SKIN IN THE GAME!

Mar 2020
1,429
371
Land of Freedom
I don't vote anymore for reason I have stated in another thread. But another reason is that voting is not fair anymore. Any welfare rat sitting at home eating off food stamps with no skin in the game can send in an absentee ballot.

When you don't have investments to protect, you will vote for others to give you part or all of their worth. People who don't have skin in the game will want freebies. Let's say that there was a proposition on your state ballot that if passed would require anyone who owned a property to rent out one of their room or part of their house out to low-income or minority tenants for very cheap or free. Who do you think would vote yes? The property owner or the one with nothing to his name? Armies of lazy, do-nothing-people who normally don't even vote and never have would come out in droves to get this proposition passed. People who are living off the money of others should not have a vote on how the money is spent.

This is what I say:

1. Only property owners who own the ground land get to vote. This is important because merely owning a tiny flat in a high rise doesn't cut it. You don't actually own the land and that building can come down and time without your consent.

2. In order to vote you will have to own a certain amount of minimum square footage. I propose a 1-acre minimum. This way some guy can't just buy a property the size of an outhouse in the back of an alley and start voting for propositions that will get him in a bigger house. (Good things are hard to get and that is why they are good.)

3. The more acreage you own the more votes you are allocated. So if you lets say you own 3.4 acres then you are allotted 3 votes, etc. Only the ground space you own is counted so if you buy 2 acres of land and build a 10 story office or apartment building, you do not get 20 votes, you still only get 2 votes. This rule prevents cheating.

This is how a publicly-traded company works in a free market and I think it is the fairest way and the way it once was. People who own land will vote for policies that make their land prosperous for them and all who live on it, including renters. This would give all non-landowners the incentive to move up in life and become more prosperous. This will give them the motivation to take their lives into their own hands. Instead of staying sharecroppers, they will innovate and do what it takes to become the shareholder!

Come to think of it, a mortgage makes it too easy to own property so and also enslaves people (mortgage means "death grip" in Latin). It would be better if mortgages were no longer an option and all U.S. land must be paid for upfront and in full. This is how our loving Founders wanted it and how it was before. The banks would hate this!

Skin in the game!
 
Feb 2020
1,675
606
Houston
I don't vote anymore for reason I have stated in another thread. But another reason is that voting is not fair anymore. Any welfare rat sitting at home eating off food stamps with no skin in the game can send in an absentee ballot.

When you don't have investments to protect, you will vote for others to give you part or all of their worth. People who don't have skin in the game will want freebies. Let's say that there was a proposition on your state ballot that if passed would require anyone who owned a property to rent out one of their room or part of their house out to low-income or minority tenants for very cheap or free. Who do you think would vote yes? The property owner or the one with nothing to his name? Armies of lazy, do-nothing-people who normally don't even vote and never have would come out in droves to get this proposition passed. People who are living off the money of others should not have a vote on how the money is spent.

This is what I say:

1. Only property owners who own the ground land get to vote. This is important because merely owning a tiny flat in a high rise doesn't cut it. You don't actually own the land and that building can come down and time without your consent.

2. In order to vote you will have to own a certain amount of minimum square footage. I propose a 1-acre minimum. This way some guy can't just buy a property the size of an outhouse in the back of an alley and start voting for propositions that will get him in a bigger house. (Good things are hard to get and that is why they are good.)

3. The more acreage you own the more votes you are allocated. So if you lets say you own 3.4 acres then you are allotted 3 votes, etc. Only the ground space you own is counted so if you buy 2 acres of land and build a 10 story office or apartment building, you do not get 20 votes, you still only get 2 votes. This rule prevents cheating.

This is how a publicly-traded company works in a free market and I think it is the fairest way and the way it once was. People who own land will vote for policies that make their land prosperous for them and all who live on it, including renters. This would give all non-landowners the incentive to move up in life and become more prosperous. This will give them the motivation to take their lives into their own hands. Instead of staying sharecroppers, they will innovate and do what it takes to become the shareholder!

Come to think of it, a mortgage makes it too easy to own property so and also enslaves people (mortgage means "death grip" in Latin). It would be better if mortgages were no longer an option and all U.S. land must be paid for upfront and in full. This is how our loving Founders wanted it and how it was before. The banks would hate this!

Skin in the game!
Interesting about the origin of the word "mortgage."

I like your ideas almost as much as I like my SBM idea.

This country will never be great until we get over the idea that "everyone" should vote.

As one of the founders warned the Republic is only viable until the electorate realizes that it can vote itself funds from the public treasury.

That happened long ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FreeToChoose
Mar 2020
1,429
371
Land of Freedom
And get rid of the idea that anyone can come over and pop out a baby and then get citizenship too.
 
Feb 2019
1,365
653
nunya
I don't vote anymore for reason I have stated in another thread. But another reason is that voting is not fair anymore. Any welfare rat sitting at home eating off food stamps with no skin in the game can send in an absentee ballot.

When you don't have investments to protect, you will vote for others to give you part or all of their worth. People who don't have skin in the game will want freebies. Let's say that there was a proposition on your state ballot that if passed would require anyone who owned a property to rent out one of their room or part of their house out to low-income or minority tenants for very cheap or free. Who do you think would vote yes? The property owner or the one with nothing to his name? Armies of lazy, do-nothing-people who normally don't even vote and never have would come out in droves to get this proposition passed. People who are living off the money of others should not have a vote on how the money is spent.

This is what I say:

1. Only property owners who own the ground land get to vote. This is important because merely owning a tiny flat in a high rise doesn't cut it. You don't actually own the land and that building can come down and time without your consent.

2. In order to vote you will have to own a certain amount of minimum square footage. I propose a 1-acre minimum. This way some guy can't just buy a property the size of an outhouse in the back of an alley and start voting for propositions that will get him in a bigger house. (Good things are hard to get and that is why they are good.)

3. The more acreage you own the more votes you are allocated. So if you lets say you own 3.4 acres then you are allotted 3 votes, etc. Only the ground space you own is counted so if you buy 2 acres of land and build a 10 story office or apartment building, you do not get 20 votes, you still only get 2 votes. This rule prevents cheating.

This is how a publicly-traded company works in a free market and I think it is the fairest way and the way it once was. People who own land will vote for policies that make their land prosperous for them and all who live on it, including renters. This would give all non-landowners the incentive to move up in life and become more prosperous. This will give them the motivation to take their lives into their own hands. Instead of staying sharecroppers, they will innovate and do what it takes to become the shareholder!

Come to think of it, a mortgage makes it too easy to own property so and also enslaves people (mortgage means "death grip" in Latin). It would be better if mortgages were no longer an option and all U.S. land must be paid for upfront and in full. This is how our loving Founders wanted it and how it was before. The banks would hate this!

Skin in the game!
Stopping people who are homeless from voting and giving more votes for people with more property is the perfect recipe for a dictatorship/plutocracy.

"Come to think of it, a mortgage makes it too easy to own property so and also enslaves people (mortgage means "death grip" in Latin). It would be better if mortgages were no longer an option and all U.S. land must be paid for upfront and in full. This is how our loving Founders wanted it and how it was before. The banks would hate this!"

Do you understand the concept of basic economics? That the consumer can't just give up a quarter of a million dollars in upfront cash? Our founders did not want anything like this. I don't know where you are getting that from.

It is honestly pathetic to see libertarians with the mentality of the goth kids from the 80's thinking they can solve all of our political and economic problems by abolishing our tax system and giving more power to rich plutocrats. Who do you think pays for your roads? Your schools? Bridges? Infrastructure? The government. And how do they pay for it? You seem to think you are part of the "woke" libertarian movement. You probably think it's cool that you've rejected our system of voting in politics. Libertarians are a group of people that are more of an edgy group of teenagers than a political movement. You aren't quirky or interesting for being libertarian.
 
  • Like
Reactions: leekohler2
Mar 2020
1,429
371
Land of Freedom
It is called skin in the game and I have explained it to you. It is also how the Founders wanted it and of course, they had their skins in the game, especially John Hancock

I am not accusing you of this at all but question:
Do you ever see me going around and bashing people for voicing there ideas and opinions? I am able to entertain any idea without having to accept it. I love to see it when others do free-thinking regardless of whether or not I agree with their opinions.

Have you taken a look at the Guest Visa Plan thread on here? There is some AMAZING discussion!
 
Jun 2019
880
579
ROT
I don't vote anymore for reason I have stated in another thread. But another reason is that voting is not fair anymore. Any welfare rat sitting at home eating off food stamps with no skin in the game can send in an absentee ballot.

When you don't have investments to protect, you will vote for others to give you part or all of their worth. People who don't have skin in the game will want freebies. Let's say that there was a proposition on your state ballot that if passed would require anyone who owned a property to rent out one of their room or part of their house out to low-income or minority tenants for very cheap or free. Who do you think would vote yes? The property owner or the one with nothing to his name? Armies of lazy, do-nothing-people who normally don't even vote and never have would come out in droves to get this proposition passed. People who are living off the money of others should not have a vote on how the money is spent.

This is what I say:

1. Only property owners who own the ground land get to vote. This is important because merely owning a tiny flat in a high rise doesn't cut it. You don't actually own the land and that building can come down and time without your consent.

2. In order to vote you will have to own a certain amount of minimum square footage. I propose a 1-acre minimum. This way some guy can't just buy a property the size of an outhouse in the back of an alley and start voting for propositions that will get him in a bigger house. (Good things are hard to get and that is why they are good.)

3. The more acreage you own the more votes you are allocated. So if you lets say you own 3.4 acres then you are allotted 3 votes, etc. Only the ground space you own is counted so if you buy 2 acres of land and build a 10 story office or apartment building, you do not get 20 votes, you still only get 2 votes. This rule prevents cheating.

This is how a publicly-traded company works in a free market and I think it is the fairest way and the way it once was. People who own land will vote for policies that make their land prosperous for them and all who live on it, including renters. This would give all non-landowners the incentive to move up in life and become more prosperous. This will give them the motivation to take their lives into their own hands. Instead of staying sharecroppers, they will innovate and do what it takes to become the shareholder!

Come to think of it, a mortgage makes it too easy to own property so and also enslaves people (mortgage means "death grip" in Latin). It would be better if mortgages were no longer an option and all U.S. land must be paid for upfront and in full. This is how our loving Founders wanted it and how it was before. The banks would hate this!

Skin in the game!
Dirt doesn't get a vote, citizens do. The same as rights. Wealth doesn't make you a more worthy citizen.

Now, if you'd like to do it my way instead, in which almost no one gets a vote, that we can do...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lyzza
Mar 2020
1,429
371
Land of Freedom
Wealth doesn't make you a more worthy citizen.
You are right. Only contributors do. Those who do not contribute should not tell others how to or how much to contribute.

Cantankerous,

I have 4 questions I would like you or anyone else who can to answer:

Why do the rich have to pay their fair share?
How much is rich?
What % is a fair share
What is the legal definition of Middle Class? (What is the starting and ending salary requirement to qualify for Middle Class status?)
 
Jun 2019
880
579
ROT
You are right. Only contributors do. Those who do not contribute should not tell others how to or how much to contribute.

Cantankerous,

I have 4 questions I would like you or anyone else who can to answer:

Why do the rich have to pay their fair share?
How much is rich?
What % is a fair share
What is the legal definition of Middle Class? (What is the starting and ending salary requirement to qualify for Middle Class status?)
Why do the rich have to pay their fair share? What's unfair about them paying their fair share? They should pay more than that because they get more out of society. See Smith, Adam. He also didn't like the generational transfer of wealth. Something for - nothin'.

How much is rich? Why would that matter, as well as location, location, location.

What % is a fair share? 50% on every dollar over 500K, make as much as you like.

What is the legal definition of Middle Class? Why would one need a legal definition?

What is the starting and ending salary requirement to qualify for Middle Class status? 15% off the Median income, either way up or down...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lyzza