This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Then the problem becomes, who gets to vote and how do you decide?
Non-citizen immigrants already shouldn’t be voting. Children of immigrants, maybe if they have ties to their origin country, but otherwise they have no less of a stake in their host country than anyone else.
The median voter will vote for themselves to have other people’s money, unless the selection process is very careful and has a way to prevent corruption (which seems unlikely because the selfless voters will be taken advantage of by definition; it must prevent their selflessness from being misallocated to parasites). Even when voters benefit someone else, they’re still benefiting themselves, just next prioritizing who they prefer over who they don’t: e.g. when high-ranking Democrats support immigrants over ordinary citizens, they still put themselves first. I think it’s more important to figure out why the under-prioritized group (ordinary citizens)’s votes aren’t working to keep their money and fix that; if you only deprive a different group of votes, they may still be under-prioritized (e.g. Democrats may redirect money from immigrants to citizens they think will vote Democrat, but they’ll give no more to citizens they think will vote Republican).
Also, how do you divide the layers? In the US gerrymandering (and FPTP) have locked Congress from doing anything and entrenched ideologically extreme candidates. But I think this easier and something simple would be good enough like: (pick n) 1 candidate for n-2n people and each candidate has vote power proportional to how many they represent.
This becomes an easier problem to solve if you permit multiple votes per person. Then you could, e.g., divide the total income tax collected by the number of registered voters, and give each voter a number of votes equal to their shares of taxes paid, rounding up, with a minimum of one and a maximum of, say, 10. Rough figures put that share at about $15,000, so for every $15,000 of federal income taxes paid, you get an extra vote, up to 10, which would correspond to an income of around $500K. This would weight the franchise in favor of those with skin in the game without giving wildly disproportionate power to the ultra-wealthy. (This would also have the side benefit of incentivizing cleaning up voter roles, to decrease the denominator of the income contribution and raise the price of additional votes for the wealthy).
There are issues with this.
And even if you just count taxes paid and don't count services received, many of ther issues still apply; for instance, the government can make you pay the equivalent of taxes by forcing you to spend the money yourself, or forcing a company to spend it (and then the company passes along the cost to you). Or the government can manipulate "who pays the taxes" through accounting tricks (like whether a stay at home spouse files jointly).
More options
Context Copy link
I think this system makes a underclass strike or revolution more likely, but maybe not, looking at the current system where everyone’s vote counts only in a weak official sense.
The bigger problem with it is that the ruling party can entrench themselves by making it easier for supporters and harder for opposers to earn money. How would you prevent that?
Adding +1 vote for each child under 18 would also create good incentives and add balancing power to those who choose family over income. I think the problem you describe isn't too large a problem, as market forces would be constantly fighting against it.
Would they? The government controls the market. They don’t have to completely disenfranchise the opposition to maintain a supermajority: just tip the scales so for example the bottom 25% in income (unexceptional) supporter is much richer than the top 25% (unexceptional) opposer.
I think this is a great idea even today, because governments aren’t prioritizing young people enough, it appeals to both sides (conservatives = more children, liberals = empowering women), and has a decent-sounding justification (the baby deserves representation, and the mother usually cares about them, so she’ll vote in their interest).
But I doubt it would offset the imbalance from giving richer people more votes: most people prefer income over votes since it benefits them more directly, so those having more children would be the rich people (with enough income to raise them in living conditions they consider decent, like today).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There is no utopia. There will always be problems. I would rather have those problems you described than the ones we have today.
They absolutely have less stake in the host country, it's absurd to say otherwise. The very fact of having a backup means you have less at stake.
Virginia decides who votes in Virginia. Texas decides who votes in Texas. And so on in that fashion.
In multiple generations they won’t have a backup, few countries permit great-grandchildren to remigrate.
But even immigrants themselves, if their origin country hates them or is a true shithole, and they can prove this (e.g. they’re an activist), they have no backup, and credible reason to have negative allegiance towards it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link