reply on: Tough Questions for Libertarians 8/15 \ stacker news ~libertarian

30 sats \ 7 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 30 Mar \ parent \ on: Tough Questions for Libertarians 8/15 libertarian

I was thinking of it as getting an additional vote for any number of pro-social activities. A married person with kids who owns their own home and is employed would get an extra vote for each of those things.

Assuming I can count properly, that would be 4 extra votes. So, their vote would count for 5x the baseline vote every American would have.

30 sats \ 6 replies \ @grayruby 30 Mar

So you want to give votes not take them away. I thought you meant some kind of demerit system. Say, a married with kids, employed, homeowner over the age of 25 gets a whole vote. Then you deduct in increments from there say 1/10 of a vote for every demerit. So if I am a single, no kids, unemployed, renter, living off the welfare I get 0.5 votes.

30 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 30 Mar

I like demerits too, but for antisocial things like currently serving a criminal sentence or being in bankruptcy or other types of default.

30 sats \ 4 replies \ @grayruby 30 Mar

I have a friend that thinks you shouldn't be able to vote unless you pay income taxes. I don't know if I would go that far but I understand the sentiment.

30 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 30 Mar

I would flip it around and say you don't get to vote if you're a net tax recipient. The incentives are too perverse to keep voting for more of other people's money.

40 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 30 Mar

50 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 30 Mar

I like your friend

He must live in Texas or Alberta

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 30 Mar

No he lives in Ontario like me. He just recognizes the incentive structure of politics is completely broken and that fools will always vote themselves more “free” stuff and inevitably pay for it later.