One of the problems which has developed in America is the extension of the right to vote to everyone and anyone (even aliens and dead persons!) This multiplies the effectiveness of demagoguery by empowering large numbers of voters whose major concern is to vote themselves benefits from the public purse without making any real contribution to that purse. I think the problem is obvious, so I won't extend my description.
What does anyone think of a real estate ownership qualification for voting, or at least for voting on certain issues? The voter would have to be a person of minimum substance to qualify, and the person would have his own real property at risk, hence reducing his tendency to listen to demagogues.
I understand that the requirements of the proposed Citizen Contract would help to ameliorate this problem of irresponsible voters, but perhaps the real estate ownership requirement would be a good addition.
I certainly agree that in America we have many voters who's sole reason for going to the polls is to vote themselves benes from the public purse. On the other side, there are people of means who make substantial contributions to the public purse who choose to not own real estate for reasons other than financial. I think this is a good issue, however, and hope others will contribute ideas.
Alonzo,
While I would definitely agree that there are many who will use the voting process to create and support programs that benefit themselves, I would have to disagree with solutions such as property qualifications for voting.
There are a variety of reasons for this. First, as "Anonymous" says, there may actually be reasons for not owning property. For example, I was in downtown Chicago for four months at school, and it struck me the sheer size of the populace that lives in apartments and such. In this case their lack of property ownership is because of a lack of available property in the area they wish to reside.
Also, take myself, for instance. My wife and I are currently university students, and rent a small house. In about a year we will be working on Masters degrees. After that, my intention is to serve my country via the US Navy while my wife works in the accounting field. With our school loans and my future job in the Navy (which, depending on the circumstances, could have me move often or live overseas) I figure it will be a very long time before we are able to actually own our own property. Nonetheless, it seems to me that we have a lot at stake in the future, in terms of my intended military service, our future financial ability to repay loans (which depends on the economic condition of the time), and our future family plans and the society we wish to raise children in.
In this way, it seems to me that a person can have a stake that is not necessarily property, and such a stake is just as valid.
Also, the idea that there are full-grown adults allowed to make voting decisions and full-grown adults that are not seems to have at least the great *potential* for abuse by those with voting power at the expense of those that do not, especially if the distinction is due to a property qualification.
Nonetheless, this does seem to be an important issue, particularly when I look around me at the university and see that 50%+ of my fellow students are in class thinking about how they want to go to the bars and get wasted and maybe take somebody home to have a good time with. I ask myself, "Do I *really* want **these** people voting???"
I liked the story "Starship Troopers" for this reason. To attain citizenship, one had to serve in the military for a certain amount of time.
I think that once one has completed their education (H.S., college, graduate school, etc) they have to serve in military (or para-military like local law enforcement) for a minimum commitment (1yr? 2yrs? more?) and then become a "citizen" with voting rights and access to limited government assistance. If you don't want to serve then you are not eligible to become a citizen with voting rights or even access to government assistance. (That's not to say that gov assitance is unlimited but I think there is a role for limited welfare for valuable citizens who have hit upon bad luck and need help getting back on their feet.) Non citizens would be free to work, go to school, pay taxes, own businesses and land. But they would not be allowed to contribute money to political parties or candidates and they would not be allowed to vote or hold any public office. They would not have access (or as much access) to government assistance either.
Jake -
Your points are well taken. I now see that a real property ownership qualification for citizenship or for most voting would close the door on too many otherwise well qualified and committed citizens.
It may be that only property owners could vote on property tax increases and/or the uses of that money.
Alonzo
Alonzo -
I could see at least the *possibility* of property owners having either the exclusive voting power when it comes to money from property taxes, or at least a "weighted" system whereby their votes are worth more than non-property owning people.
Whether or not it would *really* be a good idea is one I'd have to think about, because it affects much more than just the property owners. If I understand it correctly, most school districts get a large if not majority share of their funding from such property taxes. That would mean that the "payers," so to speak, could have a good amount of control over the children of some "non-payers."
That's an idea I don't particularly like, but maybe there could be a way of distinguishing *types* of usage of property taxes.
I don't know, I've got a headache right now so I'm not thinking entirely clearly. But it is an interesting idea. And while I'm not sure about the idea of allowing only property owners to vote on the *uses* on the "proceeds", I could definitely understand the idea that as far as *increases* go they have more of a say than others.
Anyway, I haven't actually read Joel Skousen's writings on this whole subject, because I've been so busy with university classes. However, finals are now done and I have about a week or so until summer quarter starts, so I guess I had better get busy doing so.
What will you do when rich celebrities like Alec Baldwin are able to go buy thousands of acres in the midwest somewhere? He gets thousands of votes against my 1/8 of one because I live in a townhouse? Granted, in the ideal state, vapor headed Hollywood celebs who don't know their ••• from their elbow won't get the media attention and credibility they get now. But in reality the Sheeple of this country adore Hollywood celebs and mindlessly grasp the vacuous political beliefs of morons like Alec Baldwin, Rosie O'Donnel, and Barbara Streisand --who collectively aren't intellectually qualified to feed my dogs but are treated as public policy experts by the media. Basing voting rights with property ownership (on the basis of more property equals more votes) only opens the door for people with more money than brains to corrupt the system.
In response to Jake's posting, keep in mind that public funding of schools is a socialist practice that violates one of the fundamental rights -- the right of ownership of property. In the ideal state, a free market system would be set up whereby you pay for what you receive -- including schooling, road systems, etc. The details of how such a system could be set up to maximize liberty while allowing for a successful state have yet to be completely worked out, obviously -- which is why we're here. But the use of general property taxes to fund a public school system which would not be used by 100% of the contributors (much less in equal amounts) would be contrary to the aims of the new constitution.
On the other hand, it would be logical to use property taxes to partially fund local road construction and maintenance -- since those who live in the area would be most likely to use the road systems. (Even in the case of rentership, the owner would probably pay the taxes and recoup his investment through the rent.) In that case, I could see how property ownership could be a factor in voting for tax increases to support new road developments.
In response to the original question about the danger of allowing anyone and everyone to vote in most cases (increasing the tendency to vote themselves benefits), I think this tendency is of sufficient concern as to warrant prevention by incorporating a barrier clearly defined in the constitution. As Joel pointed out in this past World Affairs Brief (6/9), the dangers of a raw democracy are just that -- that people never cease on the whole to clamor for more government benefits, and if that tendency is not checked and prevented at the outset, the state will naturally become more and more socialistic, violating individuals' rights and straining the productive class economically until the economy collapses under the weight of socialism. Thus the need for "tight legal language" in the constitution, to clearly define the fundamental rights and ensure that the people themselves have no power to collectively vote away those rights.
I think there is going to be a certain amount of risk involved in any Democracy. There are stupid people who vote for stupid reasons. Without Democracy though I don't see how you can end up in anything but a totalitarian state. Voting is the check against politicians. Unfortunately in the recent politics of this country people have failed to exercise their vote to remove politicians or vote for those willing to hand out more. I have to agree with Celeste and Joel that "tight legal language" in the constitution to prevent losing rights as well as preventing politicians from giving away the farm for votes is the best way to go.
On a side note but about voting... I wonder how much of our current economic "boom" has been engineered by the PTB (through Greenspan's manipulation). There's nothing like an economic boom to produce voter apathy and increased government spending. (It's okay, the economy's good.) Wouldn't an economic collapse be the perfect indication to our enemies that we are truly weak and ready to be defeated without too much of a struggle?
Question regarding Celeste's comments on education, roads, and the free-market system.
How would you respond to the claim that things like basic education, roads, and so on, are "public goods"? By definition these are goods that, if funded in a fee-for-service free-market system, would actually provide benefits to many more people than those that paid for them.
In the case of education, the entire society benefits from having an educated citizenry (although I'd have to admit they are not doing a particularly good job at educating the kids).
In the case of roads, there will *always* be people who drive on other people's paid-for roads (I notice your usage of the words "those who live in the area would be MOST LIKELY to use the road systems", emphasis mine), not to mention that society as a whole benefits from an extensive roadway system that allows for mass trasportation of people to jobs and more importantly goods and products being shipped through the distribution process.
Secondly, I wonder about how career specialization has affected our need for a publicly-funded education system. While I am not particularly history-knowledgable (being a product of our esteemed public education system), it does seem that as a people move from having all-encompassing lives (where they build their house, harvest their crops, sew their clothing, make their tools and furniture, and educate their children) to lives of specialization (where a person specializes in one job and spends 40+ hours doing this, in order to facilitate the transfer of goods and services among all) there becomes an acute need for publicly-funded education.
I guess it seems that it kind of 'comes with the deal,' so to speak. We all want the vast increases of wealth that come from specialization and free-market distribution, but that leaves little time to educate our children. It also doesn't allow parents to necessarily have a broad enough knowledge of all subject areas to adequately educate their children.
Thus, it seems we could either have a system of completely private schools, paid for via tuition dollars, or some sort of publicly funded one.
Personally, my wife and I are going to do a combination of home-schooling and private schooling, even if we must make large sacrifices from our budget to do so.
However, in a purely tuition-funded system I'd see two problems. First, many families don't make enough money to pay for such tuition (or at least don't think they do). Secondly, even if they *are* able to squeeze out the funds to pay for it, many will choose not to because they have other priorities for the money.
Either way, many children lose the chance of becoming at least a little bit educated, and our society may get dragged down as well.
Any thoughts on a publicly-funded but privately-administered education system, like 100% charter schools?
Anyway, thanks for letting me share these random thoughts on the subject. I actually tend to be very oriented toward a fee-for-service type of system. I just can't get around the idea that there are certain areas where this causes problems. Any comments on this would be helpful.
My wife has just spent a year as a teacher. She is just completing a Masters degree in teaching. The system is a complete mess. It is so bad she will never teach again (outside our family). She comes home every day an emotional wreck. She gets threatened by dangerous drug dealers, cursed at, pushed and shoved... and nothing is done about it by other staff. She is told constantly by the other teachers to water down the academics for kids. She can't tell the 16 year old girl to use birth control to avoid another abortion (the girl has had three) because that's judgmental but "sex ed" for 9th graders consists of describing how to perform sex acts. I could go on for quite some time.
The system is ruining these children.
They are not held to any academic standard by parents or the school, nor are they not held to any behavioral standard. Even IF you find a school with decent teachers (not likely) you have to contend with everyone else's rotten kid bringing drugs and violence to yours. The best thing for this country would be the complete removal of the federal Dept. of Education. Gone. I would privatize every individual school. Nobody would pay education taxes, instead they use that money to determine where their kids go to school and pay for that. Every school would have to compete for each and every student. Teachers should have to justify every component of their curriculum and be audited (by parents) for fair treatment and grading (read: no favoritism or letting students slide by).
Furthermore home-schooling should be encouraged, sending your kids out to a school should be a last resort.
I appreciate your comments, Jake. These are the kinds of things I believe we should be discussing as we try to determine how best to model a free society.
I agree with you that the notion of "fee-for-service" starts getting tricky in the area of road systems. However, I still believe that the free enterprise system of paying for what you receive should be followed to the extent possible. That's why I qualified my statement: "use property taxes to *partially* fund local road construction and maintenance." Those who are most likely to benefit from the "public service" should have the greatest stake in that benefit -- both in terms of paying for the service, and in voting for measures pertaining to it. Other sources of funding could be state-wide, nation-wide, or even toll based, particularly in the case of interstate highways. As a side comment, I have also heard of the proposal to privatize road construction and allow several firms to compete for the business of the community. Community members would have the opportunity to choose where their money goes, so to speak. That is an intriguing thought (certainly privatization tends to impart much more accountability on the firms than if all the money is just going to the public anyway). Any responses?
However, I disagree with you on the prospect that education is also a public good. First of all, while I'm sure we would all like to agree with the notion that the entire population benefits from a well-educated citizenry, it hardly serves to justify the need for public funding of such education. (I could compare that to the idea that since society as a whole benefits from a well-nourished population, we should have public funding of grocery stores.) The "benefits" of education do not translate to a call for government oversight of such education, just like government oversight does not translate to a well-educated populace (as we have all witnessed).
Let's bring this discussion to a more fundamental (rather than ethereal) level. Education has always been a private endeavor. Individuals have different levels of intelligence, different capabilities, different interests in life, and different motivations. No amount of public funding is going to "make" the kids down the street learn history and English, perform better in their classes, get into a better college, or get them better jobs. Even with stricter qualifications for teachers, the ultimate responsibility rests with the student (as I'm sure every youngster has heard in his time). To create the most efficient system, the student must be made to pay directly for such education. (I acknowledge the fact that private education is largely paid for by the parents, but the point still stands, in the form of parental sovereignty over their children.) Privately funded schooling is the only way to ensure that families have the ultimate say in where (or even if) to send their children to school. It increases the accountability for both the student (in whose best interest it is to make use of the education they are paying for), and the teachers/administrators (who naturally stand to lose money if their educational standards don't fit those of the family).
Now we all know that the free market system tends to be the most efficient by far in the use of resources, but where does that put those families who can't afford an education? Well, there are some different options. One, they can educate themselves -- through home schooling, a type of co-op setup with several different families, or just independent study. They can seek opportunities for grants or loans, such as exist in our current university system. Or, they can seek training in trades that don't require a high education, learning through apprenticeships or taking part in the family business. It may seem a scandalous thought, but not all people are cut out for higher education as we have come to think of it, and indeed I believe society as a whole suffers from a lack of a reasonable foundation of what are termed "blue-collar workers." In fact, I see the extensive push to outsource assembly and manufacturing jobs internationally (to places such as China and the Far East) as a symptom of a weakness in the society, not necessarily as a sign of progress.
Maybe this gets back to your statements on job specialization. Is it possible for a nation to become too specialized, and lose the ability to utilize general skills to adapt to changing circumstances? What happens to all the electrical engineers and computer scientists when the nation dives into a recession and there is no longer the consumer market for their products and services? Worse yet, what happens in the aftermath of a crisis such as war or nuclear disaster when the fabric that holds our society together collapses and people are forced to self-subsist, maybe for a period of years? I'm afraid the nation as a whole has reached the point of no return, in terms of losing the ability to adapt and survive in such a crisis. Those of us who recognize the prospect of such a disaster are forced to play a game of catch-up, trying to determine how to prepare for various scenarios and learning the wide array of skills that would be necessary for survival.
But I digress. The point is, education should be placed solely in the hands of the student and his family. This means privatized education, no enrollment criteria, and no generalized requirements for individual education besides the ability to successfully pass the language and constitutional law exams (for those who wish to be citizens). (Note, even that case does not justify the need for uniform education, since many could opt to remain residents and still have the opportunity to work in the country under the sponsorship of a citizen.) I would put it to you that the advances (technological and otherwise) of this century would not have been hindered by the absence of public education -- and indeed, we may have progressed even farther as individuals and collectively had we not had the weight of an inefficient and grossly inadequate public education system weighing us down. Don't underestimate the power of the free market in the efficient allocation of resources, and the rewarding of those who are truly motivated and capable.
The first plank of the Communist Manifesto is:
The abolition of private property
and the application of rents to public purposes.
Property tax IS RENT.
Property Tax is used for public purposes.
.The proof property tax is rent:
If you dont pay (the tax) you cant stay.
As long as you pay (the tax) you can stay.
This is the definition of rent,whether it is an
apartment or a car or your home.
Celeste:
I am straying further from the topic of Property Tax here, but your comments are very thought provoking:
"It may seem a scandalous thought, but not all people are cut out for higher education as we have come to think of it, and indeed I believe society as a whole suffers from a lack of a reasonable foundation of what are termed "blue-collar workers." In fact, I see the extensive push to outsource assembly and manufacturing jobs internationally (to places such as China and the Far East) as a symptom of a weakness in the society, not necessarily as a sign of progress."
First, I agree that not all are cut out for highly specialized technical work. Living in a rural area as I do, I meet many men who would like nothing better than to be able to do non-intellectual work outdoors on the land, or even in a factory, if only they could support their families this way. But the jobs do not exist.
But consider WHY they don't exist. Each man who works must support not only himself and his family, but also a host of tax-funded bureacracies, subsisies and give-aways. High rates of taxation and expensive schemes of regulation create a relentless and escalating pressure to become more specialized and more productive so as to earn enough to pay the bills. Then the wife is enters the employment market too in an attempt to keep ahead of the bills. High property taxes help to make small farms uneconomical. Finally, the blue collar jobs are exported to places where simpler lifestyles have kept wages down.
I suggest that if people only had to support themselves and their families, they could afford to work a lot less efficiently at more labor intensive work which does not require technical training. A man could farm his 100 acres and keep food on the table if he wanted to live that simply. He could afford to work in a small, local factory which would pay him a low wage and sell his products in a competitive market. Those who wanted to invest in education and training could still be rewarded by the market for that effort, but people would not be forced in that direction just to keep their noses above water.
And, with the great reduction in government bureaucracy, the demand and rewards for paper-pushing would fall, releasing people for more productive work.
Please let's go back to Property Taxes.
PropertyTax is RENT.
How does that help Liberty.
A Sales Tax is the least intrusive into people's lives,
and the most revealing of the cost of government.
As to education:
education is the responsibility of the Family.
If they choose not to or can not,the Family can contract with the Church.
Education is half Philosophy (the Bible) and the other half is
reading writing and arithmetic etc
For those who can not educate their children and
can not afford to pay, may appeal to other Families
or to the Church for charity(to educate their children)
This keeps the civil government out of the education(Philosophy)business,
Which reduces the civil government's power and
need for Tax money
GOD has given Man three governments.
FAMILY
care of young
education
care of elders
CHURCH
care of orphans
education in GOD's law
care of widows
CIVIL
defense
justice
dealing with other countries
It is best to start the discussion of government's role by discussing what are the basic
needs of people and then assign that responsibility closest to the need.
The biggest advantage of assigning the responsibility to the Family is, that is where the need is.If the Family can not, the church
assumes the Responsibility,as the Church is a voluntary association.
As George Washington said; Government is not eloquence it is Force.
Force destroys Liberty.
Liberty is best preserved by voluntary association.
At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinburgh) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the most recent Presidential election:
Population of counties won by:
Gore=127 million
Bush=143 million
Square miles of land won by:
Gore=580,000
Bush=22,427,000
States won by:
Gore=19;
Bush=29
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by :
Gore=13.2
Bush=2.1
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off government welfare."
Olson believes the U.S is now somewhere between the "apathy" and "complacency" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy; with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.