http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/14/investing/tom-perkins-vote/
QuoteThe venture capitalist offered the unorthodox proposal when asked to name one idea that would "change the world" at a speaking engagement in San Francisco moderated by Fortune's Adam Lashinsky.
"The Tom Perkins system is: You don't get to vote unless you pay a dollar of taxes," Perkins said.
"But what I really think is, it should be like a corporation. You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes. How's that?"
The audience at the Commonwealth Club reacted with laughter. But Perkins offered no immediate indication that he was joking. Asked offstage if the proposal was serious, Perkins said: "I intended to be outrageous, and it was."
Perkins seemed to be aware that he was courting controversy, saying that his voting proposal would "make you more angry than my letter to the Wall Street Journal."
That letter, published last month, compared the supposed assault on the wealthy to a wave of Nazi attacks on Jews ahead of the Holocaust.
The letter sparked a public firestorm, and the venture capital firm he co-founded -- Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers -- distanced itself from his comments. Perkins has since allowed that the comparison went too far, but has not apologized for the overall message and his warning about anti-rich "radicalism."
The Perkins plan for determining who should be allowed to vote is likely to give his critics further ammunition.
For his part, Perkins shows no signs of backing down from his argument that the rich in America are under attack. Perkins said Thursday that the trend has grown since the election of President Obama -- who he described as an "amateur."
Pressed for examples of how the rich were being demonized, Perkins said that he feared higher taxes.
"The fear is wealth tax, higher taxes, higher death taxes -- just more taxes until there is no more 1%. And that that will creep down to the 5% and then the 10%," he said.
I get two votes & I'm not even rich :showoff:
Tom Perkins seems to be the amateur here.
What would potentially be nice is an "upper and lower house" system:
everyone would be able to vote on the lower house, and all bills which do not involve the budget would need to be passed by both houses. So the poor would have their rights protected.
Billls affecting the budget, and the budget itself, would be under the authority of the upper house only, and only people who has been net tax payers in any year in the previous 4 years would be able to vote on upper house candidates.
this way, rights of the poor would be protected, but there would be no need and way to buy votes via the budget.
More evidence one need not be smart to be rich.
On the other hand he is entirely correct but not in the way he imagines. His voting scheme would indeed "change the world". In the new world I would be begging Ide not to have me amongst the first put up against the wall
He's just defending his lifestyle and privilege. He'll no doubt keep doing this sort of thing up until the time a squad of Ideologues tears him limb from limb.
Quote from: Tamas on February 14, 2014, 02:03:15 PM
What would potentially be nice is an "upper and lower house" system:
everyone would be able to vote on the lower house, and all bills which do not involve the budget would need to be passed by both houses. So the poor would have their rights protected.
Billls affecting the budget, and the budget itself, would be under the authority of the upper house only, and only people who has been net tax payers in any year in the previous 4 years would be able to vote on upper house candidates.
this way, rights of the poor would be protected, but there would be no need and way to buy votes via the budget.
How would giving the wealthiest segment of society the power to give themselves tax breaks by cutting services to the poor protect the poor?
Tamas, as someone who has lived in a communist country, why would you want to hasten a new revolution? :hmm:
QuoteThat letter, published last month, compared the supposed assault on the wealthy to a wave of Nazi attacks on Jews ahead of the Holocaust.
This guy sounds like he has the brilliance and self-awareness of Martinus. Obviously somebody we need to consult on important matters.
Political systems which have included a property or income qualification have tended to work for the benefit of the upper classes. Political systems which have not have had a tendency to hand out more free money. Both have their disadvantages.
Quote from: Tamas on February 14, 2014, 02:03:15 PM
What would potentially be nice is an "upper and lower house" system:
everyone would be able to vote on the lower house, and all bills which do not involve the budget would need to be passed by both houses. So the poor would have their rights protected.
Billls affecting the budget, and the budget itself, would be under the authority of the upper house only, and only people who has been net tax payers in any year in the previous 4 years would be able to vote on upper house candidates.
this way, rights of the poor would be protected, but there would be no need and way to buy votes via the budget.
Why would the upper house ever pass a bill that didn't involve the budget?
Quote from: Tamas on February 14, 2014, 02:03:15 PM
... only people who has been net tax payers in any year...
No one in a modern first-world country is a net tax payer, unless they are out of the country and living somewhere where their government has no power to help them in case of trouble. Taxes go for services that everyone uses, and for the conditions that everyone enjoys.
If one really feels that they pay more in taxes than they get in value, they move to a country where they get better value for their money.
:huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2014, 02:10:41 PM
Political systems which have included a property or income qualification have tended to work for the benefit of the upper classes. Political systems which have not have had a tendency to hand out more free money. Both have their disadvantages.
True, but systems that have included property qualifications have all been overthrown or amended, so it isn't like the verdict of history isn't in on that concept. It's better to have an annoyed elite than desperate masses.
Quote from: grumbler on February 14, 2014, 02:34:35 PM
Quote from: Tamas on February 14, 2014, 02:03:15 PM
... only people who has been net tax payers in any year...
No one in a modern first-world country is a net tax payer, unless they are out of the country and living somewhere where their government has no power to help them in case of trouble. Taxes go for services that everyone uses, and for the conditions that everyone enjoys.
If one really feels that they pay more in taxes than they get in value, they move to a country where they get better value for their money.
*backs away slowly*
Quote from: grumbler on February 14, 2014, 02:34:35 PM
If one really feels that they pay more in taxes than they get in value, they move to a country where they get better value for their money.
The US will still tax my income if I move somewhere with lower taxes. That won't help me. :huh:
Notice how it is the people who have already won the class war who are decrying having a class war?
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2014, 03:52:24 PM
Notice how it is the people who have already won the class war who are decrying having a class war?
You have an odd conception of warfare.
This man is a supremely appropriate spokesman for the 1% and needs to be given a lot of exposure.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2014, 03:55:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2014, 03:52:24 PM
Notice how it is the people who have already won the class war who are decrying having a class war?
You have an odd conception of warfare.
Well according to Perkins it is more like Class Holocaust. Have you gotten your 99% Brownshirt yet?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2014, 03:55:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2014, 03:52:24 PM
Notice how it is the people who have already won the class war who are decrying having a class war?
You have an odd conception of warfare.
Most people who talk about "class war" don't actually mean bullets and such you know.
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2014, 04:12:45 PM
Most people who talk about "class war" don't actually mean bullets and such you know.
I get that. But "class warfare" is generally thought to involve an action a little more directed than making a bunch of money.
I don't understand. The rich won the class war but there is still a class war? Surely a class war isn't won on an individual level.
Quote from: Jacob on February 14, 2014, 01:58:38 PM
Tom Perkins seems to be the amateur here.
He is also the one who wants to split California into 6 states, with SV being one of them (heard about it on Marketplace). Dude is nuttier than squirrel shit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2014, 04:15:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2014, 04:12:45 PM
Most people who talk about "class war" don't actually mean bullets and such you know.
I get that. But "class warfare" is generally thought to involve an action a little more directed than making a bunch of money.
How about an action directed toward making a lot more at the expense of those who are not in your class?
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2014, 04:28:27 PM
How about an action directed toward making a lot more at the expense of those who are not in your class?
Please explain what you mean by that. Presumably you're not talking about theft.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2014, 04:31:14 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2014, 04:28:27 PM
How about an action directed toward making a lot more at the expense of those who are not in your class?
Please explain what you mean by that. Presumably you're not talking about theft.
I am talking about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0ehzfQ4hAQ
No, I am not talking about theft, at least not in the strict definition of the word, just like "class war" doesn't mean anyone shooting at anyone else in the strict definition of the word war.
Just look at the outcome of the last couple decades. Forget the ideology for two seconds (if you are capable) and just talk about outcomes. You cannot argue that the outcome of the last few decades can possibly be ok for human society.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2014, 04:15:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2014, 04:12:45 PM
Most people who talk about "class war" don't actually mean bullets and such you know.
I get that. But "class warfare" is generally thought to involve an action a little more directed than making a bunch of money.
In case you missed it, he is advocating taking away voting rights for people who dont make as much money as people in his class. How would you characterize it?
Quote from: grumbler on February 14, 2014, 02:36:59 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2014, 02:10:41 PM
Political systems which have included a property or income qualification have tended to work for the benefit of the upper classes. Political systems which have not have had a tendency to hand out more free money. Both have their disadvantages.
True, but systems that have included property qualifications have all been overthrown or amended, so it isn't like the verdict of history isn't in on that concept. It's better to have an annoyed elite than desperate masses.
The problem with appealing to history's verdict is that history doesn't necessarily develop in the right way, especially in the short term. For example, US had a very good thing going during the Gilded Age, but it pissed it all away in 1913 with the introduction of Federal Reserve system and income taxes.
Quote from: DGuller on February 14, 2014, 04:49:27 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 14, 2014, 02:36:59 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2014, 02:10:41 PM
Political systems which have included a property or income qualification have tended to work for the benefit of the upper classes. Political systems which have not have had a tendency to hand out more free money. Both have their disadvantages.
True, but systems that have included property qualifications have all been overthrown or amended, so it isn't like the verdict of history isn't in on that concept. It's better to have an annoyed elite than desperate masses.
The problem with appealing to history's verdict is that history doesn't necessarily develop in the right way, especially in the short term. For example, US had a very good thing going during the Gilded Age, but it pissed it all away in 1913 with the introduction of Federal Reserve system and income taxes.
JR incoming in 3-2-1.....
Quote from: DGuller on February 14, 2014, 04:49:27 PM
For example, US had a very good thing going during the Gilded Age, but it pissed it all away in 1913 with the introduction of Federal Reserve system and income taxes.
:lol:
@Berkut: OK, so you're talking about rising inequality rather than "actions directed at making a lot more at someone else's expense."
That's what I'm talking about when I say I don't see how you can call that warfare. Yesterday, I was making $X and had $Y wealth, you were making $A and had $B wealth. Then this VC dude makes a billion dollar killing on an IPO. Our positions are unchanged. How in the world is that waging war against us?
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 14, 2014, 04:49:12 PM
In case you missed it, he is advocating taking away voting rights for people who dont make as much money as people in his class. How would you characterize it?
In case you missed it, Berkut claimed the rich have already won the class war.
"If you want the vote enrich yourself," -François Guizot :frog:
"Enrich yourself" (enrichez-vous) was Guizot's solution to every problem; but the French just wouldn't listen. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2014, 04:53:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 14, 2014, 04:49:12 PM
In case you missed it, he is advocating taking away voting rights for people who dont make as much money as people in his class. How would you characterize it?
In case you missed it, Berkut claimed the rich have already won the class war.
And the people who have to live off of food stamps didnt. I dont see the mystery.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2014, 04:52:14 PM
@Berkut: OK, so you're talking about rising inequality rather than "actions directed at making a lot more at someone else's expense."
That's what I'm talking about when I say I don't see how you can call that warfare. Yesterday, I was making $X and had $Y wealth, you were making $A and had $B wealth. Then this VC dude makes a billion dollar killing on an IPO. Our positions are unchanged. How in the world is that waging war against us?
Yesterday I had a certain share of the national pie, and the commensurate ability to influence my society.
Today I have a tiny fraction of that share compared to what I had before, and I no longer have any ability to influence things compared to those who now have ten or a hundred times the previous share of national wealth.
That is most definitely waging war on us, to any extent that the term can be reasonably used to describe the effort to redress that imbalance.
Now, you can argue that the term "class warfare" sucks in general, but if you are willing to use it to describe the efforts of the losing classes to redress the balance with the winning classes, then I think it perfectly fair to use it to describe the process that the winning classes used to win in the first place.
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2014, 05:04:10 PM
Yesterday I had a certain share of the national pie, and the commensurate ability to influence my society.
Today I have a tiny fraction of that share compared to what I had before, and I no longer have any ability to influence things compared to those who now have ten or a hundred times the previous share of national wealth.
That is most definitely waging war on us, to any extent that the term can be reasonably used to describe the effort to redress that imbalance.
Now, you can argue that the term "class warfare" sucks in general, but if you are willing to use it to describe the efforts of the losing classes to redress the balance with the winning classes, then I think it perfectly fair to use it to describe the process that the winning classes used to win in the first place.
By this logic, a person who reaches the age of 18 is waging age war on his 17 year old brother. Or a widely respected poltical commentator is waging war against everyone else.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 14, 2014, 05:03:28 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2014, 04:53:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 14, 2014, 04:49:12 PM
In case you missed it, he is advocating taking away voting rights for people who dont make as much money as people in his class. How would you characterize it?
In case you missed it, Berkut claimed the rich have already won the class war.
And the people who have to live off of food stamps didnt. I dont see the mystery.
The people who have to live off of food stamps didn't claim the rich have already won the class war?? What? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2014, 05:09:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 14, 2014, 05:03:28 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2014, 04:53:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 14, 2014, 04:49:12 PM
In case you missed it, he is advocating taking away voting rights for people who dont make as much money as people in his class. How would you characterize it?
In case you missed it, Berkut claimed the rich have already won the class war.
And the people who have to live off of food stamps didnt. I dont see the mystery.
The people who have to live off of food stamps didn't claim the rich have already won the class war?? What? :huh:
Are you really confused by the notion that people who live on food stamps didnt win a class war?
I was confused by what the hell you were trying to say.
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2014, 04:42:20 PM
You cannot argue that the outcome of the last few decades can possibly be ok for human society.
The last few of decades have probably been the best decades in the history of humanity.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2014, 05:08:17 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2014, 05:04:10 PM
Yesterday I had a certain share of the national pie, and the commensurate ability to influence my society.
Today I have a tiny fraction of that share compared to what I had before, and I no longer have any ability to influence things compared to those who now have ten or a hundred times the previous share of national wealth.
That is most definitely waging war on us, to any extent that the term can be reasonably used to describe the effort to redress that imbalance.
Now, you can argue that the term "class warfare" sucks in general, but if you are willing to use it to describe the efforts of the losing classes to redress the balance with the winning classes, then I think it perfectly fair to use it to describe the process that the winning classes used to win in the first place.
By this logic, a person who reaches the age of 18 is waging age war on his 17 year old brother. Or a widely respected poltical commentator is waging war against everyone else.
Your right. It is exactly the same as someone turning eighteen. You are all set, keep voting for the Koch brothers, everything is fine.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 14, 2014, 05:14:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2014, 04:42:20 PM
You cannot argue that the outcome of the last few decades can possibly be ok for human society.
The last few of decades have probably been the best decades in the history of humanity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0ehzfQ4hAQ
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2014, 05:16:53 PM
Your right. It is exactly the same as someone turning eighteen. You are all set, keep voting for the Koch brothers, everything is fine.
You win.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2014, 04:52:14 PM
@Berkut: OK, so you're talking about rising inequality rather than "actions directed at making a lot more at someone else's expense."
That's what I'm talking about when I say I don't see how you can call that warfare. Yesterday, I was making $X and had $Y wealth, you were making $A and had $B wealth. Then this VC dude makes a billion dollar killing on an IPO. Our positions are unchanged. How in the world is that waging war against us?
The war waging part is when he says "people who don't make a billion dollar killing on IPO should be disenfranchised."
Quote from: alfred russel on February 14, 2014, 05:14:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2014, 04:42:20 PM
You cannot argue that the outcome of the last few decades can possibly be ok for human society.
The last few of decades have probably been the best decades in the history of humanity.
For whom?
Quote from: Jacob on February 14, 2014, 05:19:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2014, 04:52:14 PM
@Berkut: OK, so you're talking about rising inequality rather than "actions directed at making a lot more at someone else's expense."
That's what I'm talking about when I say I don't see how you can call that warfare. Yesterday, I was making $X and had $Y wealth, you were making $A and had $B wealth. Then this VC dude makes a billion dollar killing on an IPO. Our positions are unchanged. How in the world is that waging war against us?
The war waging part is when he says "people who don't make a billion dollar killing on IPO should be disenfranchised."
He's individually waging a collective war that he has already personally won?
Quote from: The Brain on February 14, 2014, 05:21:52 PMHe's individually waging a collective war that he has already personally won?
Are you familiar with the use of the term "class warfare" in American political discourse?
Technology has advanced rapidly, hundreds of millions have been lifted from poverty in Asia with only a minor corresponding decline in living standards in parts of the 1st world, and there haven't been any major wars. It really is a good time to be alive. That doesn't mean, however, that the world's political/economic/environmental trajectory (the outcome of the last few decades) is going to take us in a direction that's OK for humanity. Many signs seem to point to the opposite.
Quote from: Jacob on February 14, 2014, 05:23:59 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 14, 2014, 05:21:52 PMHe's individually waging a collective war that he has already personally won?
Are you familiar with the use of the term "class warfare" in American political discourse?
You don't win warfare.
Quote from: Jacob on February 14, 2014, 05:23:59 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 14, 2014, 05:21:52 PMHe's individually waging a collective war that he has already personally won?
Are you familiar with the use of the term "class warfare" in American political discourse?
It's a hell of a lot better than the "class warfare" we had in European political discourse.
anyways, Who is this Tom Perkins and why should anybody care what he thinks?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2014, 02:10:41 PM
Political systems which have included a property or income qualification have tended to work for the benefit of the upper classes. Political systems which have not have had a tendency to hand out more free money. Both have their disadvantages.
What makes you think that a system with property or income qualifications wouldn't hand out free money?
Quote from: Viking on February 14, 2014, 05:30:00 PMIt's a hell of a lot better than the "class warfare" we had in European political discourse.
No argument there.
Quoteanyways, Who is this Tom Perkins and why should anybody care what he thinks?
He is very rich. According to some (including apparently himself), that means his opinion should carry extra weight.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2014, 05:32:04 PM
What makes you think that a system with property or income qualifications wouldn't hand out free money?
Reread my post that you responded to.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2014, 05:18:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2014, 05:16:53 PM
Your right. It is exactly the same as someone turning eighteen. You are all set, keep voting for the Koch brothers, everything is fine.
You win.
He did.
Feel free to sustain the argument Neil.
"Class War": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnE97BwPeTI :cool:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2014, 05:40:35 PM
Feel free to sustain the argument Neil.
But isn't it over? I felt that it was over.
Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2014, 05:52:03 PM
But isn't it over? I felt that it was over.
Then just as an academic excercise explain to me how the rich guy getting richer *is* an example of warfare for the reason Berkut described, but my examples are not. In fact, mine should be even more egregious, since his rich guy only increased his potential political influence, whereas mine increased their actual influence.
Quote from: Jacob on February 14, 2014, 05:23:59 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 14, 2014, 05:21:52 PMHe's individually waging a collective war that he has already personally won?
Are you familiar with the use of the term "class warfare" in American political discourse?
The same as the wolf and the sheep voting? The more powerful and wealthy you are the more protection and deference you need.
Quote from: Jacob on February 14, 2014, 05:21:19 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 14, 2014, 05:14:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2014, 04:42:20 PM
You cannot argue that the outcome of the last few decades can possibly be ok for human society.
The last few of decades have probably been the best decades in the history of humanity.
For whom?
Humanity.
I'm not saying there aren't human conflicts, but we have relative peace, a rising global middle class, improved global life expectancies, declining illiteracy, etc.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2014, 05:56:51 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2014, 05:52:03 PM
But isn't it over? I felt that it was over.
Then just as an academic excercise explain to me how the rich guy getting richer *is* an example of warfare for the reason Berkut described, but my examples are not. In fact, mine should be even more egregious, since his rich guy only increased his potential political influence, whereas mine increased their actual influence.
I don't think that the rich guy getting richer is an example of class warfare. The rich guy getting richer and then using the various means at his disposal to disenfranchise and damage the majority and prevent them from exercising their rights and freedoms is an example of class warfare. There also needs to be an element of purposefulness to it. Therefore, forbidding poor people from voting, restricting their ability to access justice or banning fox hunting are all examples of class warfare. Turning 18 is not.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 14, 2014, 06:04:41 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 14, 2014, 05:21:19 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 14, 2014, 05:14:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2014, 04:42:20 PM
You cannot argue that the outcome of the last few decades can possibly be ok for human society.
The last few of decades have probably been the best decades in the history of humanity.
For whom?
Humanity.
I'm not saying there aren't human conflicts, but we have relative peace, a rising global middle class, improved global life expectancies, declining illiteracy, etc.
Which would be great things if not for the whole end of civilization thing.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 14, 2014, 06:04:41 PMHumanity.
I'm not saying there aren't human conflicts, but we have relative peace, a rising global middle class, improved global life expectancies, declining illiteracy, etc.
Yeah. This is fair. I remember seeing a really interesting chart of income inequality and income growth in the world. Basically the very, very top of super-rich are doing very well. The poorest are doing well. The very broad middle (Asia and Latin America) are doing well. But the top sort of 20% haven't done well, which is basically the West.
From a global perspective we're the people paid $300 000 a year to do the 1%'s taxes, so it's difficult to say it's really awful that we're not getting richer. But from our perspective, it's awful that we're not getting richer.
And the super-rich is an interesting change. You're not even rich if you're a millionaire anymore (in London, often you're just a home owner):
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/the-rise-and-rise-of-the-super-rich/257069/
These piece is brilliant on the global elite - Davos man:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-rise-of-the-new-global-elite/308343/
Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2014, 04:12:45 PM
Most people who talk about "class war" don't actually mean bullets and such you know.
I could get with that.
Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2014, 06:11:28 PM
I don't think that the rich guy getting richer is an example of class warfare. The rich guy getting richer and then using the various means at his disposal to disenfranchise and damage the majority and prevent them from exercising their rights and freedoms is an example of class warfare. There also needs to be an element of purposefulness to it. Therefore, forbidding poor people from voting, restricting their ability to access justice or banning fox hunting are all examples of class warfare. Turning 18 is not.
Then you disagree with Berkut.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 14, 2014, 06:04:41 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 14, 2014, 05:21:19 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on February 14, 2014, 05:14:36 PM
The last few of decades have probably been the best decades in the history of humanity.
For whom?
Humanity.
I'm not saying there aren't human conflicts, but we have relative peace, a rising global middle class, improved global life expectancies, declining illiteracy, etc.
22% of American children under the age of 18 live under the poverty level, 25% of which are under the age of 5. That is a needless and unacceptable humanity.
What about American children above the age of 18?
It's their fault they're not making enough money, rawr.
Maybe the government should sell the rich extra votes at like $100,000 a pop. They're going to buy the votes indirectly anyway. :hmm:
I'd sell my vote to Mr. Perkins for a hundred grand.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 14, 2014, 05:34:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2014, 05:32:04 PM
What makes you think that a system with property or income qualifications wouldn't hand out free money?
Reread my post that you responded to.
QuotePolitical systems which have included a property or income qualification have tended to work for the benefit of the upper classes. Political systems which have not have had a tendency to hand out more free money. Both have their disadvantages.
My reading of that was the disadvantage of each system was mutually exclusive. Otherwise, it reads like one system has two problem and the other has one problem.
Anyway, it goes toward my theory that libertarians and the like are sorta luke warm on the whole democracy thing.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2014, 07:21:09 PM
Anyway, it goes toward my theory that libertarians and the like are sorta luke warm on the whole democracy thing.
Anyone who cares more about rights than consensus would be by definition, wouldn't they?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 14, 2014, 07:23:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2014, 07:21:09 PM
Anyway, it goes toward my theory that libertarians and the like are sorta luke warm on the whole democracy thing.
Anyone who cares more about rights than consensus would be by definition, wouldn't they?
Well, their rights at least.
Erm, no.
I remember Hans posting an article from the NRO, decrying the move toward democracy in Hong Kong because it would ruin the free market as poor people would inevitably socialize the whole system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 14, 2014, 08:01:04 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed
How frightful. I mean, I'm no fan of democracy, but this libertarian world sounds dreadful.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2014, 07:32:27 PM
I remember Hans posting an article from the NRO, decrying the move toward democracy in Hong Kong because it would ruin the free market as poor people would inevitably socialize the whole system.
To be fair, a lot of people claiming to be libertarian are really authoritarian reactionaries that selectively adopt some libertarians justifications for added legitimacy.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 14, 2014, 03:22:43 PM
The US will still tax my income if I move somewhere with lower taxes. That won't help me. :huh:
:huh: You will get better return on the investment, or you won't do it.
Quote from: DGuller on February 14, 2014, 08:34:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2014, 07:32:27 PM
I remember Hans posting an article from the NRO, decrying the move toward democracy in Hong Kong because it would ruin the free market as poor people would inevitably socialize the whole system.
To be fair, a lot of people claiming to be libertarian are really authoritarian reactionaries that selectively adopt some libertarians justifications for added legitimacy.
I'm not sure I would make a difference between the two. Libertarians often decry the overarching federal powers that happen to curb the powers of the local elites have over the not so elite. And by coincidence hardcore libertarians have pretensions toward being local elites. When they talk about "local control" and "states rights", I suspect they have a good idea who they hope is going to be locals in control. They remind me of the school yard bullies complaining that the teachers are monitoring the playgrounds.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2014, 10:13:35 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 14, 2014, 08:34:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2014, 07:32:27 PM
I remember Hans posting an article from the NRO, decrying the move toward democracy in Hong Kong because it would ruin the free market as poor people would inevitably socialize the whole system.
To be fair, a lot of people claiming to be libertarian are really authoritarian reactionaries that selectively adopt some libertarians justifications for added legitimacy.
I'm not sure I would make a difference between the two. Libertarians often decry the overarching federal powers that happen to curb the powers of the local elites have over the not so elite. And by coincidence hardcore libertarians have pretensions toward being local elites. When they talk about "local control" and "states rights", I suspect they have a good idea who they hope is going to be locals in control. They remind me of the school yard bullies complaining that the teachers are monitoring the playgrounds.
The "state rights libertarians" are actually the prime example of the faux libertarians I was talking about.
Then who are the true libertarians?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2014, 11:39:49 PM
Then who are the true libertarians?
Male Assburgers aged 20-30, for the most part.
Quote from: DGuller on February 15, 2014, 12:30:09 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2014, 11:39:49 PM
Then who are the true libertarians?
Male Assburgers aged 20-30, for the most part.
Don't see that as mutually exclusive with people who pretensions of being local elites.