Speaker to Animals wrote:
I think it's a good idea if limited to county elections. If you own property in two counties, you are paying taxes to two counties. Why not vote in each county election?
You are not voting twice in the same elections.
The land doesn't have the vote; the person does.
Yeah, the person the county is stealing money from. If you are going to tax somebody to pay for county services, then why shouldn't that person have a voice in said county government??
Speaker to Animals wrote:
I think it's a good idea if limited to county elections. If you own property in two counties, you are paying taxes to two counties. Why not vote in each county election?
You are not voting twice in the same elections.
The land doesn't have the vote; the person does.
Yeah, the person the county is stealing money from. If you are going to tax somebody to pay for county services, then why shouldn't that person have a voice in said county government??
Hol up. Don't you see, "property" is meaningless.
All that matters is "personhood," comrade.
If you have any inquiries regarding personhood, you may submit them to the party's post office box.
One person one vote. It's supposed to be representative of the residents, not the land. If a corporation owns the land, does every shareholder get a vote? Do they get a vote everywhere that corporation owns land?
MilSpecs wrote:One person one vote. It's supposed to be representative of the residents, not the land. If a corporation owns the land, does every shareholder get a vote? Do they get a vote everywhere that corporation owns land?
Uh.. no..
It should represent the people paying the taxes.
Point of order.. That's the whole fucking problem ^^ in a single sentence.
MilSpecs wrote:One person one vote. It's supposed to be representative of the residents, not the land. If a corporation owns the land, does every shareholder get a vote? Do they get a vote everywhere that corporation owns land?
Uh.. no..
It should represent the people paying the taxes.
Point of order.. That's the whole fucking problem ^^ in a single sentence.
So representative democracy should be based on wealth? (Officially, as opposed to the current unofficial version)
nmoore63 wrote:Certainly he is not arguing for two votes in some sort of aggravated system.
But no taxation with representation was kind of a founding principle.
Appears LadyMil disagrees.
Princess. Get it right.
One man one vote is pretty traditional. Otherwise I can imagine counties turning into kingdoms ruled by major landowners (again, even more than currently happens).
Speaker to Animals wrote:
I think it's a good idea if limited to county elections. If you own property in two counties, you are paying taxes to two counties. Why not vote in each county election?
You are not voting twice in the same elections.
The land doesn't have the vote; the person does.
That's a neat trick so when I don't pay taxes on the land you can arrest the land.
MilSpecs wrote:One person one vote. It's supposed to be representative of the residents, not the land. If a corporation owns the land, does every shareholder get a vote? Do they get a vote everywhere that corporation owns land?
Uh.. no..
It should represent the people paying the taxes.
Point of order.. That's the whole fucking problem ^^ in a single sentence.
So representative democracy should be based on wealth? (Officially, as opposed to the current unofficial version)
Define "wealth."
And how much of it opens the door to "representative democracy?"
Does my pooch need "wealth" to vote? I can tell you what he said his vote is.
