6 ms·
I think you'd be unlikely to do that if you cling tightly to the idea of "one person one vote", and, by extension, have a negative reaction to "one dollar one v
by mrow84 9y ago
I think you'd be unlikely to do that if you cling tightly to the idea of "one person one vote", and, by extension, have a negative reaction to "one dollar one vote".
- SamReidHughes 9y ago"One dollar one vote" is not how reality works.
- mrow84 9y agoI suppose I must not have been sufficiently clear - I wasn't offering the phrase "one dollar one vote" as a description of reality, but as a point of provocation. Those who find nothing objectionable in the idea of "one dollar one vote" are also unlikely to object to your "rebranding" of money as speech. Those who think otherwise are, I suggest, less likely to agree. I was not attempting to change your mind, but to point out that your equivalence was mere opinion, dressed up as fact.
- SamReidHughes 9y agoOh. Well, I'm not making an equivalence between money and speech. The dollars spent in the election were in fact spent on speech, and are one measurement of how much speech happened.
- mrow84 9y agoIs one person offering their opinion a hundred times the same as a hundred people offering their opinions once each? The two scenarios have the same "quantity" of speech, but we might differ on the degree to which we believe that simple quantity is the most important measure, in the context of democratic legitimacy.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoMy daughter is writing a novel where that is exactly where we have wound up. Basically, votes on bills in the legislature are openly acknowledged auctions. And the rich have more privileges/civil rights than the poor. If present trends continue, it's not so far fetched...
- alexanderstears 9y agoThere could be worse systems than 1 tax dollar = 1 vote.
- jandrese 9y agoYeah, you could have Oligarchy, oh wait, that is Oligarchy.
- alexanderstears 9y agoNot quite. It'd be closer to a feudal system where your political standing is proportional to your tribute. It'd be an oligarchy if the rich people decided it should be an oligarchy. Right now though, the rich don't pay much in taxes. A few software engineers probably pay more in tax than their CEO. The CEO would have to stop taking aggressive deductions and tax-advantaged compensation if they wanted a 'louder' voice.
- jandrese 9y agoOr they'd just say "corporations are people, our corporate taxes will count". Also, it says "Fuck you poor people, you don't get a say in government. If you want a voice you should have been born rich or got some one in a million opportunity." That's a quick road to corporate government ownership.
- alexanderstears 9y agoI'd be fine with that. So long as the shareholders determined how the corporation voted (or ideally, there was fractional voting). Walmart has paid some 40 billion in income taxes since Amazon went public. Amazon has paid ~1 billion. I think Walmart should get more of a say in how the country is run since they're paying for ~40x more of it.
- gowld 9y agoWalmarts tax dollars come from its customers. Why don't they get a vote with those dollars?