3 ms·
When people realize that they can vote themselves more money, they will. I would agree had you said "When people think that they can vote themselves..." becaus
by hnal943 16y ago
When people realize that they can vote themselves more money, they will.
I would agree had you said "When people think that they can vote themselves..." because who are they kidding? There is no "Obama Money." The government's money comes from the people, as the residents of Greece and California are discovering.
I suppose you can vote yourself more money if you can vote and yet pay no taxes, which might be the true problem. Perhaps in order to have a say in the direction of the country, you need to have skin in the game.
I don't think that chucking democracy is really the right reaction. I stand with Winston Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
- steamer25 16y agoPerhaps in order to have a say in the direction of the country, you need to have skin in the game. One of the original thoughts behind establishing a bi-cameral legislature was that only (real-estate) property holders could participate in the senate. The idea being to prevent the masses from voting the property to themselves. Eventually, it was settled to give the senate to those who were competent enough to organize themselves into local governments/states. Still, it would be interesting to have a house where one man == one vote and a senate where one dollar == one vote. I'm not sure human nature would allow the government to be primarily funded by power-mongering but it'd be a fun experiment to try.