Liberty Isn't Just Property -- So What Is It?

[Pointedstick]

Being able to have a 1/1,000,000 say in who your masters are does not make you a free man.
And it is true there is no draft... at the moment. But you still have to register at 18, just in case they decide to start it up again.

And on those particular points, I must agree with Libertarian666. In general, I think that voting is far overemphasized in the determination of what makes us "free." If you're talking about political rights, IMHO the right to free speech, protest, and other means to redress or grievances have had far more impact on the nature and character of our rulers than voting has.

[RuralEngineer]

Democracy is only valuable for preserving freedom if you are in the majority. China could become a full blown democracy tomorrow and it wouldn't gain the Tibetans an ounce more freedom than they have today.

[moda0306]

I'm not saying voting equals liberty by any means.  However, private property to some and only those people being able to vote is no closer to liberty and much further from fairness, equality, and justice. 

Like I said, we should definitely put firewalls around the voting process to limit government coercion and corruption. The question is, does limiting voting to people based on sex, race or land "ownership" status result in that?

The answer is no. These are just arbitrary limitations enacted to enrich the plutocracy and social sphere in power.

[MachineGhost]

I'm not saying voting equals liberty by any means.  However, private property to some and only those people being able to vote is no closer to liberty and much further from fairness, equality, and justice.

The point is, ladies and gentleman, is we want voters to have skin in the game.  Which is actually another reason to eliminate the income tax so all those millions of low income non-taxpayers don't get a free lunch.  But what will happen, of course, is we'll institute a VAT tax on top of all other taxes so that everyone is equally squeezed out of their pound of flesh.  That's justice.

[Pointedstick]

The point is, ladies and gentleman, is we want voters to have skin in the game.

MG is absolutely right. Individually, voting is a semi-worthless exercise, but collectively, it's very powerful, and that power can--like any expression of power--easily be abused by. Without skin in the game, voting becomes an exercise in transforming government in such a manner that makes it more resemble your ideal society, or diverts more resources to your group, either of which your votes can effect without you having to personally bear any of the potential negative consequences. There needs to be accountability! There needs to be skin in the game!

[Pointedstick]

Consequences. Incentive to make good decisions. Concrete positive outcomes for good decision-making and concrete negative ones for bad decision making. You know, that kind of thing.

[moda0306]

Between state income taxes, corporate income taxes, payroll taxes (both halves), real estate taxes, sales taxes, gas tax and fees, the vast majority of us have "skin in the game."  The federal income tax isn't more than 30% of our overall tax load if memory serves (depending on the state you're in, of course).

[Pointedstick]

the problem is the outcomes are not visible, known to or understood by the majority, no matter how concrete they are, if you don't see and understand the cause and effect it wont influence your vote..

Yes, that's more of what I'm talking about. Moda, you're right about taxes; most are pretty easy to wrap your mind around. But I'm more talking about regulations, whose effects are difficult to predict even for the politicians who write the laws.

[moda0306]

PS,

Regulations have even more of a "skin in the game" effect than taxes.  There's no benefit to me to have an overregulated industry that I'm a consumer of.  I know that any costs that federal regs build into an industry are going to effect me personally when I engage that industry.  It's not a check that I'm given.  I know that if I ask the government to increase safety in cars, limit interest rates on banks, or have cows fed food they can actually digest, I'm going to pay more for that... it simply creates a floor beneath which economic transactions don't occur... it doesn't mean I don't pay for that increased "level of service."

Of course, if regs are poorly written I get higher prices with similar or lower economic benefit.  That's a lose-lose.

[Pointedstick]

PS,

Regulations have even more of a "skin in the game" effect than taxes.  There's no benefit to me to have an overregulated industry that I'm a consumer of.  I know that any costs that federal regs build into an industry are going to effect me personally when I engage that industry.  It's not a check that I'm given.  I know that if I ask the government to increase safety in cars, limit interest rates on banks, or have cows fed food they can actually digest, I'm going to pay more for that... it simply creates a floor beneath which economic transactions don't occur... it doesn't mean I don't pay for that increased "level of service."

Of course, if regs are poorly written I get higher prices with similar or lower economic benefit.  That's a lose-lose.

You know all of that because you're a finance buff and politics junkie, like the rest of us here. Most people don't know that stuff. They don't know it because they don't see it; you have to learn about the hidden effects of regulations because looking at a price tag (usually) doesn't show you all the regulatory costs that pushed it up.

Most of the people I know who favor more regulations are under the mistaken belief that they are cost-free, that the economic cost is always outweighed by whatever benefit is touted, or that every regulation will work as advertised and have no unintended consequences. It's not as evident as you might think. Economic thinking is surprisingly rare among the general population.

[Pointedstick]

What is different in each person is how big his individual "box" that encompasses his "system" (i.e. stuff he cares about) vs. "surroundings" (i.e. stuff he doesn't care about). At the extreme micro vs. macro).  The value individuals place on specific outcomes are also quite different.

That's a good way of putting it. The problem with politics and voting, in my view, is that it encompasses the entire box whereas any given person's box may be very small. So people might support policies that affect or even hurt a lot of people in the larger box while calculating that their corner of it will remain untouched. Politics gives people the means to alter the group while preserving themselves from most or all of the harm. It lets people say, "Well, I like the idea of that social policy, and if there are any consequences, they're ones that I don't care about." There's a great deal of power inherent in voting with that attitude, IMHO. It's not a minor thing.

[Pointedstick]

Well, yeah.  But essentially what you are saying is that YOU think their box should be bigger, whereas they think their box is the right size.

Having a small box but making decisions in the big box: isn't that just selfishness and short-sightedness? IMHO, if you want to affect the big box, you have to be looking at the big box too, or else you're not fit to wield that power responsibly. You're a kid who takes the keys while nobody's looking and gets in the car before anyone taught you how to drive it, irrespective of the danger you're subjecting other people to.

As a matter of principle, I agree with you. I also believe that the more power one has, the more responsibility that comes with it.

But the reality is that people are going to do what they're going to do. Liberty and all that.

As an aside, and this could be the crotchety old guy in me talking (I'm 51, but not really that crotchety ), it seems to me that we live in an era of "economic man", where the culture has indoctrinated the idea that looking out for one's own selfish interest is paramount, and that everything else will work out. And if it doesn't, well, that sucks for you and HEY LOOK AT MY SHINY NEW WHATCHAMACALLIT!

Today's culture (which has been shaped by those with the most power) informs people to draw the box to the size that provides them with the most material advantage.

or the box with the biggest emotional appeal, if you "do it for the children" because its what your heart says is right, without ever looking at the "thinking it through" side, you often end up with more damage done to the cause your emotional response tells you to support.
our culture is training people to make decisions influenced by emotion over reason as well..

having one untempered by the other is a very narrow and dangerous box to wield power from..

[MachineGhost]

Between state income taxes, corporate income taxes, payroll taxes (both halves), real estate taxes, sales taxes, gas tax and fees, the vast majority of us have "skin in the game."  The federal income tax isn't more than 30% of our overall tax load if memory serves (depending on the state you're in, of course).

Suppose you receive SSI or SS[DI] and live in Washington state and do all your shopping across the border in Oregon.  Right off the bat, you pay no corporate income taxes, no personal income taxes, no payroll taxes, no state taxes, no sales taxes...  leaving just the gas tax depending or whether or not you own a car and drive and real estate taxes depending on whether or not you have kids and do or don't rent.  You also get free Medicaid or Medicare.  Is that enough skin in the game?

[MachineGhost]

Getting back to the OP, liberty means the absence of coercion from other humans, i.e. the non-aggression principle.  The strange thing about this metaphysical principle is it requires rational intellect because it is not at all intuitive when the primitive lizard brain is all fired up like some "Type A" jack-booted pig going after a radical terrorist.

[moda0306]

MG,

I think you've raised a phenomenal point. Call Mitt Romney.  It's the attack of the .47%!

Most of the people on Medicare and social security have paid into the program for decades.  That's their skin in the game.