What do you guys think of the idea of being able to sell your votes on a competitive market? It seems to me that there should be a market for votes (as there should be for anything else). However, this seems difficult to recommend in anything other than an anarchist society, as it would seem to lend itself to corruption and oligarchy. If there is already published literature on this subject, please point me towards it.
I think your vote is an “intellectual property.”
What would an anarchist society possibly be voting on?
their favorite color.
Landsburg has some good thoughts on this topic in is his book ‘More Sex is Safer Sex’. The point i would bring up is why bother with an inefficient system of democracy by selling your votes when the free market is itself the most efficient method of voting. Voting with a medium of exchange within a free market is the ultimate direct democracy
If you could sell your votes, you might actually be able to produce public goods. The person who could pay the most for votes would be the one most able to grow the economy for everyone…etc
You really need to drop the public goods mantra.
My thoughts exactly.
I know its annoying to bring up… but specifically in this context, I was pointing out that there’s no reason for democracy to choose the “overall best” policies, like free markets. Even if people believe free markets are best for EVERYONE, they still might vote for special privileges etc.
I feel like we may have discussed this a while ago on another thread. I just tried to look for it but couldn’t find it, though, so feel free to search around if you end up wanting more information than this particular thread ends up giving you!
Maybe legalizing the sale of votes would be a good thing. I’m in favor of any policy that gets people to realize what a scam democracy really is, how there is no such thing as a “right to vote,” and how elections don’t make you free (that actually make you less free since you are less critical of the government).
I don’t know. Why should we assume that no form of voting would ever occur in a free society? Anyways, this isn’t really my question — I’m asking if, in the current political climate, it’s a good idea to recommend a market for votes.
This is the line of reasoning that I’m interested in. If the market for votes expands in the way that markets usually do (i.e., segmentation, innovation, etc) I wonder if it wouldn’t end up forcing government services to pass the market test. Government officials would “invest” in a population in order to get elected, and then to see a return on their money, they would have to pursue those policies that encouraged economic growth. This is, at the very least, a step away from democracy and the fallacy of “public government.”
Nice non-contribution.
Cool. I’ll check it out.
“Nice non-contribution.”
You must be blind. Since you didn’t see my epic contribution via link to Hoppe in video form. Either that or you’re deaf, and can’t hear his voice… but then there are subtitles, so maybe it’s both. Hmm.. maybe it’s just that your narrator software needs an upgrade.
The concept of democracy needs to be destroyed, not masked up in business language (“invest etc.”) because that merely clouds the reality of the situtation, with mythology and the cloak of ideology.
Government officials would “invest” in a population in order to get elected, and then to see a return on their money, they would have to pursue those policies that encouraged economic growth. This is, at the very least, a step away from democracy and the fallacy of “public government.”
So, you are thinking this will make representatives more accountable to the voters, and yet that would weaken democracy?
Dude, I’ve read Hoppe on democracy. I agree with him. If you have something to contribute, say it. Links don’t speak for themselves.
When did I say anything about accountability to voters?
If the market for votes expands in the way that markets usually do (i.e., segmentation, innovation, etc) I wonder if it wouldn’t end up forcing government services to pass the market test. Government officials would “invest” in a population in order to get elected, and then to see a return on their money, they would have to pursue those policies that encouraged economic growth. This is, at the very least, a step away from democracy and the fallacy of “public government.”
Government “services”? Excuse me? What services? “Invest” what money? Whose money?!A return on THEIR money?!
Yo dude, thats great [you say you agree with Hoppe] but why does it then seem you need it spelt out for your word for word?
“However, this argument in favor of democracy is fatally flawed. Free entry is not always good. Free entry and competition in the production of goods is good, but free competition in the production of bads is not. Free entry into the business of torturing and killing innocents, or free competition in counterfeiting or swindling, for instance, is not good; it is worse than bad. So what sort of “business” is government? Answer: it is not a customary producer of goods sold to voluntary consumers. Rather, it is a “business” engaged in theft and expropriation – by means of taxes and counterfeiting – and the fencing of stolen goods. Hence, free entry into government does not improve something good. Indeed, it makes matters worse than bad, i.e., it improves evil.”
- Why Bad Men Rule, HHH
Wtf else needs to be said?
Defense, courts, etc. Yes, these are services. Yes, it would be wonderful if they were supplied on a competitive market, but my question has to do with whether legalizing a market for votes is a step in this direction.
The money that the politicians pay the voters in order to get elected. Money that they’ve previously earned.
Also, I can’t stand talking to you. You have no intellectual credibility in my eyes. Instead of discussing this idea (which may very well be erroneous), you would rather insult and dismiss me for daring to disagree with you. I’m sure that you’ll come up with some sarcastic response to this, but I’m through talking to you.
If anyone else has something to add, please do so.
That’s an interesting point. Here’s a question: what kind of politicians would we get if selling votes were legal? Would they be better or worse than the ones we have now?
Policies that undermine faith in the system [in an obvious manner] are highly unlikely to get adopted, imo. Besides, people who believe democracy is fair, are probably not going to simply realize that democracy is a scam because votes can be purchased legally. More likely they may choose to believe that a fair system was turned into a scam, and that something pristine has been corrupted… with the blame likely lying somewhere between “the rich”, “corporations”, and “capitalism”. You need to show people how their own ideas about democracy constitute a scam, they are not going to accept what they see as a bastardized version of their ideal implementation as anything but a corrupt, unworkable version of their ideals. (like people pointing to Somalia as an example of what ancap society would lead to)
And for some additional speculation… as far as types of politicians are concerned, I’d be willing to bet we’d get the exact same sort of politicians that we regularly get now: those who salivate at the thought of a piece of the State-Power-Pie.