Posts
Mr. Obama's campaign for "Change" seems to be looking back over 200 years, to the days of the Sans-cullotes, who turned the French Revolution into the senseless bloodbath that led to Napoleon. The poorest of the poor, the Sans-cullotes knew only that they wanted change, and were willing to do anything to accomplish it. However, they had no firm agenda, and were led by emotion more than reason. They eventually turned on their own leaders, sending them to the guillotine. Having done this, they eliminated their influence on government, and went back to being disenfranchised.
Now, once again, a campaign for "Change" is drawing support from the same group. In Ohio, an Obama surrogate group is driving around in vans, picking up the homeless, drug addicted and felons, and taking them to the polls to vote. This is facilitated by Ohio's nonsensical election laws that allow basically anyone who shows up at a polling place to vote.
This brings up the question which I raised earlier, which is how much voice should those who do not fund the government, who are not, in a sense, shareholders, have in it? It is very doubtful, to say the least, that these are taxpayers. They are, in essence, playing with house money. If they can vote in someone who will give the money, health care and other benefits, but they will not have to pay anything regardless, is there any doubt which way they will vote? When this fails to bring them prosperity, will they then vote in someone who demands responsibility of them? Or will they vote in someone who supports ever more punitive measures against the successful?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Your argument requires people to buy the right to vote with tax dollars. Such an proposal assumes that government is merely a distributor of money and nothing more. Perhaps if you feel the government is (or should be) nothing more than the countries largest corporation producing the "goods" of roads, police officers and school teachers, I can see the motivation behind your argument.
However, if you believe, as I do, that the government has other vital roles including passing judgment on its citizens in court, protecting the few against the many, and guaranteeing basic inalienable rights, your arguement is downright repulsive. A citizen who doesn't pay taxes isn't exempt from following other laws and will be prosecuted like anyone else. Doesn't he have a right to vote (by proxy) for those laws that he will be held accountable for following?
Don't we term some rights to be inalienable because there is nothing one can do to justify being deprived of them? A citizen who doesn't pay taxes retains their basic human rights, and therefore is entitled to a voice in the legislative body that determines how and when those rights are going to be protected.
If you disagree, take it up with George Washington.
The rhetorical device I am employing could be taken to an even more abstract point, and I could say only those who pay taxes should have say in creating tax policy, in a separate body, as that was the implied thrust of my argument.
The issue is the protection of political minorities. This was a central concern of the founders, hence such political inventions as the Senate and the Electoral College.
Most people would find fault with a proposal that those with a social security number ending in 6,7,8 or 9 be forced to give half their belongings to those who socials end in 0,1,2,3,4 or 5. However, in a selfish vote, that proposal would pass every time, 60-40. That is what we are doing today, except with the substitution of income brackets for social security numbers.
This is commonly misunderstood, perhaps I'll devote an entire post to it.
As for Washington, remember under him, only white men of property could vote. The founders instituted a republic. Democracy did not come until after they were dead, since they would have opposed it. Between this and Washington fighting a bloody war over much lower taxes, I would imagine I would have his support on this matter.
"Sans-Culottes"?
Oh La La!
+ + +
As for progressive taxation, if a 10% Flat Tax is good enough for God Almighty, I don't see why it's not good enough for Washington.
+ + +
Washington Buys Banks, Marx Smiles:
http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/washington-buys-banks-marx-smiles/
Post a Comment