But I'm talking about selling the vote to another voter, not to a candidate. Some people seem to want to be able to cast more votes, and some people seem to have a unwanted surplus of voting rights.
And what about an inverse voting tax? Some people would be paid not to vote. For example, some Hillaryists voters would love to pay a lot of money so that certain religious people in some places don't vote. Right-wing groups could try the same strategy in other places, and perhaps the net effect balances out and this turns out to be the best way to redistribute wealth in a voluntary fashion.
What about selling the vote?
ReplyDeleteBut I'm talking about selling the vote to another voter, not to a candidate. Some people seem to want to be able to cast more votes, and some people seem to have a unwanted surplus of voting rights.
And what about an inverse voting tax? Some people would be paid not to vote. For example, some Hillaryists voters would love to pay a lot of money so that certain religious people in some places don't vote. Right-wing groups could try the same strategy in other places, and perhaps the net effect balances out and this turns out to be the best way to redistribute wealth in a voluntary fashion.
The above post is precisely why voluntarism is not only infantile, but nefarious.
ReplyDeleteDaniel, could you elaborate?
ReplyDeleteI'm a little stoopid and I need at least two more lines to understand.