www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote:Well, then we understand each other and just disagree. IMHO, a person's ability to achieve any political effect should have no causal relationship with that person's liquidity. As of right now, that still happens - just in an unofficial manner.

All right then. How about this "second vote" would be proportional to the average tax paid?

So somebody who just owns a lot of money without earning anything (and without paying tax) will have less impact than somebody working an honest job and paying his taxes?

Such process would have some effect about "legal tax evasion", where people find ways not to pay any taxes while remaining legal.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:

Mikey wrote:Well, then we understand each other and just disagree. IMHO, a person's ability to achieve any political effect should have no causal relationship with that person's liquidity. As of right now, that still happens - just in an unofficial manner.

All right then. How about this "second vote" would be proportional to the average tax paid?

So somebody who just owns a lot of money without earning anything (and without paying tax) will have less impact than somebody working an honest job and paying his taxes?

Such process would have some effect about "legal tax evasion", where people find ways not to pay any taxes while remaining legal.

Hmmm. I don't think I'm being explicit enough. I don't believe that a person's tax or wealth status and that person's political effectiveness should have any causal relationship.

Besides which, the rich already have the "bigger end of the stick" politically. There's no reason to give them any more power.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Besides which, the rich already have the "bigger end of the stick" politically. There's no reason to give them any more power.

Oh, nevermind. You are just stuck up in your own mindsets to actually consider thinking outside the box, apparently.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:Besides which, the rich already have the "bigger end of the stick" politically. There's no reason to give them any more power.

Oh, nevermind. You are just stuck up in your own mindsets to actually consider thinking outside the box, apparently.

Nope. You apparently just haven't considered the chance, miniscule as it must be ( ), that people could consider your ideas critically and still disagree.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Oh, nevermind. You are just stuck up in your own mindsets to actually consider thinking outside the box, apparently.

Pot, meet kettle, kettle, meet pot.

Mikey wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:Besides which, the rich already have the "bigger end of the stick" politically. There's no reason to give them any more power.

Oh, nevermind. You are just stuck up in your own mindsets to actually consider thinking outside the box, apparently.

Nope. You apparently just haven't considered the chance, miniscule as it must be ( ), that people could consider your ideas critically and still disagree.

Nope. You apparently just haven't considered the chance that somebody still want to explore an idea even if he disagree with it, for the sole purpose of actually getting to understand the implications, both good and bad, that such idea would have if applicated.

It's an exercice of the mind that has to be done on a regular basis; challenging the facts of our society in order to establish wether or not they are optimal. Philosophers did with the Allegory of the Cave, Utopia, and the like. Such challenge might actually make us better understand the whys of our current system, and might actually lead to us better supporting it.

While what you do is simply scrapping the VERY THOUGHT of considering such idea. You aren't merely refuting it, you are also shutting off the debate. It's not something that will help us better understand the political process in which we live.

Searfort wrote:Pot, meet kettle, kettle, meet pot.

Hardly. What I want is an intelligent debate regarding the implication such new social/political system would have on our democracy and political spectrum, and I want to explore it. What he wants is for no one to even discuss the possibility.

Since when has it became taboo to discuss the principle of demcoracy, SPECIALLY if the U.S. aren't even a true democracy, as some people are deliberately overrepresented? The principle of unfair democracy is not one that seems to be detrimental to the political, nor is it detrimental to the representativity of its people.

You want to debate it, feel free. I put my two cents in. I don't really have time to discuss something that isn't going to change any time soon.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Nope. You apparently just haven't considered the chance that somebody still want to explore an idea even if he disagree with it, for the sole purpose of actually getting to understand the implications, both good and bad, that such idea would have if applicated.

It's an exercice of the mind that has to be done on a regular basis; challenging the facts of our society in order to establish wether or not they are optimal. Philosophers did with the Allegory of the Cave, Utopia, and the like. Such challenge might actually make us better understand the whys of our current system, and might actually lead to us better supporting it.

While what you do is simply scrapping the VERY THOUGHT of considering such idea. You aren't merely refuting it, you are also shutting off the debate. It's not something that will help us better understand the political process in which we live.

All of which is simply rhetoric to couch the message "You must be an idiot because you disagree with me." You still fail to realize the most pertinent fact: I critically considered what you proposed, and I still disagree. It's a fact of life; it's going to happen that people will disagree with you. Trust me, if you accept that fact, you will be a much happier person in life. Claiming that I refused to consider your proposition simply because I disagree with you is not only untrue, it is baseless. The fact of the matter is that you haven't provided any argument compelling enough to convince me of your rectitude.

Mikey wrote: All of which is simply rhetoric to couch the message "You must be an idiot because you disagree with me." You still fail to realize the most pertinent fact: I critically considered what you proposed, and I still disagree. It's a fact of life; it's going to happen that people will disagree with you. Trust me, if you accept that fact, you will be a much happier person in life. Claiming that I refused to consider your proposition simply because I disagree with you is not only untrue, it is baseless. The fact of the matter is that you haven't provided any argument compelling enough to convince me of your rectitude.

No. I have problem on the fact that you simply based your entire rebutal on what you "feel" is fair, that the rich people don't deserves more power. It's a neat little opinion to have, but I wasn't fishing for nicely universally accepted truths. I was fishing for actual arguments as to how it might be detrimental to a society, and you just get stuck on "duh, it's bad!".

I am not specifically interested in seeing such a plutocracy system established, if you (wrongly) believe I am advocating such measure. I am specifically interested in seeing the application of additional unfair representation mixed with a universal democracy of the like we see in the U.S.. If you are interested in throwing an alternative line in the philosophical pond by proposing another electoral philosophy, I'd be happy to try to discuss it.

Here is an other one: what is we had 50 representatives, split between ethnical groups. So you would have a mix of 10 Blacks, 10 whites, 10 Latinos, 10 Asians, 10 Natives. Each elected by their constituants to represent their interest.

(It's a terrible idea, I am aware of that. But the point of this discussion, which I drew out of my rant about Canada's Senate, was to actually consider alternatives to our current system, which I don't find optimal).

As you mention, the U.S. does not have a true democracy - we have a republic; further, we have one which already accounts for an unbalanced representation based on population, along with a counter to that with a chamber that is unbalanced toward representation regardless of population.

As far as your proposal of "a little bit of plutocracy," I will explain very clearly why I don't like it. There is no basis for it. On what grounds should we presume that people who make (or just have) more money are better able to make decisions?

Mikey wrote:As you mention, the U.S. does not have a true democracy - we have a republic; further, we have one which already accounts for an unbalanced representation based on population, along with a counter to that with a chamber that is unbalanced toward representation regardless of population.

As far as your proposal of "a little bit of plutocracy," I will explain very clearly why I don't like it. There is no basis for it. On what grounds should we presume that people who make (or just have) more money are better able to make decisions?

We first have to make a dichotomy between those with the highest network (being rich) and the highest tax payment (having a high income).

People who have a higher income are those who have had a better chance in life and the presence of mind to either secure a good job or at least manage their own money in a proper way. And even the "better chance in life" (starting position-wise) will have a higher likelihood of knowing generally more about properly managing one's money, please note that it has nothing to do with actual intelligence, and everything to do with cultural heritage on one form or another. Somebody with a lower income will have a higher likelihood of having the heritage of streetsmarts, or another kind of acquired mental skill.

So if you put them in charge of electing, say, the adminstrative strucuture of the State (NOT the Executive), they might have a better skill at picking up people who actually properly run things, rather than on purely populist arguments. What helps a lot regarding the opinion is that since they are the ones with the highest income, they are also those who get the least (ressource-cost wise) from the government's programs, like healthcare support, social security, so they are less likely to be swayed by populist propositions that usually appeal to the masses. So you have the ADMINISTRATION of the state with, at least, a better managed personnel.

There. It's a theory. Please open fire on whatever flaw you see in it, as I am quite sure I made mistakes. But I did the effort of trying something to make it work, for the better or the worse.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:

Mikey wrote:As you mention, the U.S. does not have a true democracy - we have a republic; further, we have one which already accounts for an unbalanced representation based on population, along with a counter to that with a chamber that is unbalanced toward representation regardless of population.

As far as your proposal of "a little bit of plutocracy," I will explain very clearly why I don't like it. There is no basis for it. On what grounds should we presume that people who make (or just have) more money are better able to make decisions?

We first have to make a dichotomy between those with the highest network (being rich) and the highest tax payment (having a high income).

People who have a higher income are those who have had a better chance in life and the presence of mind to either secure a good job or at least manage their own money in a proper way. And even the "better chance in life" (starting position-wise) will have a higher likelihood of knowing generally more about properly managing one's money, please note that it has nothing to do with actual intelligence, and everything to do with cultural heritage on one form or another. Somebody with a lower income will have a higher likelihood of having the heritage of streetsmarts, or another kind of acquired mental skill.

So if you put them in charge of electing, say, the adminstrative strucuture of the State (NOT the Executive), they might have a better skill at picking up people who actually properly run things, rather than on purely populist arguments. What helps a lot regarding the opinion is that since they are the ones with the highest income, they are also those who get the least (ressource-cost wise) from the government's programs, like healthcare support, social security, so they are less likely to be swayed by populist propositions that usually appeal to the masses. So you have the ADMINISTRATION of the state with, at least, a better managed personnel.

There. It's a theory. Please open fire on whatever flaw you see in it, as I am quite sure I made mistakes. But I did the effort of trying something to make it work, for the better or the worse.

You honestly think people like Paris Hilton can make objective decisions?

USSEnterprise wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:

Mikey wrote:As you mention, the U.S. does not have a true democracy - we have a republic; further, we have one which already accounts for an unbalanced representation based on population, along with a counter to that with a chamber that is unbalanced toward representation regardless of population.

As far as your proposal of "a little bit of plutocracy," I will explain very clearly why I don't like it. There is no basis for it. On what grounds should we presume that people who make (or just have) more money are better able to make decisions?

We first have to make a dichotomy between those with the highest network (being rich) and the highest tax payment (having a high income).

People who have a higher income are those who have had a better chance in life and the presence of mind to either secure a good job or at least manage their own money in a proper way. And even the "better chance in life" (starting position-wise) will have a higher likelihood of knowing generally more about properly managing one's money, please note that it has nothing to do with actual intelligence, and everything to do with cultural heritage on one form or another. Somebody with a lower income will have a higher likelihood of having the heritage of streetsmarts, or another kind of acquired mental skill.

So if you put them in charge of electing, say, the adminstrative strucuture of the State (NOT the Executive), they might have a better skill at picking up people who actually properly run things, rather than on purely populist arguments. What helps a lot regarding the opinion is that since they are the ones with the highest income, they are also those who get the least (ressource-cost wise) from the government's programs, like healthcare support, social security, so they are less likely to be swayed by populist propositions that usually appeal to the masses. So you have the ADMINISTRATION of the state with, at least, a better managed personnel.

There. It's a theory. Please open fire on whatever flaw you see in it, as I am quite sure I made mistakes. But I did the effort of trying something to make it work, for the better or the worse.

You honestly think people like Paris Hilton can make objective decisions?

Exactly. the rich can be just as moronic (if not more so) than the not so rich.

True, which is why Solka made the distinction between income and wealth. I understand that distinction, and I appreciate why he made it. However, the Paris Hilton example holds up - when she inherits the Hilton holdings, she won't just inherit the liquid assets or even just the net worth of the whole empire - she will also inherit the income which that empire provides.

I.e., it is possible to be one of the top tier as far as income, not just wealth, without having any particular quality for it.