This discussion centers on the sustainability of democracy in relation to human nature and the implications of voting rights based on tax contributions. Participants argue that the tendency to vote for benefits while shifting costs can undermine liberties, creating a dependency cycle between different voter groups. Suggestions include restricting voting rights to taxpayers and potentially weighting votes based on tax contributions, raising concerns about fairness and the risk of an aristocratic system. The conversation highlights the complexity of balancing democratic ideals with practical governance challenges.
PREREQUISITESPolitical scientists, policymakers, and individuals interested in the dynamics of democracy and governance, particularly those examining the intersection of taxation and voting rights.
russ_watters said:I'm not sure the liberals in this forum will go for an analogy that has the rich people being lambs and the poor people wolves, but I'm onboard with it.
That's essentially equivalent to libertariansm, except that laws are made and enforced by a government instead of a private institution. The actual scope of the authorized legitimate use of force is virtually the same either way.alt said:OK then - I suppose we'll have to settle for Anarcho Capitalism ..
According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.
Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based on the voluntary trade of private property and services (including money, consumer goods, land, and capital goods) in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Al68 said:That's essentially equivalent to libertariansm, except that laws are made and enforced by a government instead of a private institution. The actual scope of the authorized legitimate use of force is virtually the same either way.
One could also argue that an anarcho-capitalist private law making and enforcement institution is a defacto government by definition, rendering the distinction completely semantic.
Probably as a label for the community, I agree. But I wouldn't label the characters themselves as anarcho-capitalist, just because there is no suggestion in Atlas Shrugged that any of them opposed government in general. They were "anti-looter government", not anti-government.alt said:Yes, interesting observation in your 2nd para.
I shy away from labels usually, because they are, or rather peoples use of them is, often quite fluid.
I wonder though, what label would one ascribe to those in A Rands 'Atlas Shrugged' gulch ? Anarcho capitalism probably ?
Al68 said:Probably as a label for the community, I agree. But I wouldn't label the characters themselves as anarcho-capitalist, just because there is no suggestion in Atlas Shrugged that any of them opposed government in general. They were "anti-looter government", not anti-government.
I would call them libertarians, or classical liberals, myself, in the absence of any reason to think they, or Rand herself, opposed legitimate (classically liberal) government.
alt said:.. They were "anti-looter government", not anti-government ..
Ah! I didn't twig to that. That's the point I was missing. Thanks for the clear and succinct clarification.
Reminds me of a Beavis and Butthead quote: "I hate numbers. There's..like..too many of them and stuff."zooxanthellae said:I'm reminded of something that a frustrated John von Neumann said at some point about the state of pure math...
As was pointed out earlier, the problem with that is that a politician being sane and hard working is a disadvantage if the politician is working against, instead of for, your interests. From my libertarian point of view, I only wish those politicians who have advocated authoritarian laws were less sane and hardworking, so they wouldn't have accomplished so much of their agenda.This is why I think Ivan's strategy is a pretty decent one. Our best bet in this system is to elect people who seem sane and hard-working.