Subject:
|
Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 21 Jul 2001 23:57:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
539 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
> > Agreed. We're better than some. However I'd prefer a more restrictive vote.
> > Maybe proportional to taxes paid???
>
> Larry, you forgot the smiley.
Um, no I didn't. Right now we have a system in which whoever spends the most
has the better chance of being elected. The money they spend doesn't
actually DO anything other than enrich PR/media organizations. (not bad in
and of itself, mind you, but not as good as laying fiber optic cable or
building factories, etc).
Why not cut out the middleman and instead of giving the election to the one
willing to pay for it (and then using the pull to lower their taxes or get
subsidies) give it to the people paying the bills. One tax dollar (net of
subsidies), one vote. If you then maneuver the government so you don't pay
as many taxes, you get less votes next time.
This really is a semi serious suggestion. Semi serious yes, not totally
serious, but no smiley is needed. It would be a novel way to organize and a
very interesting experiment. No idea if it would work better but doubt it
could be worse.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
| (...) So busy, Larry, you've had to post twice just to keep up! :-) I was curious about the shortening of the shotgun though. Over here the sawn-off shotgun is the stereotypical east-end small-time shop/bank/bookie's raider's (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
182 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
