pull down to refresh
30 sats \ 8 replies \ @grayruby 30 Mar \ parent \ on: Tough Questions for Libertarians 8/15 libertarian
I think this is reasonable. What would it look like? How you weight each assuming the max is 1 vote and the min is no vote?
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.
reply
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.
reply
I like demerits too, but for antisocial things like currently serving a criminal sentence or being in bankruptcy or other types of default.
reply
reply
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.
reply
+1
reply
I like your friend
He must live in Texas or Alberta