Why our current 'Democracy' does not work.

L

lsuacner

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
1,659
Reaction score
3
http://finblogs.24.com/ViewComments...8&blogid=4fffc2bb-0e59-455a-aa70-528df810ea38

Why our current 'Democracy' does not work.
2:05PM, Tuesday, 21 Apr, 2009

The nature of 21st century politics is that our office seekers win continual re-election, not by preserving the peace and protecting people's basic rights , but by granting privileges, subsidies and pork barrel programs to favored segments of the people.

This is known as the "big tent" philosophy of governing. It means that political parties win elections by gathering numerous disparate factions of voters in under one large tent. They do this by promising to grant all of the factions something that they want: welfare payments for lower income groups, loans and price supports for corporations, subsidies for farmers and artists, pork barrel bills for local communities, ever-increasing funds for educational, energy, housing, and commerce bureaucracies, etc. Since government has no money of its own, it taxes the necessary money from society's productive citizens in order to become the grand benefactor of all its favored factions.

This is the modern game of social welfare politics. Our politicians basically buy their office and power. All parties play this game in order to be elected and re-elected. And no one ever challenges the game's fundamental premise -- that government has the right to confiscate some people's earnings to gratify other people's needs and desires.Thus, they end up contesting only as to where all the confiscated wealth is to be spent, never on the premise of "wealth redistribution" itself.

A uniform tax rate system must be proposed, fought for, and enacted into law. Until this is done, the social welfare game of "tax and spend, elect and re-elect" cannot be reformed. Ever-expanding, centralized government cannot be stopped.The reason why abolishing progressive income tax rates is so important is because there would then be no incentive for voters to try and gain their life's status by relentlessly increasing government spending, i.e., by redistributing wealth from the pockets of their neighbors.

Progressive tax rates are the major cause of explosive government spending because they create large constituencies of voters that pay zero taxes and equally large constituencies that pay next to zero taxes. Thus, they spawn a "something for nothing" voter mindset. An irresponsible electorate then evolves to demand a steady expansion of government services. This is one of the cardinal laws of economics. If government benefits are free (or nearly free), demand for them will be infinite. At present a small minority of our population, say 30%, pay all the taxes, while the remaining 70% pay nothing.

In a uniform tax system voters would then have to pay for all government subsidies and pork barrel programs proportionately out of their own pockets, they would lose their overwhelming desire for such subsidies and programs. Voters would then begin to favor politicians who advocate "reduction" of government instead of its "constant expansion" because this is the only way they could get their own taxes reduced and more freedom into their lives.

Liberals and me-too conservatives will naturally attack any genuine equal-rate tax as unfair to the poor people. So if a floor is to be established under which no one will have to pay the tax, i.e., an exemption for those under the poverty level, then a provision should be included in any equal-rate tax bill stating that those who are exempted from paying are also to be excluded from voting. After all, we deny children the right to vote. Why do we do this? Because they are not mature enough to vote responsibly. The same principle applies to men and women who are exempt from taxes; they will never vote responsibly. They will possess "infinite demand" for government services.

Liberals will, of course, protest vehemently upon hearing such a proposal; but if one thinks the issue through, he will see that it is really the only solution if a large segment of voters is going to be exempt from paying taxes. There is no other way to stop infinite demand for government services unless everyone who casts a vote has a stake in doing it responsibly.


The Fool

Reference : http://www.afr.org/Hultberg/041505.html
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
He's wrong on several points, and draws a number of unwarranted conclusions without presenting his reasoning. Not least is his assumption that voters vote because of relevant issues.
 
Claymore said:
He's wrong on several points, and draws a number of unwarranted conclusions without presenting his reasoning. Not least is his assumption that voters vote because of relevant issues.
Click to expand...

Votes base their votes on the colour of their skin.

I also don't think people who don't contribute to the income of a government should have a right to choose a government.

I once saw a mentally handicapped person vote - how the hell is that a democracy if my vote is cancelled by someone who can't make an informed decision.

Sure the poor pay VAT which the article did not note, but I pay income tax, medical, education, utilities, feul levy, pension, security, levies, stamp duty, capital gains tax.
I contribute to the economy but I am treated as a second rate citizen.
 
Last edited:
This country's government is chosen by the most unsuccessful among us. 7 or 8 million support 45 million but the leaders are chosen by the 45 million. This model is not sustainable and when it falls apart it it's going to get very ugly.
 
lsuacner said:
Votes base their votes on the colour of their skin.
Click to expand...

Or several other reasons - peer pressure, the politician's charisma, promises, bribes, etc. etc. Very, very rarely, on the basis of the party's actual positions.

I also don't think people who don't contribute to the income of a government should have a right to choose a government.
Click to expand...

From a personal point of view, I'm inclined to agree. One method I liked was mentioned in Heinlein's books (Starship Troopers being a good example), where those that have served the country with a term of service are given citizenship and allowed to vote.

The problem with that sort of thing is that it makes it too easy to narrow the criteria further. Start with taxpayers only, next you can have more votes being granted to those who pay more tax, and only allowing those with high IQs or university degrees to vote - all of them perfectly valid viewpoints, but contrary to the principles of enfranchisement.
 
Neither the ANC, DA or FF+ would get my vote if only taxpayers were allowed to vote.

If only taxpayers were allowed to vote parties mentioned would not even exist.

There would be political parties led by superior minds and RSA would become a better country than it is today or can become under any other party we have currently.
 
This reads like a John Mccain speech/letter. One of the only politicians i know that use the word "porkbarrel" and seasons it strongly with "liberal".
 
Whether people pay income tax or not, they are citizens of this country and deserve a say in who governs the country. Simple as that. We cant go chop and change systems of democracy becuase we tax payers dont like the party that won the elections.

How they come to that choice, is an entirely different matter. People of different classes have opposing interests wrt what they want in a goverment. This is not even a race issue any more, as lsuacner is trying to allude to, it is a class based issue.

As a voter, you are supposed to look at the parties that represent the issues most important to us, and if most of the political parties have a large social welfare component to their policies, it is indicative of what the majority of the people want with their goverment.

And the last point I would just briefly state that it is extremely condecending of people that support this tax based voting rights, to assume that becuase they earn more than the avarage citizen, that they know what is best for the people of this country.
 
sox63 said:
And the last point I would just briefly state that it is extremely condecending of people that support this tax based voting rights, to assume that becuase they earn more than the avarage citizen, that they know what is best for the people of this country.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest that people who do earn more than the average citizen do so because they have applied themselves and probably do know what is best for the people of this country. Right now we have a bunch of people who think that a trip to Robben Island qualifies them to know what's best.
 
this morning in the UK there are loads of Labour MEP's who disagree that in 21st Century politics, relection is guarenteed
 
seems most people only want to allow people to vote who agree with them. One way to guarentee that your country will have conflict on a regular basis is to deny them access to the vote.

ps. Starship Troopers. lol. I read an article the other day about how the director said it he was taking a dig at American foreign policy. Someone is taking this movie far too seriously :)
 
There are different types of democracy, direct democracy like in Switzerland seems like the nicest system to me. One of the nicer things is citizens can call a referendum and overturn stupid government laws if they wish.
 
t123, so true... Its exactly what form of democracy the Cape party wants to implement here in the Cape.
 
Claymore said:
Or several other reasons - peer pressure, the politician's charisma, promises, bribes, etc. etc.
Click to expand...

And T-shirts. And parties.

From a personal point of view, I'm inclined to agree. One method I liked was mentioned in Heinlein's books (Starship Troopers being a good example), where those that have served the country with a term of service are given citizenship and allowed to vote.
Click to expand...

Note to others – don’t judge on the movie. The movie was utter crap and bore no resemblance to the book.

The problem with that sort of thing is that it makes it too easy to narrow the criteria further. Start with taxpayers only, next you can have more votes being granted to those who pay more tax, and only allowing those with high IQs or university degrees to vote - all of them perfectly valid viewpoints, but contrary to the principles of enfranchisement.
Click to expand...

You are assuming a ‘narrowing of the criteria’. A term of service to the country. Full stop. Maybe a ‘narrowing of the criteria’ should be the prospective voter demonstrating they have a vague clue about the election platforms of the various parties. Or they know who’s standing.
 
Yeah the Starship Troopers book was actually a political commentary not a lame shootfest like the Movie.
 
sox63 said:
Whether people pay income tax or not, they are citizens of this country and deserve a say in who governs the country. Simple as that. We cant go chop and change systems of democracy becuase we tax payers dont like the party that won the elections.
Click to expand...

It helps if the electorate are not totally clueless. I consider myself reasonably well informed yet my vote can be nullified by an ignorant retard who voted for the party who handed-out free T-shirts. Elitist, I know.
 
Palimino said:
It helps if the electorate are not totally clueless. I consider myself reasonably well informed yet my vote can be nullified by an ignorant retard who voted for the party who handed-out free T-shirts. Elitist, I know.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
This discussion is devoid of any reality. There is no way voting rights will ever be as restricted as some here suggest. Deal with it. The step has been taken to accept that any citizen over 18 has the right to vote. You wont change that now, so dream on :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X