Tom Paine puts two ideas. one flowing from the other:
Each time the government takes money, it wastes much of it in administration costs. Public sector workers should pay no tax, because that “payment” is a costly myth. They should also not vote, because they have a clear conflict of interest with taxpayers.
The tortured logic of the original post [which said that public sector workers are still humans who would swell the dole queues if thrown out – JH] is the reason why it’s so dangerous that the state’s dependents – i.e. public sector workers and the otherwise economically inactive now hold the balance of electoral power.
It’s wrong for people to be able to gang up (under the banner of “democracy”) on a productive minority in order to take their money from them by force. And a very simple economic point that the Treasury does not “lose” the taxes of public sector workers who become unemployed, because it had to give them the money to pay those taxes in the first place.
William Gruff takes issue with this:
It is … unreasonable to advocate the disenfranchisement of public sector workers merely because their perception of their interests may conflict with those of net tax payers.
I do think that we need to rethink the concept of universal suffrage but we need to be wary of arguments that advocate disenfranchising groups merely because their interests may not be ours.
Ultimately, democracy is merely another form of tyranny. If it is direct democracy, it is the tyranny of the majority. If it is, as we have, a representative democracy, it eventually deteriorates to a tyranny by a political class. As a system it is deeply flawed.
… to which I replied:
As always, it’s the abuse of the alternatives which is the problem.
… and Dick Puddlecote mentions:
Requiring individual registration to vote would help. Not just on a list, but actively interested enough to register for the each election.
… something I thought we already did, which comes back to a post here from some time back on rule by Votemeter, a relatively simple way to go about it. The idea is direct democracy via a little black box you need to purchase – something to show your seriousness – plus a short test on knowledge of English history [and yes it is perfectly possible to make a simple, non-controversial history on facts and dates, at about Year 8 level].
Then we don’t need politicians any more but a rump of admin services to collate results or at least to oversee the computer which sorts it out. Any citizen can introduce a Bill, all the relevant literature is available to read and so on.
People took issue with the qualification to vote, i.e. they considered that any in the land – ASBOs, idiots, anyone, has the right to vote and need know nothing about what they’re voting for. Others took issue with the ordinary sheeple running the show. After all, they said, government should be in the hands of the professionals, e.g. the politicians.
Personally, I believe in meritocracy, from within the ranks of the taxpaying citizens of the country, via the Votemeter.
Under the Votemeter scheme, people with a minimum qualification [to get the black box] decide national matters, on the advice of any experts who input data and opinion into the discussion panel. Only skeleton issues are still decided nationally, e.g. defence and most are decided locally. Any taxpaying citizen of the country can go for the certificate.
Tom’s scheme was that only true taxpayers, rather than any public sector dependents, have the vote. My mate says no, any citizen should be allowed to vote but not immigrants [or the EU]. I ask Tom what about English born who are domiciled oversees and vote by remote control?