[Zipperfish]

Thanos Thanos:

I actually respect a plutocrat that honestly states that he believes democracy should only belong to those who have the most money and stuff. To carry on with your Capetian reference, I'd like to see Perkins' head at the top of the pile of those who finally received the justice they've clearly earned after about ten years of a new Robespierre-esque regime cleaning up the place. But, hey, he still gets points for honesty.

Yeah, well put. We live in an era where our opinions are constantly being manipulated by professionals with black-belts in Mindfuck--"if you play the tape backwards, you can see the officers are trying to help Mr. King up" type of thing.

[Prof_Chomsky]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

Democracy is based on the rights of individuals, not the rights of dollars. 1 person, 1 vote. The system you propose is pretty darn close to the aristocracy your forefathers fought to overthrow...

And you MUST be able to see the inevitable issue with this. Rich people will inevitably turn the working class into serfs.

Amazing to see someone named 'Chomsky' defending the rights of individuals. Forgive me if I call bullsh*t on that.

Given that the US is not now nor has ever been a democracy I'm not going to get all broken up about democratic rights.

We're a Constitutional and representational republic. With regards to that part about representation it is not without precedent to limit voting rights to those who will be impacted by or who will pay for something.

Several states allow for proportional representation of landowners with regards to numerous topics such as school bonds or the annexation of rural land to a municipality. Which is only fair.

Really, why should a tenant in an apartment get to vote on a bond they don't have to pay? Why should a tenant get to vote on an annexation that has no impact on them?

You may as well pull out that bullsh*t from 2004 and 2008 when some of the Commonwealth and EU people proposed that they should have a right to vote for the US President because of various reasons.

Sheer idiocy.

Tell you what, give me your home address and we'll have twenty homeless people move in and then you can hold a vote on who gets to run your house. You'll still be on the hook for paying the bills, of course, but the governance of your house will be far more democratic than it is now.

Imagine you are a member of the billionaire club. As a result you get 90% of the votes in the country because you control that much of the wealth. What are the first things you’d want enacted in law?

1. Stiffle small business. You own giant corporations. Small startups can only damage you. Let’s make new business owners pay a 75% tax rate to make sure that never happens.
2. Cut taxes on businesses and the wealthy to 0. Screw the workers, they don’t do anything for us anyway. They should have to pay for the nation’s infrastructure (that I use and rely on to run my giant corporation).
3. Labour codes? Screw that. If my workers lose a leg, arm, hand, get black lung, cancer or go blind there is a mass of other poverty stricken people begging to take their job (especailly since we’ve reduced them to utter poverty).

[Jabberwalker]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Thanos Thanos:

I actually respect a plutocrat that honestly states that he believes democracy should only belong to those who have the most money and stuff. To carry on with your Capetian reference, I'd like to see Perkins' head at the top of the pile of those who finally received the justice they've clearly earned after about ten years of a new Robespierre-esque regime cleaning up the place. But, hey, he still gets points for honesty.

Yeah, well put. We live in an era where our opinions are constantly being manipulated by professionals with black-belts in Mindfuck--"if you play the tape backwards, you can see the officers are trying to help Mr. King up" type of thing.

By the way, I just noticed (yesterday) when my son was doing a presentation on the Athabasca Oil Sands that the infamous Koch brothers (speaking of black belts in mind fuck) control 2 million acres of the Oil Sands. No wonder the Canadian government is firing climate scientists.

[stratos]

Imagine where 100 people get to vote on a tax that only 1 of those 100 will have to pay. Sounds real far doesn't it.

[Jabberwalker]

We'll set up two tier voting. The rich get to vote in their own tax rate, without anyone else. The rest of us will be left voting on and paying the full shot.

[stratos]

You do know this is already in practice in the US. Congress and only Congress gets to vote on their own pay raises.

[Prof_Chomsky]

stratos stratos:

Imagine where 100 people get to vote on a tax that only 1 of those 100 will have to pay. Sounds real far doesn't it.

That’s called majority rules. It’s the heart of democracy.

You’re assuming the majority will rape the 1%, but we’ve seen that is never ever the case. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander so to speak. If the top 1% are actually that valuable to the nation as a whole you don’t piss on them, you get them to help and make laws accordingly.

If anything that 1% now controls politics and pisses on the other 99% continually. That’s a hell of a lot less fair.

[stratos]

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

stratos stratos:

Imagine where 100 people get to vote on a tax that only 1 of those 100 will have to pay. Sounds real far doesn't it.

That’s called majority rules. It’s the heart of democracy.

You’re assuming the majority will rape the 1%, but we’ve seen that is never ever the case. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander so to speak. If the top 1% are actually that valuable to the nation as a whole you don’t piss on them, you get them to help and make laws accordingly.

[/quote]

You mean like all the gay marriage issues that failed to pass. As in the majority voted against it yet the gay rights movement insisted that the law's be put into place against the majority rule.

How in W.Virginia the auto plant that voted against going union. The UAW is already trying to get the vote over turned.

How in many towns and counties around the US where a majority of non property owners continually raise property taxes to pay for schools, roads and other property tax based issues yet never vote for an increase in sales tax that would directly affect them.

If you want to insist that majority rules when it comes to votes then do not get upset when the vote does not go your way. Unfortunately so many special interest groups don't see it that way. They try and get votes over turned or go around the vote to get what they want even when the majority of people have already said no.

[andyt]

Everybody pays property tax, one way or another, unless they live in a cardboard box. Very few people who live in cardboard boxes vote.

[DrCaleb]

Didn't Warren Buffet say he pays less tax than his secretary?

Methinks this would backfire on the rich. (Unless they actually start paying taxes.)

[Prof_Chomsky]

stratos stratos:

Prof_Chomsky Prof_Chomsky:

stratos stratos:

Imagine where 100 people get to vote on a tax that only 1 of those 100 will have to pay. Sounds real far doesn't it.

That’s called majority rules. It’s the heart of democracy.

You’re assuming the majority will rape the 1%, but we’ve seen that is never ever the case. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander so to speak. If the top 1% are actually that valuable to the nation as a whole you don’t piss on them, you get them to help and make laws accordingly.

stratos stratos:

You mean like all the gay marriage issues that failed to pass. As in the majority voted against it yet the gay rights movement insisted that the law's be put into place against the majority rule.

How in W.Virginia the auto plant that voted against going union. The UAW is already trying to get the vote over turned.

How in many towns and counties around the US where a majority of non property owners continually raise property taxes to pay for schools, roads and other property tax based issues yet never vote for an increase in sales tax that would directly affect them.

If you want to insist that majority rules when it comes to votes then do not get upset when the vote does not go your way. Unfortunately so many special interest groups don't see it that way. They try and get votes over turned or go around the vote to get what they want even when the majority of people have already said no.

I’m not actually sure what point you’re trying to make?
Is it that no system of government is perfect? Agreed.

When it comes to stomping on the rights of the minority, that’s why you have a constitution and judiciary branch of government. The majority may dislike how a minority lives their lives, but ultimately that’s why the constitution exists.

Property tax is a complicated issue. It deserves its own thread. But it's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. Even renters pay property taxes, just in a different form (higher rents).

But nothing that you have said so far can possibly justify putting all of the power into the hands of an elite few rich people.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Didn't Warren Buffet say he pays less tax than his secretary?

Methinks this would backfire on the rich. (Unless they actually start paying taxes.)

Not less taxes, a lower tax rate. Because most of his income is capital gains he pays 15% on the 10 million he made, vs his secretary paying 30% on her wages.

[andyt]

Let's have voting based on IQ - you get as many votes as your IQ, minus 80. That will still favor the rich, but at least prevent some of their idiot hangers on from having much, if any, influence.

[stratos]

Prof_Chomsky

Actually I was just pointing out some more instances to back up your statement about majority rule being stomped on by the minority percent or outside persons in the case of the auto plant.

Yet you in return advocate that the minority 1% be stomped on by the majority when it means that the 1% are the rich.

So now you have me confused are you for the right that the majority rule or for the right that the minority rule when they are being made unequal by the majority.

[stratos]

andyt andyt:

Let's have voting based on IQ - you get as many votes as your IQ, minus 80. That will still favor the rich, but at least prevent some of their idiot hangers on from having much, if any, influence.

I like that idea. It would mean I get 50 + votes.