I think if I could make one non-monetary change:
It would be to limit the ability to vote for less freedom by only allowing net contributors to vote.
These are the folks who most often vote against property rights and self sovereignty.
Thoughts?
#askNostr see below.
nostr:note1w4yg8f58m5y7j244ssfj3ezl9yz6g7s9yk4h287rfrtyv46gs8zqqd6qpz
I'm mostly OK with the idea of only land owners that are debt free vote.
But, yes, eliminating voting privileges for those who are on the government teat, including the parasites that are working for directly or by contract, would help turn the tide back to a bit of sensibility, even if it's not a complete cure.
Love the gov employees don’t vote part.
Voting being limited to land owners doesn’t work for me.
Some of the most competent people I know pay a lot in taxes and don’t own land because they are in a city, and move a good bit for work.
That's the point. If you're not rooted in a place, your interests are in conflict with those that have lived "right" to acquire land and then pay it off. They should not be able to force those who have much longer time preferences and are better at staying out of debt into positions where those things are undermined.
The no debt part is to knock out all the speculative pricks from doing others dirty like are being done now.
i think voting should be restricted to who is paying tax, which means you can volunteer to do it in exchange for a say
the weight of votes should be considered equal, obviously if you volunteer to give 0.1% of your income why should you get any more vote than someone who puts 10%? how do you even quantify that without violating privacy?
it's hard to define a baseline minimum contribution to permit being equal to others in vote, i think the cost of rent (or comparable property value) is a good baseline and easy to verify
it's a slippery thing because it's a violation of privacy to demand more than a mere declaration of income
The devil is always in the details
What if it's not who can vote, but the concept of voting itself that's flawed? What if there are things that aren't appropriately deciding by vote, period?
If 2 guys jump you in a dark alley and demand your wallet, are you okay with handing it over if the 3 of you vote on it?
If a group of people sat around a table, would you be okay with putting your net worth on the table and deciding how it gets used by popular vote of those sitting there? Would it matter who was at the table? Or how many people were at the table?
When you reject moral absolutes and try to base "morality" on popular vote, you end up where the West is today.
I reject the concept of any group of people voting as a legitimate way to allocate my private property or establish a moral pattern of behavior for my life.
Your analogies sound like the European way of voting. You are describing a democracy, a very evil form of voting.
In a limited government constitutional republic, what are United States will become again, it doesn’t matter how many people vote, you can’t take rights away.
Private property rights are fundamental. I just don't see how you can simultaneously have an elected body set policies on taxes, government spending, and borrowing supported by fiat money creation (all infringement of private property rights) and maintain a limited government constitutional republic. It seems like an oxymoron. The constitution can't uphold private property rights by delegating infringement of those rights to a body "legitimized" by the fact that they were elected by a popular vote.
