/liberty/ - Liberty

So like now?

>>68332

>Shareholders controlling people's lives without their consent or ability to turn to an alternative

Sounds like an excellent idea, OP! :^)

>>68345

Just move somewhere else smh

>>68332

That is one really backwards way of trying to make democracy comparable to shareholding in a company.

BTW it was called the weighted voting system and it has even larger flaws than the current systems in place.

>>68332

No.

>>68334

Didn't know welfare queens don't get votes.

>>68332

No. It's been tried. You can't fix Democracy.

>>68345

They wouldn't be controlling people's lives, they would just be controlling their own property

>>68332

Maybe if you could calculate net positive contributors and only give votes to them? Then only people who are paying more into the system than they are receiving from it get to vote. People voting themselves benefits would be voting themselves out of the voter pool.

>>68611

>the rich should rule over the poor

yeah that's not going to work

>>68612

It's how it is anyways with our class of socialist billionaires. Oligarchy is the status quo. Stop people voting themselves tax money and you'll require them to be their own owners again, which should reduce the inequality in the system.

>>68332

If we're gonna do silly things like this, I'd rather vote allocation get decided by a combination of random number generator and biathlon performance.

>>68611

>Maybe if you could calculate net positive contributors and only give votes to them?

Yeah that's basically what I mean

>>68332

Do you mean something like what Hoppe rights about in Ch. 6 of Democracy? "On Socialism and Desocialization", where he goes over (A) syndicalism for property in socialist states and (B) distribution of property in non-socialist states, where people get some form of property based on their net gain/loss from taxation?

I think it's the most ethically sound way to reverse the state, but I don't see it ever happening. Mostly, I think top-down methods of revolution are rather doomed to fail, and obviously such a redistributive property would require this.

>>68644

Hoppe specifically mentions this to be implemented on the small scale, like in villages and small towns. He stated that all of the public property should be divided into shares, and these shares should be redistributed to the taxpayers to "abolish" public property. These shares could then be freely traded to determine who would own what property. The chances of this happening in some kind of million-person megalopolis is very unlikely.