Conquer Club

The Rent-Seeking Society

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

The Rent-Seeking Society

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:41 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
I wouldn't limit your criticism to liberals (although you haven't). It has become clear, at least since Bush I, that politics involve increasingly more rhetoric and gaffes and "electability" than problem-solving or constructive criticism. I'm not sure who to blame(inb4 "I blame Democrats" or "I blame Republicans"), but it's clearly a problem when the concentration becomes "where is the president's birth certificate / where are Romney's tax returns" and "Obama is socialist / Romney is a rich fatcat" and the concentration is not on "why are we here in the first place and what can we do to fix it."


This problem annoys me, and I can't think of any solutions.

What jumps to mind is limiting voting rights, but that goes against the democratic ethos of our time.


How will the incentive arise which induces people to become more informed voters?
How will the incentive arise which induces people to see past the rhetoric, thus changing the demand for political advertising (including words from politicians) within voter markets?

Maybe everyone should directly pay something for any public policy. Having a huge segment of the population which can vote on issues yet pay no direct costs is insane. Underlying every democracy is this threat of majority rule and voter behavior induced by perverse incentives. The other problem is dispersed costs and concentrated benefits through the means of rent-seeking (e.g. elderly voting against cuts to Social Security, environmental groups imposing foolhardy regulations--as oppose to smarter regulations, insurance companies holding closed-door discussions with Obama on the new healthcare plan, etc.).


We live in a rent-seeking, democratic society, most of whose voters are well-intended yet rationally ignorant.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: The Rent-Seeking Society

Postby saxitoxin on Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:12 pm

> Maybe everyone should directly pay something for any public policy.

Under Rhode Island's colonial charter, originally received in 1663, only landowners could vote. At the time, when most of the citizens of the colonies were farmers, this was considered fairly democratic. By the 1840s, landed property worth at least $134 was required in order to vote. However, as the Industrial Revolution reached North America and people moved to the cities, large numbers of people could no longer vote.

In 1841, Dorr gave up on attempts to change the system from within. In October they held an extralegal People's Convention and drafted a new constitution which granted the vote to all white men with one year's residence. Dorr had originally supported granting voting rights to blacks, but he changed his position in 1840 because of pressure from white immigrants. At the same time, Rhode Island's General Assembly formed a rival convention and drafted the Freemen's Constitution with some concessions to democratic demands.

Late in that year, the two constitutions were voted on, and the Freemen's Constitution was defeated in the legislature, largely by Dorr supporters, while the People's Convention version was overwhelmingly supported in a referendum in December. Although much of the support for the People's Convention constitution was from the newly eligible voters, Dorr claimed that most of those eligible under the old constitution had also supported it, making it legal.

In early 1842, both groups organized elections of their own, leading in April to the selections of both Dorr and Samuel Ward King as Governor of Rhode Island. King showed no signs of introducing the new constitution; when matters came to a head, he declared martial law. On May 4, the state legislature requested the dispatch of federal troops to suppress the "lawless assemblages". President John Tyler sent an observer, then decided not to send soldiers, because "the danger of domestic violence is hourly diminishing".

Most of the state militiamen were Irishmen newly enfranchised by the referendum and supported Dorr. The "Dorrites" led an unsuccessful attack against the arsenal in Providence, Rhode Island on May 19, 1842. Defenders of the arsenal on the "Charterite" side (those who supported the original charter) included Dorr's father, Sullivan Dorr, and his uncle, Crawford Allen. At the time, these men owned the Bernon Mill Village in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. In addition, among the defenders of Providence were many black men who had supported Dorr before he dropped them from his call for suffrage. After his defeat, Thomas Dorr and his supporters retreated to Chepachet, where they hoped to reconvene the People's Convention.

Charterite forces were sent to Woonsocket to defend the village and to cut off the Dorrite forces' retreat. The Charterites fortified a house in preparation for an attack; but it never came, and the Dorr Rebellion soon fell apart. Governor King issued a warrant for Dorr's arrest, with a reward of $5,000. Dorr fled the state. Dorr returned later in 1843, was found guilty of treason against the state, and was sentenced in 1844 to solitary confinement and hard labor for life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorr_Rebellion
Last edited by saxitoxin on Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 13411
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: The Rent-Seeking Society

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:17 pm

I'm wondering whether there was ever a time in US history when we didn't live in a rent-seeking society. If the answer is "we've always lived in a rent-seeking society and it's just worse now," then I have no solution. If the answer is "we're just rent-seeking now and we weren't in the past," we could look to the past to determine how to correct the problems.

I think there are four forces at work here, and in no particular order:

(1) The politicians. The politicians accept rent-seeking and encourage rent-seeking. And the rent-seekers encourage the politicians. One merely has to look at the Republican primary debates this election season. Most of the politicians involved were more keen on seeking simple answers to simple questions rather than giving more complex answers to simple questions. And when a politician tried to give a complex or intelligent answer, he was roundly shouted down by the other politicians. This can be further seen at the national conventions this year. Despite the Daily Show's exotrations to the contrary, the Democrats did not illuminate any particular plans for the coming administration. The Republicans didn't either (but the Daily Show picked up on that). There was no substance in either convention. And we expected that. Because politicians don't care about substance, they care about flash. When politicians spend more time politicking than governing, this is what we get.

(2) The media. With some exceptions, the media caters to the lowest common denominator or caters to a special interest group. I don't blame them so much because they are interested in making money and they can't make as much money unless they cater to a low denominator or a special interest group (presumably). But the media can frame the debate and the issues and they can make it more likely for politicians to focus on complex answers than simple ones. And they don't do that right now.

(3) The rent-seekers (a/k/a the lobbyists). Ignoring the "general public" for a second, the lobbyists or special interest groups have nearly complete control over politicians. This is largely ignored or else the focus is on one lobbyist or special interest group and a lack of focus on others. Yeah, ostensibly oil companies are pro-Republican, right? Then why do they spend lobbying dollars and campaign contribution dollars on Democrats?

(4) The general public. The media and politicians cater to the general public. The general public doesn't care about the effects of the Affordable Care Act. They want to know what Honey Boo Boo is doing. And the only way the media or politicians can compete with Honey Boo Boo is if they make preposterous comments and aren't boring.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: The Rent-Seeking Society

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:36 pm

saxitoxin wrote:> Maybe everyone should directly pay something for any public policy.

Under Rhode Island's colonial charter, originally received in 1663, only landowners could vote. At the time, when most of the citizens of the colonies were farmers, this was considered fairly democratic. By the 1840s, landed property worth at least $134 was required in order to vote. However, as the Industrial Revolution reached North America and people moved to the cities, large numbers of people could no longer vote.

In 1841, Dorr gave up on attempts to change the system from within. In October they held an extralegal People's Convention and drafted a new constitution which granted the vote to all white men with one year's residence. Dorr had originally supported granting voting rights to blacks, but he changed his position in 1840 because of pressure from white immigrants. At the same time, Rhode Island's General Assembly formed a rival convention and drafted the Freemen's Constitution with some concessions to democratic demands.

Late in that year, the two constitutions were voted on, and the Freemen's Constitution was defeated in the legislature, largely by Dorr supporters, while the People's Convention version was overwhelmingly supported in a referendum in December. Although much of the support for the People's Convention constitution was from the newly eligible voters, Dorr claimed that most of those eligible under the old constitution had also supported it, making it legal.

In early 1842, both groups organized elections of their own, leading in April to the selections of both Dorr and Samuel Ward King as Governor of Rhode Island. King showed no signs of introducing the new constitution; when matters came to a head, he declared martial law. On May 4, the state legislature requested the dispatch of federal troops to suppress the "lawless assemblages". President John Tyler sent an observer, then decided not to send soldiers, because "the danger of domestic violence is hourly diminishing".

Most of the state militiamen were Irishmen newly enfranchised by the referendum and supported Dorr. The "Dorrites" led an unsuccessful attack against the arsenal in Providence, Rhode Island on May 19, 1842. Defenders of the arsenal on the "Charterite" side (those who supported the original charter) included Dorr's father, Sullivan Dorr, and his uncle, Crawford Allen. At the time, these men owned the Bernon Mill Village in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. In addition, among the defenders of Providence were many black men who had supported Dorr before he dropped them from his call for suffrage. After his defeat, Thomas Dorr and his supporters retreated to Chepachet, where they hoped to reconvene the People's Convention.

Charterite forces were sent to Woonsocket to defend the village and to cut off the Dorrite forces' retreat. The Charterites fortified a house in preparation for an attack; but it never came, and the Dorr Rebellion soon fell apart. Governor King issued a warrant for Dorr's arrest, with a reward of $5,000. Dorr fled the state. Dorr returned later in 1843, was found guilty of treason against the state, and was sentenced in 1844 to solitary confinement and hard labor for life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorr_Rebellion



So an arbitrarily set amount of $143 on land-for-voting created later problems associated with people moving to cities. Instead of lowering that rate (not really mentioned in wiki quote above), they formed a new constitution (which I guess lowered that rate, or whatever?). Okay, so more problems abound which may be beyond the scope of my original sentence, and then RI had two constitutions and two governors, one of whom declared martial law. Then there was a violent conflict of unknown magnitude (zero to one million casualties?), and the new constitution which intended to expand voter rights (among other unmentioned things) was effectively trashed.


In today's world, how much do people pay for public policies? US invades two countries. How much does that really affect any US taxpayer? US expands entitlements and other government goodies. How does that affect voter decision-making? Major cities impose rent controls. How does that affect the quality and supply of more apartments? (negatively), but do people pay for the unintended consequences? No, because they're ignorant of them and of unseen costs.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: The Rent-Seeking Society

Postby saxitoxin on Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:54 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:> Maybe everyone should directly pay something for any public policy.

Under Rhode Island's colonial charter, originally received in 1663, only landowners could vote. At the time, when most of the citizens of the colonies were farmers, this was considered fairly democratic. By the 1840s, landed property worth at least $134 was required in order to vote. However, as the Industrial Revolution reached North America and people moved to the cities, large numbers of people could no longer vote.

In 1841, Dorr gave up on attempts to change the system from within. In October they held an extralegal People's Convention and drafted a new constitution which granted the vote to all white men with one year's residence. Dorr had originally supported granting voting rights to blacks, but he changed his position in 1840 because of pressure from white immigrants. At the same time, Rhode Island's General Assembly formed a rival convention and drafted the Freemen's Constitution with some concessions to democratic demands.

Late in that year, the two constitutions were voted on, and the Freemen's Constitution was defeated in the legislature, largely by Dorr supporters, while the People's Convention version was overwhelmingly supported in a referendum in December. Although much of the support for the People's Convention constitution was from the newly eligible voters, Dorr claimed that most of those eligible under the old constitution had also supported it, making it legal.

In early 1842, both groups organized elections of their own, leading in April to the selections of both Dorr and Samuel Ward King as Governor of Rhode Island. King showed no signs of introducing the new constitution; when matters came to a head, he declared martial law. On May 4, the state legislature requested the dispatch of federal troops to suppress the "lawless assemblages". President John Tyler sent an observer, then decided not to send soldiers, because "the danger of domestic violence is hourly diminishing".

Most of the state militiamen were Irishmen newly enfranchised by the referendum and supported Dorr. The "Dorrites" led an unsuccessful attack against the arsenal in Providence, Rhode Island on May 19, 1842. Defenders of the arsenal on the "Charterite" side (those who supported the original charter) included Dorr's father, Sullivan Dorr, and his uncle, Crawford Allen. At the time, these men owned the Bernon Mill Village in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. In addition, among the defenders of Providence were many black men who had supported Dorr before he dropped them from his call for suffrage. After his defeat, Thomas Dorr and his supporters retreated to Chepachet, where they hoped to reconvene the People's Convention.

Charterite forces were sent to Woonsocket to defend the village and to cut off the Dorrite forces' retreat. The Charterites fortified a house in preparation for an attack; but it never came, and the Dorr Rebellion soon fell apart. Governor King issued a warrant for Dorr's arrest, with a reward of $5,000. Dorr fled the state. Dorr returned later in 1843, was found guilty of treason against the state, and was sentenced in 1844 to solitary confinement and hard labor for life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorr_Rebellion



So an arbitrarily set amount of $143 on land-for-voting created later problems associated with people moving to cities. Instead of lowering that rate (not really mentioned in wiki quote above), they formed a new constitution (which I guess lowered that rate, or whatever?). Okay, so more problems abound which may be beyond the scope of my original sentence, and then RI had two constitutions and two governors, one of whom declared martial law. Then there was a violent conflict of unknown magnitude (zero to one million casualties?), and the new constitution which intended to expand voter rights (among other unmentioned things) was effectively trashed.


In today's world, how much do people pay for public policies? US invades two countries. How much does that really affect any US taxpayer? US expands entitlements and other government goodies. How does that affect voter decision-making? Major cities impose rent controls. How does that affect the quality and supply of more apartments? (negatively), but do people pay for the unintended consequences? No, because they're ignorant of them and of unseen costs.


Image
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 13411
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: The Rent-Seeking Society

Postby Funkyterrance on Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:28 pm

The element missing from your problem is the fact that most Americans have everything they need to live the way they want to for the most part. As long as they can afford to eat, drink and watch honey boo boo on their TV, there is no motivation for the masses to get off their asses. They have everything they need so what is left but entertainment?
So to answer your question I don't think there is a pro-active solution to the problem. Things apparently have to get worse before they can get better. For the time being, those people who want it more are going to get it.
If anything I would suggest that voting be mandatory on a national and local level. Why not fine a citizen for not doing his/her due diligence (loosely speaking) as a citizen. Heck, make people pass a test on national issues like you would for your driver's license. Isn't voting uneducated just as dangerous to our nation as driving without knowing the rules of the road? In the US its mandatory to partake in the census every ten years but for some reason you don't have to vote.
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: The Rent-Seeking Society

Postby saxitoxin on Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:50 pm

Beebs, how about this ... a bicameral legislature with the first chamber democratically elected and the second chamber elected by taxpayers based on their income tax filing the previous year (you get one vote for every $4700 you pay). The first chamber can pass any law they want on their own without the second chamber except spending and revenue bills which need to be approved by the second chamber.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 13411
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: The Rent-Seeking Society

Postby Frigidus on Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:36 pm

Run a national campaign asking citizens to not vote if they don't know anything about politics. It wouldn't solve the problem, but at least I'd get to feel smug about myself.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: The Rent-Seeking Society

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Sep 19, 2012 6:39 pm

Funkyterrance wrote:The element missing from your problem is the fact that most Americans have everything they need to live the way they want to for the most part. As long as they can afford to eat, drink and watch honey boo boo on their TV, there is no motivation for the masses to get off their asses. They have everything they need so what is left but entertainment?
So to answer your question I don't think there is a pro-active solution to the problem. Things apparently have to get worse before they can get better. For the time being, those people who want it more are going to get it.
If anything I would suggest that voting be mandatory on a national and local level. Why not fine a citizen for not doing his/her due diligence (loosely speaking) as a citizen. Heck, make people pass a test on national issues like you would for your driver's license. Isn't voting uneducated just as dangerous to our nation as driving without knowing the rules of the road? In the US its mandatory to partake in the census every ten years but for some reason you don't have to vote.


That's not a good idea. If you force people to "produce" something, and they already lack self-rewarding incentives to do so, then they won't spend the intended amount of time and effort in voting optimally (as in, for their best interests and somehow for the best interests of everyone). Instead, they'll tend to vote for whoever so that they aren't punished.

You may get more people voting, but not for the right reasons.


New political platform:

"I promise to end the involuntary voting laws!"

[Politician A wins by a landslide!]

______________________________________


Voting tests are interesting, but who makes the test and what shall people be tested on? And then how does a test score appropriately reflect an individual's relative value judgments on various issues? One score can't capture them all.


Suppose I score an 87 on foreign policy. Does this mean I get a 87/100 vote on only foreign policy? Of course not, but how does this mesh with other subjects?

And most importantly, what is the right answer? If the test-makers knew the right answers, then hey, they should be implementing policy instead. At long last, the questions to "what is the optimal amount of US national security?" has been discovered. But let's sidestep this and say that only questions on historic and current facts should be asked. But who cares? I didn't know what Obama's daughter's name was, or I didn't know the names of the 7 (or 9? lol) Supreme Court judges. Those facts don't matter in determining what is best for this country in the long-run. The facts which do matter are not even known yet. "How many years can the US continue its deficit spending without changing its tax policies or changing its spending?"

Creating the right test for voting seems impossible... :(
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: The Rent-Seeking Society

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Sep 19, 2012 6:41 pm

saxitoxin wrote:Beebs, how about this ... a bicameral legislature with the first chamber democratically elected and the second chamber elected by taxpayers based on their income tax filing the previous year (you get one vote for every $4700 you pay). The first chamber can pass any law they want on their own without the second chamber except spending and revenue bills which need to be approved by the second chamber.


This sounds interesting but...

What about elections/appointments for judges, the executive, and key bureaucratic positions?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: The Rent-Seeking Society

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:28 pm

Frigidus wrote:Run a national campaign asking citizens to not vote if they don't know anything about politics. It wouldn't solve the problem, but at least I'd get to feel smug about myself.


I do it here all the time and I always feel smug. It's a good idea.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: The Rent-Seeking Society

Postby saxitoxin on Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:20 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:Beebs, how about this ... a bicameral legislature with the first chamber democratically elected and the second chamber elected by taxpayers based on their income tax filing the previous year (you get one vote for every $4700 you pay). The first chamber can pass any law they want on their own without the second chamber except spending and revenue bills which need to be approved by the second chamber.


This sounds interesting but...

What about elections/appointments for judges, the executive, and key bureaucratic positions?


Well, it wouldn't work anyway because you would create another kind of Rent Seeking. Members of the second chamber would try to limit the percent of the population paying taxes to decrease the electorate and enhance their own power.

    In the Status Quo, even in the face of a crisis requiring less taxes - such as impending economic collapse - the non-productive class will try to take more. A member of a non-productive class isn't concerned about economic collapse because his resting state is zero and he can't produce negative income.

    In the new system, even in the face of a crisis requiring more taxes - such as impending foreign invasion - the plutocracy will try to give less. A member of the plutocracy isn't concerned about invasion or disaster because his assets are substantial enough that he won't be impacted by an episodic event like earthquake or attack.
People can resolve these dilemmas by seeking anti-democratic alternatives to democratic government.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 13411
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: The Rent-Seeking Society

Postby HapSmo19 on Wed Sep 19, 2012 9:06 pm

How about a simple red/black solution?

Examples off the top of my head:

1. You've sucked off the government teet more than you've paid in taxes -- you lose the right to vote.

2. You belong to a union that receives a government bailout -- you lose the right to vote in government elections but it's ok because you can still vote within the union, but, only for a paycut for yourself and your thug bosses, you fucking cunts.

3. You do business with a bank that receives a government bailout -- you lose the right to vote but you gain the right to commit arson(after regular business hours) on said banking chain.

Kinda busy right now. I'm just throwing out some ideas...
User avatar
Lieutenant HapSmo19
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:30 pm
Location: Willamette Valley

Re: The Rent-Seeking Society

Postby Funkyterrance on Wed Sep 19, 2012 9:21 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
That's not a good idea. If you force people to "produce" something, and they already lack self-rewarding incentives to do so, then they won't spend the intended amount of time and effort in voting optimally (as in, for their best interests and somehow for the best interests of everyone). Instead, they'll tend to vote for whoever so that they aren't punished.

You may get more people voting, but not for the right reasons.


New political platform:

"I promise to end the involuntary voting laws!"

[Politician A wins by a landslide!]

______________________________________


Voting tests are interesting, but who makes the test and what shall people be tested on? And then how does a test score appropriately reflect an individual's relative value judgments on various issues? One score can't capture them all.


Suppose I score an 87 on foreign policy. Does this mean I get a 87/100 vote on only foreign policy? Of course not, but how does this mesh with other subjects?

And most importantly, what is the right answer? If the test-makers knew the right answers, then hey, they should be implementing policy instead. At long last, the questions to "what is the optimal amount of US national security?" has been discovered. But let's sidestep this and say that only questions on historic and current facts should be asked. But who cares? I didn't know what Obama's daughter's name was, or I didn't know the names of the 7 (or 9? lol) Supreme Court judges. Those facts don't matter in determining what is best for this country in the long-run. The facts which do matter are not even known yet. "How many years can the US continue its deficit spending without changing its tax policies or changing its spending?"

Creating the right test for voting seems impossible... :(


Hmm, well I see your point with the new platform... I wonder though if those people who only voted because it was mandatory would bother to follow any candidate, regardless of what issues they would address. In this way wouldn't the platform be somewhat fatally flawed?

I suppose I have more faith in negative reinforcement than positive in this instance. since I, as I stated, don't think you could "dangle a cost effective carrot" juicy enough to compel a non-rent seeker to take an initiative. Better to gain funds from non-participants in fines than lose funds trying to get people to do something they really aren't interested in.
As far as the voting test what I had in mind was a test that basically sought the correct answers regarding basic understanding of specific issues, etc.. The bones of the issues as it were. Ballots would include a checklist of how candidates stood in regard to each issue. The tests would be nothing like a citizenship test or whatever they are called.
The two suggestions I made would have to go hand in hand in that a person would learn in the tests and apply what they knew to the voting. It may sound a bit overly structured but with just a few unobtrusive tweaks seems to me it would make the whole business a little less illusive.
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: The Rent-Seeking Society

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:17 am

HapSmo19 wrote:How about a simple red/black solution?

Examples off the top of my head:

1. You've sucked off the government teet more than you've paid in taxes -- you lose the right to vote.

2. You belong to a union that receives a government bailout -- you lose the right to vote in government elections but it's ok because you can still vote within the union, but, only for a paycut for yourself and your thug bosses, you fucking cunts.

3. You do business with a bank that receives a government bailout -- you lose the right to vote but you gain the right to commit arson(after regular business hours) on said banking chain.

Kinda busy right now. I'm just throwing out some ideas...



Maybe something like a proportional vote to the amount one pays in taxes (plus subsidies received by the government).

It would be difficult to calculate, but... maybe.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: The Rent-Seeking Society

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:21 am

saxitoxin wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:Beebs, how about this ... a bicameral legislature with the first chamber democratically elected and the second chamber elected by taxpayers based on their income tax filing the previous year (you get one vote for every $4700 you pay). The first chamber can pass any law they want on their own without the second chamber except spending and revenue bills which need to be approved by the second chamber.


This sounds interesting but...

What about elections/appointments for judges, the executive, and key bureaucratic positions?


Well, it wouldn't work anyway because you would create another kind of Rent Seeking. Members of the second chamber would try to limit the percent of the population paying taxes to decrease the electorate and enhance their own power.

    In the Status Quo, even in the face of a crisis requiring less taxes - such as impending economic collapse - the non-productive class will try to take more. A member of a non-productive class isn't concerned about economic collapse because his resting state is zero and he can't produce negative income.

    In the new system, even in the face of a crisis requiring more taxes - such as impending foreign invasion - the plutocracy will try to give less. A member of the plutocracy isn't concerned about invasion or disaster because his assets are substantial enough that he won't be impacted by an episodic event like earthquake or attack.
People can resolve these dilemmas by seeking anti-democratic alternatives to democratic government.


The best that comes to mind is to limit the avenue through which rent-seekers profit, i.e. limit the jurisdiction of federal government. So, this entails a scaling down to State, but perhaps better, parish/county levels.

Some types of political/economic/legal unions across all States should be maintained, but legislation and price controls and what not would be limited on a State-by-State basis. If the regulatory scheme and legislation proves too burdensome for the population, then the population either marginally shifts away from that state and/or more people are less likely to move there in the future. With certain caveats, I view a politically competitive similar to this system as optimal.

Undemocratic governance may work... and rarely it has, but... being a democratic, it's hard for me to slop off that appeal to the democratic. Perhaps you could provide a convincing argument (no, Qaddafi was full of it, sorry).
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: The Rent-Seeking Society

Postby GreecePwns on Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:17 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
HapSmo19 wrote:How about a simple red/black solution?

Examples off the top of my head:

1. You've sucked off the government teet more than you've paid in taxes -- you lose the right to vote.

2. You belong to a union that receives a government bailout -- you lose the right to vote in government elections but it's ok because you can still vote within the union, but, only for a paycut for yourself and your thug bosses, you fucking cunts.

3. You do business with a bank that receives a government bailout -- you lose the right to vote but you gain the right to commit arson(after regular business hours) on said banking chain.

Kinda busy right now. I'm just throwing out some ideas...



Maybe something like a proportional vote to the amount one pays in taxes (plus subsidies received by the government).

It would be difficult to calculate, but... maybe.

An interesting idea, but only if people can choose which government they pay taxes to.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: The Rent-Seeking Society

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:46 am

Yeah, hence tying that into this: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=178485&view=unread#p3899469
(basically, it's the city-state model)


Hah, there's even something called "polycentrism," (Governing the Commons) which involves interactions between self-governing groups and the formal institutions (government).


For me, I would want a political system where people are free to try their own models, like some Communist commune, but they only get to play with themselves in these voluntary associations with free entry and exit. With this, we could settle a lot of these age-old debates through a competitive framework.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: The Rent-Seeking Society

Postby NoSurvivors on Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:49 am

It does not matter. The rent is too damn high.
User avatar
Colonel NoSurvivors
 
Posts: 1479
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 10:25 am

Re: The Rent-Seeking Society

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:59 am

NoSurvivors wrote:It does not matter. The rent is too damn high.


It's a good stint.


He can thank price controls on rent and zone regulations for that.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: The Rent-Seeking Society

Postby Funkyterrance on Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:56 pm

I'm very interested in this topic but I am not experienced in politics, which should be obvious from my posts on here regarding them. I actually used to avoid this forum because of all the controversial issues which tend to make me uncomfortable. Now I like this forum because at least its busy! It is also humbling, however, since I know next to nothing about politics evidently. Suffice it to say I am having to do a lot of careful reading.
Upon further thinking on the idea of having people pay for votes regarding the issues they were most concerned with I think now that it is, as a possible solution, a good one. I think its strength is in its directness. You feel strongly enough about an issue, put in your chips and make a difference.
I am a little confused about the "buying" aspect. Are you suggesting that the more money you have the more voting power you would have? I don't necessarily agree with this if this is the implication as it would just make rent seeking easier for those who have a lot. Why not make it that every voter has "credits" that they can spend on whatever issues they feel most strongly about? Seems like this would greatly reduce corruption.
As far as being rent seeking, I think that this has absolutely been the name of the game since the beginning. I don't think this means there is no solution, however. I think you may be onto a good idea, it just needs some sculpting. The goal should be for rent seekers to not have an inordinate amount of power. To take away their right to contribute to the conversation seems like a very dangerous move though. I would also like clarification as to which groups you all consider the big offenders as far as rent-seekers go, if that's not too much trouble. It almost sounds as though you are using self interested and rent seeking interchangeably?
User avatar
Colonel Funkyterrance
 
Posts: 2494
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:52 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA


Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DirtyDishSoap, Dukasaur