3 ms·

Banning peaceful exchanges is morally wrong. If there are externalities, quantify them and impose reasonable taxes to defray them. A ban implies that the extern

• eesmith 2y ago
  I find it hard to believe such as broad claim is defensible. The peaceful exchange of vote buying is widely considered a corrupt and morally wrong practice. Downsides listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_buying#Consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_buying#Consequences are "it interferes with the ability to rely on a popular vote as a measure of people's support for potential governments' policies", "the autonomy of voters is undermined", and "create a dependency of voters on the income or goods that they are receiving for their votes, and can further perpetuate a type of poverty trap." Since there are externalities, what would be the reasonable taxes on the sale of one's vote? Do they differ based on the election type? Based on polling? Are the taxes in a swing state higher than non-swing states? If someone votes often do they pay a different rate? Can we use voting history to help determine the rate? How can it be quantified? Who is in charge of quantifying the externalities about housing in Barcelona? If I rank "the children raised in Barcelona should be be able to afford a home in the city by the time they are 25" significantly higher than "tourists should easily find a 3 bedroom tourist apartment with kitchen and laundry", while you rank them the other way, then how do we impose a reasonable tax in the face of very different assessments?