tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774848724259616420.post6612567811925109312..comments2023-12-19T19:28:28.619-08:00Comments on Wealth is not the Problem: Yesterday was Tax Freedom Day- sort ofHaynesBEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11263223513305886233noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774848724259616420.post-78594315256328063272009-04-15T16:44:00.000-07:002009-04-15T16:44:00.000-07:00Doug,
Thanks for the clarification.
The most int...Doug, <br />Thanks for the clarification.<br /><br />The most interesting comment I ever read on property requirements and voting rights goes something like this: if you had properly constituted limits on what was open for vote, having the franchise wouldn't that much. If other people can't deprive you of your freedom or property via votes or laws, voting would primarily (and simply) be about who does the day to day chores of running government. It's because we don't have true equality before the law that special interests are able to co-opt the coercive power of governemnt and use it against us--even against our "inalienable rights" like freedom of commerce and property rights.<br /><br />That said--I certainly agree no one should be able to vote away another person property. By definition, the wealthiest individuals will always be a minority and thus vulnerable to the majority. The Founders did their best to construct a Constitution that would protect the minority from the majority--but it looks like its still up to us to defend it.<br /><br />Another idea--how about we all get to vote and we all don't pay taxes?HaynesBEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11263223513305886233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774848724259616420.post-65756012246418441972009-04-15T06:52:00.000-07:002009-04-15T06:52:00.000-07:00Well, I kind of meant it...
Here is what I'm sayi...Well, I kind of meant it...<br /><br />Here is what I'm saying:<br /><br />In a laissez faire system, where you have voluntary taxation, I think that it would be reasonable to argue that if one does not contribute financially to the maintenance of the state that they have no say in terms of voting rights - of course, the issue would be so marginal since the state would have such a limited function <br /><br />Today, I think it is more egregious in that voters have the ability to expropriate the incomes of others. Certainly, no one has the right to do this under any circumstances but it seems even more egregious for those who pay nothing in taxes to have a "vote" in taking other people's money.<br /><br />Keep in mind, originally, at the time of the founding, many states had property restrictions on voting meaning you had to at least own land to have a vote. The idea was that in a republic, only those who really had a stake in the society should be allowed to vote. Obviously, this went away over time. The situation now is so convoluted it is hard to make this argument. It's easier in the context of a very limited government, i.e., under laissez faire.<br /><br />interested in your thoughts <br /><br />I was making this point in a flippant way.The Rat Caphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06641716225847901280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774848724259616420.post-22665016631704850072009-04-14T08:33:00.000-07:002009-04-14T08:33:00.000-07:00Doug--
Do you really mean that?
Many of the ways ...Doug--<br />Do you really mean that? <br />Many of the ways that government could (and does) effect us do not directly occur through our wallets. Freedom of speech, religion, right to assembly etc.<br /><br />Better yet I think is the simple assertion of equality of law--the outlawing of all special interest legislation thus decreasing the sphere of influence open to our elected representatives. Of course, a government which limited itself to the protection of individual rights would accomplish the same thing.HaynesBEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11263223513305886233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774848724259616420.post-50781810276837095632009-04-14T08:05:00.000-07:002009-04-14T08:05:00.000-07:00I would propose that if you don't pay taxes you sh...I would propose that if you don't pay taxes you should not be able to vote. It is the converse of the argument against taxation without representation. Why should you have representation if you do not pay taxes?The Rat Caphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06641716225847901280noreply@blogger.com