- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I am going to look like a terrible person for saying this (regarding suffrage)
Posted on 9/19/14 at 3:22 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Posted on 9/19/14 at 3:22 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
There is a very common belief that the more suffrage and voting there is, the better everything is. I tend to disagree. Let me defend myself by saying that if law and government, in present times, were actually kept in their traditional confines of protecting natural rights to life, liberty, and property, then I would be fine with mass voting. The problem though, is that the primary function of government these days is monetary transfer from one group to another in the form of benefits (pork, programs, etc). Because this is the current, unfortunate primary function of the state, it means that the more people that vote, the more interests there are in the picture, trying to claw and fight for the scarce resources that the government transfers from peter to Paul.
Someone in a recent thread said that he thinks a balanced budget is impossible. And I agree, for the reason I listed above.
You can call me a terrible person all you want, but mass suffrage and voting, combined with a government whose primary function is not protection of rights, but transferring of wealth, gets you to Bastiat's spot on definition of government:
Government is that great fiction, where everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else
I've felt this way for quite some time. Maybe everyone should have a vote and you would get and additional vote for every $20k in federal taxes you pay.
Only property owners should have the right to vote on tax increases as well.
Posted on 9/19/14 at 3:23 pm to ruzil
quote:
I've felt this way for quite some time. Maybe everyone should have a vote and you would get and additional vote for every $20k in federal taxes you pay.
![](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/Images/Icons/Iconrotflmao.gif)
Nothing could go wrong with this plan...
I'll give you this Michigan...you know how to get all the loons out with your threads.
Posted on 9/20/14 at 12:10 am to ruzil
Crazy threads like these only serve to turn sane people off and push them into voting for Democrats as the lesser of two evils.
I'm not sure you've thought this all the way through. NYC bankers and California tech liberals would dominate. The South has less disposable income and a lower income in general. With taxes being progressive, this means that votes would skew towards the higher cost-of-living states up north and out West.
.. for property taxes? There's no federal election for property taxes. What about people in urban areas? Only landlords can vote?
Jesus Christ, people.
quote:
you would get and additional vote for every $20k in federal taxes you pay.
I'm not sure you've thought this all the way through. NYC bankers and California tech liberals would dominate. The South has less disposable income and a lower income in general. With taxes being progressive, this means that votes would skew towards the higher cost-of-living states up north and out West.
quote:
Only property owners should have the right to vote on tax increases as well.
.. for property taxes? There's no federal election for property taxes. What about people in urban areas? Only landlords can vote?
Jesus Christ, people.
This post was edited on 9/20/14 at 12:12 am
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)