A more fair way to do it would be for appropriations of taxpayer monies to be determined by taxpayer-'elected' 'appropriators' - kind of like legislators but with only one power - the power to appropriate tax money.  Appropriators would be selected by taxpayers with each taxpayer's voting weight proportional to the taxes he pays.  The appropriators would have no other power other than appropriation - not even the power to tax.  Since the legislature would be deprived of the power of appropriation (to buy votes), they would be reluctant to tax at all.  Government would thus start shrinking.

That's interesting.  Clearly it would be a use of voting as a legal mechanism that helps protect individual sovereignty and reduce the amount of "bought votes."  It is like the division between legislative, executive, and judicial.  It divides the legislative branch into three segments.  One being the senate, which wouldn't change.  Another being the popular vote within a small district for those who make regulation type laws and create taxes and would be in the House.  The other being the "Appropriators" who divy up the existing tax revenues - deciding how much goes where.  They would be elected by a popular vote (within a district, or within a state, or nationwide?) but each registered voter would have a different number of votes cast that is determined by the taxes they paid.  It might work and I see the justice in it - those who pay the taxes get to say where they go.  If they don't like a law, they don't have to fund it.  And it might work towards stopping the use of fiat money or borrowing to fund government spending.

I believe we should return to having the states select the senators.  With that and your proposal we would see representation of individuals via the House legislators, the states via the Senators, and the taxpayers via the Appropriators.

I like using optional fees for certain services, like Rand's idea of a tiny percentage of a commercial contract's declared value being charged to insure that it will be protected by civil courts - an optional fee.  If someone doesn't want to insure their access to a civil court, they don't need to pay the insurance fee.  They could write in a clause to their contract that private mediation would be used, or just self-insure against a contract failure.

And what is left as needed tax revenues being covered by a national sales tax.

Jules,

That's another suggestion that has a good principle behind it:  Those who pay should have a say.  And forcing the elected people not going off and becoming disconnected elites, but... It would be a problem if the people decided to make it impossible for the government to carry out proper functions, like military defense, court systems, and police functions (like the FBI).  

And, then you come to next thought: If there are functions that are not proper, that are unconstitutional or are in violation of individual rights, (like income redistribution) then we should get rid of those functions instead of leaving them for people to acquire a common dislike of the functions and choosing not to fund them.  

So, good idea, but in the long run the only answer is to educate the people on rational egoism, individual rights, Capitalism, and proper government for a constitutional republic.

The thing is, that with minarchy I'm convinced that it could be fully funded voluntarily - ZERO taxes.

"within a district, or within a state, or nationwide?"

At-large or nationwide would be best so as not monies directed at more politically connected locales.

It is a lexical fallacy to claim that a vote is a "conflict of interest" unless you can show that someone is voting against their own interests.  Steve Wolfer seems to mean that if you have an interest in the outcome, then you have no right to vote.  If you get paid by the government you should not vote. If you work for a company that has a governmet contract you should not vote. Even if you have no children of your own, but prefer to see public schools funded well, you should not vote, because he calls that "a conflict of interest."  

 

... Look at my words. I did not say that. I always framed this issue in terms of a conflict of interest that could alter could the validity of a vote. -....

... That fact that they vote in fewer numbers than non-welfare recipients does not change the fact that there are votes made and that there is a conflict of interest.

 

 

I understand the principle that he is attempting to elucidate.  It could be that in some future society or in any organization here and now, really, some people would not be allowed to vote in order establish or maintain a balance of power, or to prevent an imbalance.  Typically, in a corporations, common stock shareholders do vote (one vote per share), but preferred stock shareholders, and bond owners do not.  You could have a company where only non-managerial employees vote on certain issues of primary interest to them.  You could have a church where only the confirmed can join the leadership council.  Sure, organize your own society any way you want.  

Steve says that he intends only to disenfranchise those on what he calls "means-tested welfare" such as Aid to Dependent Families (who vote for Democrats) and Medicare-Medicaid recipients (who vote for Republicans).  About 5000 active-duty military families drew about $100 million in food stamps in 2011 (CNN Money here). So, if you are willing to die for your country, but apply for additional aid, Steve Wolfer says that you should not vote.  

I have suggested that in my perfect world you would not be allowed to vote until you served in the military.  (I would not have been a voter.)  Nonetheless, I can entertain the opposing claim that you should not be allowed to vote while you are in the military. I could also accept a strict and objective set of criteria that prevent anyone who receives a direct payment from the govenrment from voting.  Employees, pensioners, welfare recipients, the military, elected officials, all would be banned from voting on the principle of what I call "direct interest".  I prefer that because "conflict of interest" is a useless idea, a floating abstraction. ( I will address that in a separate essay later.)  The point remains that we agree that we want to disempower the govenrment.  We do not want it to be too strong because it gets that way on its own easily enough, so we create barriers.  That is a structural condition with a functional outcome.

On the other hand, the claim that "people who are welfare should not vote" is just right wing blather. It ignores the millions of Tea Party Republicans slopping up aid at the public trough.

As for the problem of military families on welfare, the first thing would be to raise the pay.  Right now, you have to be a 1st Lt, or a MSgt with ten years in, to have the same income as the average factory worker in America: $32,000 per year.  (MilitaryFactory here.)  Granted that the military get many other benefits, the fact remains that they are largely undercompensated, and always have been. Ancient Rome was an exception.  That had some negative consequences, also.  We seek to avoid those. And so, we are back to discussing whether soldiers would be allowed to vote in our own perfect worlds.  But, again, start enlistments at $50,000 per year. Give the sergeants and junior officers what corporate managers earn.  Senior officers and general staff, likewise would be in the "one percent club."  Then they will not need to be on food stamps.  The fact remains that here an now, some 5,000 are.  It is objectively immoral to advocate disenfranchising them.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 3/15, 9:42am)

Steve Wolfer seems to mean that if you have an interest in the outcome, then you have no right to vote.

I am always so happy when Marotta explains to me what I meant to say.  After all his logic is always so impeccable.... NOT.

The context that I keep mentioning, and that Marotta frequently drops, is that voting is a mechanism that has a purpose.  It is one of those mechanisms that is intended to prevent the government abusing individual rights.  It attempts to keep government at the end of leash by making the operators of government subject to the vote for their position.  (He knows this, but then he drops it.)  

Here is an example of a voting conflict of interest: if an increasingly large number of people will recieve significant amounts of money they never earned, money that was taken from others, but will only keep receiving this money as long as they vote for the progressive candidate, then that is a conflict of interest (the conflict is with the purpose of a vote - in this case, with keeping government away from redistribution policies).
------------

He says that I called having "no children of your own, but prefer[ing] to see public schools funded well" a conflict of interest that should prevent you from voting.

Marotta, I did not write that and I don't believe that.  Flat out false.  If you would actually quote me instead of taking your own words and trying to put them in my mouth you would make fewer mistakes.
-----------

Steve says that he intends only to disenfranchise those on what he calls "means-tested welfare" such as Aid to Dependent Families (who vote for Democrats) and Medicare-Medicaid recipients (who vote for Republicans). About 5000 active-duty military families drew about $100 million in food stamps in 2011 (CNN Money here). So, if you are willing to die for your country, but apply for additional aid, you should not vote.

Again, if Marotta wants to make fewer mistakes, he should quote me. If he actually quotes me, he would not say that I would only target "means-tested welfare" and Medicare-Medicaid because I also included government workers.  And I did not, and would not, include medicare with medicaid - one is means tested and the other is not.  And the argument about the military members who are on food stamps is emotionalism and illogical. There are terrorists who are willing to die for their cause, does that mean they should be given special consideration?  Or should we have objective laws that address significant issues in eligibility to vote arise from our best attempts to ensure that voting is a mechanism that helps to prevent government, instead of the individual, from exercising soveign power? If the answer is yes, then we need to address conflict of interest, which is what I've tried to do.
-----------

I have suggested that in my perfect world you would not be allowed to vote until you served in the military.

I'm suspecting that this arises from that view that the vote has to 'earned' - and does not arise from the view of the vote as a mechanism for protecting liberty.  It is about voting as a moral right that government can confer and there is no such thing.  Moral rights are prior to government.  Voting has to be seen as a legal right and that means we need to look at what moral right would give rise to it.  It is an derivation of self-defense and liberty. For example, we establish civil courts to let us ensure our liberty can be protected in civil disputes in that we can resolve civil disputes in these courts without resort to violence.  And we act to defend ourselves against an abusive government by limiting its powers with a constitution. The constitution, the elected representatives, and the vote... all ways to limit government power in order to protect individual rights. The vote is just one of the ways we try to limit government power.
-----------

I could also accept a strict and objective set of criteria that prevent anyone who receives a direct payment from the govenrment from voting. Employees, pensioners, welfare recipients, the military, elected officials, all would be banned from voting on the principle of what I call "direct interest".

More or less, that is what I've been saying!  But when I say it, Marotta jumps in, puts words in my mouth that misrepresent me, and then attacks the particulars.
------------

The point remains that we agree that we want to disempower the govenrment. We do not want it to be too strong because it gets that way on its own easily enough, so we create barriers. That is a structural condition with a functional outcome.

Yes.  That's what I've been saying.
------------

On the other hand, the claim that "people who are welfare should not vote" is just right wing blather. It ignores the millions of Tea Party Republicans slopping up aid at the public trough.

Marottal clearly spends too much time slurping up that far left kool-aid. He says, "I could also accept a strict and objective set of criteria that prevent anyone who receives a direct payment from the govenrment from voting. Employees, pensioners, welfare recipients, the military, elected officials, all would be banned from voting on the principle of what I call "direct interest".  And then he claims that "people who are on welfare should not vote" is right wing blather?  How is that not some form of intellectual schizophrenia?

The Tea Party is a grass roots ideology, that however fuzzy it might be, only has in common these elements: a desire for a smaller government, a desire for fewer regulations, a desire for a balanced budget, a desire for reduced taxation, and a desire for a government that is more in line with the constitution. After those items you can find sub-groups and individuals that disagree on things - i.e., hold positions that are not held in common by all people who would self-identify as Tea Party members.

As far as I can tell, everyone who strongly attacks the Tea Party does so only because they strongly disagree with these positions, or because they are intellectually or emotionally bonded with progressives/socialists/communists/anarchists.
-------------

I can entertain the ... claim that you should not be allowed to vote while you are in the military. I could also accept a strict and objective set of criteria that prevent anyone who receives a direct payment from the govenrment from voting. Employees, pensioners, welfare recipients, the military, elected officials, all would be banned from voting on the principle of what I call "direct interest".

It is objectively immoral to advocate disenfranchising them [people in the military].

Perhaps Marotta don't really see this as contradicting himself... in his own mind. And that boggle my mind.

This is what I see as a contradiction:

I can entertain the ... claim that you should not be allowed to vote while you are in the military.

And then...

It is objectively immoral to advocate disenfranchising them [people in the military].

Does that mean Marotta can entertain engaging in immoral acts? Or, that he contradicted himself.

------------

Like trial by jury or inaugurating the President on January 20 (or 21st) or being 18 years of age versus 21, no objective standard tells us positively who should vote. Steve Wolfer claims that the purpose of voting is to prevent the violation of individual rights. That has proved to be a failed mode.

The objective standard is there.  Should 5 year olds be allowed to vote?  No.  Should someone have to be forty before they can vote?  No.  Because we don't know the exact age and because maturity varies from person to person we don't have a precise moment, or precise year to hold as the bright line.  But that doesn't mean we don't know, objectively, that we need to set SOME age that is reasonable.  The objective facts are that some degree of maturity is a requirement of good voting, and that maturity isn't acquired but with age.

Notice how Marotta's statement sets up a straw-man.  He says we can't have an objective determination between age 18 or age 21.  Well, we certainly can't name a precise age too the year, or too the month, or too the nano-second for that matter.  That's the straw-man.  He takes that straw-man and implies that having an age limit is, therefore, not objective.  Not true.  The objective principle is that one should choose that age where most citizens are independent adults and likely to have reached a degree of maturity and it should be as young as reasonable to meet that goal.
--------------

Steve Wolfer claims that the purpose of voting is to prevent the violation of individual rights. That has proved to be a failed mode.

I claimed that it was a mechanism to help limit government from acting as if it were the sovereign entity instead of the individual.  It is intended as a check on government.  Just as the separation of powers between legislative, judicial and executive.  All of those together are intended to keep a government within the constitution and serving the people not the other way around.  I never claimed that it was the sole protection of individual rights, or that rights haven't been violated in spite of voting.  People have even used a vote to violate individual rights.  But if we have laws (maybe Marotta doesn't want laws?), and if they are made by representatives, then maybe the people should vote for those representatives whose laws they will live under.  (Maybe Marotta doesn't want representative government - or any government?)  

Marotta should pay me for these lessons in logic.
--------------

No political mechanism can ensure liberty.

True. But is that a reason to throw out any or all mechanisms?  Is he implying that we shouldn't have votes, or separation of powers, or a constitution?  

Shouldn't we install all of the mechanisms that we can to give liberty the best protection we can?  Sometimes one hears that what the founding fathers did has failed to a degree because we have lost so much freedom over these centuries.  So does that mean we should have just started with anarchism? Communism? Socialism?  What?  As an argument, to say that "No political mechanism can ensure liberty" is so incomplete that there is no there there.

--------------

You cannot find a nation (or sub-unit) on Earth that does not have a constitution full of high-sounding phrases. Very few have liberty.

True, but not to the point.  Our founding documents explicitly declared that the proper purpose of a government is the protection of an individual's natural rights. If Marotta thinks those are no more than high-sounding phrases he should address us from Dissent.

--------------

It is not the constitution but the traditional institutions and culture that make freedom possible or not.

The constitution is the limit on what may be held as proper law. Without the constitution there are no established explicit boundaries to contain the law. Hence no limit on government power. A good idea, such as having a culture of freedom, is a wonderful thing, but such a culture wouldn't exist for any length of time without some structure to hold it up.  A culture of freedom is like a living body, and it will only live as long as it is nourished, has a supporting structure, and is protected. The constitution is like the bones that let it stand up, and like the immune system that attempts to identify toxic substances. The constitution IS a traditional structure. And a culture of freedom is one that recognizes and protects those structures it depends upon. You can't have one without the other.

-------------

A culture of reason is a prerequisite to a culture of freedom.

True.  But a culture of reason is a culture that supports the structures that support freedom - like a constitution to set limits on laws.

...every vote on an issue or a candidate is what Steve Wolfer calls "a conflict of interest" ...

Marotta either doesn't understand a "conflict of interest" or is just doing the normal Marotta word-dance where somehow arranging words in a desired order will create reality. I suspect that everyone else reading his words knows there is a difference between someone who votes for a candidate only because it will allow them to continue to receive a significant amount of money month after month, with no regard for what that candidate will do for the country and without regard for any ideology, versus voting for a candidate because it is believed they will do the better job or that they more closely represent the voter's ideology.

The Marotta's word-dance where he attempts to smudge out any difference between a vote coming out of a conflict of interest and a vote out of a belief in the better candidate reveals Marotta as quite naked in his subjectivism.
-----------

On the thing about Marotta contradicting himself, Marotta says that the statements were just talking points that represent what he calls the subjective nature of the political process.  He believes a great many things are subjective that Objectivists don't.

But as to him holding a contradiction, I've reconsidered my position there.  The words clearly form a contradiction, but in fairness to Marotta I'm thinking he doesn't hold a contradiction in his mind.  And where I mentioned that the other way one could logically interpret what his words say, that he willingly entertains evil, I'm sure that isn't the case either. What the contradiction in the words represents is just Marotta's seemingly endless willingness to push out streams of words however disconnected from reality they might be.
------------

In the present context of the here-and-now, of course, disenfranchsizing soldiers or welfare recipients are both abstract considerations. Neither one could happen. Perhaps neither should. Perhaps both should.

In the present context it is unlikely to an extreme that soldiers would be disenfranchised, and only slightly less so for welfare recipients, but still that part is a true statement. However, saying that neither should or both should is more Marotta-speak - words disconnected from reality.  That's a statement that implies political mechanisms are meaningless and subjective.  Marotta is either a subjectivist or just someone who spouts words because it gives him some pleasure and it doesn't matter if they aren't connecting to reality.
------------

Marotta tells us that a 9 year old spoke at a computer security conference. He says this in response to my pointing out that it would be silly to have a law that let 5 year olds vote.  Everyone knows that the vast majority of 5 year olds are not mature enough to vote.  But Marotta ignores that simple reality and brings up an extremely unusual case of a child who showed a high level of maturity at age 9 - a case of one out of 100s of thousands, and then treats it like it was proof that not letting 5 year olds vote wasn't defensible.  Actually, the fact that this child is NOT representative of other children is the proof that Marotta's case, whatever it is, wouldn't work.   Marotta is again using words illogically to support some kind of deeply held psychological subjectivism.