paying a million a year in taxes. There's 2 politicians running for office. One who promises to increases taxes and welfare and one promises to reduce taxes and welfare. Are you telling me John Smith is going to vote for the politician who is going to raise taxes and welfare in the hope that somehow John Smith is going to quit his job and get free benefits? No. John Smith is going to vote for the guy who will reduce government and his taxes.

[Madison320]

+rep Authority will only truly be checked by guns bigger than its own.

Yup. That's why there's no such thing as anarchy. "bigger guns" = "authority = "government"

[nikcers]

Do the people have the right to vote in a government that has the right to steal? Not really its just election theater, the government theft will carry on no matter which party is in power of all three branches of government.

[Madison320]

The whole point is getting a check is a conflict of interest.

Exactly. It's such an obvious, massive flaw in the system I'm surprised more people don't complain about it here. We've got 21 trillion in debt to prove it.

I started a thread a while ago about how to fix South Africa. I think the situation in South Africa is the perfect example of democracy on steroids. It took the US about 200 years to go from a capitalist based system to a socialist one. South Africa has done it in about 20 years. From what I remember you were the only one that agreed with me that a constitution along with some sort of "taxpayer only voting system" was the best chance to fix South Africa. Everyone else had some sort of racial solution. Either make the whites leave or make the blacks leave. I thought was pretty lame for a libertarian forum.

[Madison320]

Do the people have the right to vote in a government that has the right to steal? Not really its just election theater, the government theft will carry on no matter which party is in power of all three branches of government.

But the "parasites" are far more likely to vote for bigger government than the "hosts".

[nikcers]

But the "parasites" are far more likely to vote for bigger government than the "hosts".

We're all parasites in empire America, we don't get to participate in the real capitalism. We slave all day for pieces of paper that the government controls.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yup. That's why there's no such thing as anarchy. "bigger guns" = "authority = "government"

When anarchists speak of "government", they obviously mean the semantic "State". This is clear from all anarchist literature. Quit being absurdly pedantic.

[nikcers]

[r3volution 3.0]

I totally disagree. That makes no sense. Suppose John Smith is making 2 million a year and paying a million a year in taxes. There's 2 politicians running for office. One who promises to increases taxes and welfare and one promises to reduce taxes and welfare. Are you telling me John Smith is going to vote for the politician who is going to raise taxes and welfare in the hope that somehow John Smith is going to quit his job and get free benefits? No. John Smith is going to vote for the guy who will reduce government and his taxes.

Tax costs and welfare benefits aren't equally distributed.

What will John do if there's a politician offering to lower his taxes while increasing his welfare benefits?