WMN: t3_33ky08_t1_cqmltib

[TITLE]

CMV: Universal suffrage necessarily entails socialism.

[hellohellizreal]

Universal suffrage : everyone in the country can vote. Every vote has the same weight. Socialism: political system in which part of the wealth is reallocated to other people. (debatable definition but not the important point) I consider people tend not to refuse money when it is given to them. _______________________________________________________ **Example**: let's consider 1 man who has 200 000$, and 10 poor men. One politician propose to reallocate 100 000$ of the first man to provide 10 000$ for each of the 10 poor man. 10 men will vote for him, 1 will vote agaisnt him. He will be eleceted. **General case**: Poorest 60% of the population will vote for a politician who proposes to split the incomes of the richest 40%. It seems to imply that universal suffrage entails socialism. **Conclusion**: This process can be slow because of constitutional constrain or possible public discontent. However I think the tendency exist and necessarily shows in the long run. Please CMV. **Edit**: Thanks to /u/hq3473 for clarifying the subject. This view is not about socialism. Please read the title as : "**Universal suffrage necessarily entails tax increase**" _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[looklistencreate]

The voters know fully well that if they vote for a policy that redistributes all the property and seriously hampers your ability to be rich that most of the rich people will leave. The country would be much worse off for it.

[dokushin]

What if the 10 poor men think that the increased taxes (reallocation, whatever) will in the long term result in everyone having less wealth than before?

[ontaskdontask]

1.) As others have mentioned, many poor people think they might one day be rich. 2.) If the rich man is rich because he is exceptionally skilled, the poor people should recognize that wealth redistribution will give him no reason to work, thus eliminating his valuable contributions to society. It is in everyone's best interest to give doctors and engineers a reason to work hard.

[GnosticTemplar]

There's a big factor you're leaving out here: Rugged Individualism. In America this kind of redistribution is considered authoritarian, because it completely disregards free will and individual merit in the creation of wealth. Nobody wants to become a mooch off unearned government handouts, we call these people "welfare queens". If you're poor in America, you're a loser who just didn't try hard enough, and have no one to blame but yourself.

[monkyyy]

Systems, even those ones designed and ran by humans don't necessarily act human-like, in following through goals to a semi-rational conclusion, and responding to arguments even if accepted as true generally is near impossible("so what if attack ads are bad for both parties in the long run I can't trust every other person in his party not to run them"). You view is quite vague af floaty. For one thing universal suffrage never has existed, criminals and children always get excluded and as someone pointed out your definition of socialism is wrong; you need to ground your ideas.

[toms_face]

It's honestly disheartening that people still use the American political definition of socialism. In any event, creating a social and economic system that is more favourable to more people is a better economy for everybody. Giving more opportunity to poorer people will generally improve the economy. The possible consequence is that it will take too much from the richer people. If this is actually a possible consequence, then the poorer people would not have a justification to vote how you think they should, since it would be against their long term interests. Prosperity is more than wealth distribution, and there could be cases where basically redistributing wealth to poor people could be bad for poor people.

[KevinWestern]

A population might have the power to vote, but I don't think that does them much good if they really don't have the power to choose the competing candidates. I don't think your premise holds true in a two party system that's supported by a tightly controlled national media structure. Essentially neither candidate will have much to offer in the form of socialism, but the populace still has to pick one because there are no other choices. In order for your premise to be true, it must also be true that a person truly independent of the power structure can become one of two candidates for president, and that the candidate (will more importantly) also can be heavily supported by the media. In my opinion that's not a possibility in the United States, and there's no reason we should expect that to change. In short your premise might be true in some situations/cases, but not always as you implied.

[funwiththoughts]

Your argument is a non sequitur. If you have proven anything (and considering some of the unfounded assumptions you're making, I don't think you have), it would be that universal suffrage *favours* socialism, which isn't the same as *entailing* it.

[x12ogerZx]

Whilst I myself am not a socialist, I do uphold much of socialist ideology. I think this interest has driven me toward a deeper understanding of socialism, which as many other people have stated is not similar to what you described in your pretext. But anyway, I will only make one observation, as I feel many have already provided solid arguments against you, I would like to discuss the 'weight' of a vote. I know that when you use the term weight you mean a 1:1 regardless of wealth, age, sex, race etc. but I think that there is a different 'weight' of a vote that you need to account for. I will try to use your example of 1 man with 200k versus 10 poor men. You offer to reallocate 100k amongst the 10 men, 7 of them agree, 1 of them feels it is an immoral act and will not vote for you on these principles alone, the other 2 demand you disperse 150k instead of 100k. You see straight away that there is a sort of conscious 'weight' or swing-ability that can be taken into account of someones vote. Choice is what defines how you use your vote, further from that, the provision (or lack of) information to someone can also influence their vote. Again, I'll use your example. You offer to reallocate the 100k between 10 poor men, but only 4 of them actually open your letter, the other 6 are too busy working to read too much into politics. Closer toward the election they may not be fully aware of what vote would be best for them, so, they vote against you! This is all assuming that there is only 2 parties to vote on, and there is only one important distinction between the parties, ie you offering to distribute wealth vs. opposition who is not. What if the opposition advocates for an investment of the rich mans wealth as opposed to even division, which could benefit the entire community if successful. I will sum up before I write an essay for you, I feel like there are too many variations in our political system, and between individuals with voting rights, to assume that socialism is the only derivative of an equal vote system. Sure, over a time the society may trend towards more social ideals, I mean I believe that social ideals will come with increased education and awareness of society. If you want to ask any other questions regarding this or Capitalism vs. Socialism or whatever, feel free my friend, thanks for asking the question :)

[garnteller]

Your argument is based on the assumption that people will only vote for their own short term gains. And without question, that is sometimes the case. But the past century or so has shown time and again that people instead want a society that they approve of. * Gay marriage hasn't been spreading because suddenly a majority are gay. But people think it's the fair thing to do. * Welfare programs have passed and been supported for decades by those who are extremely unlikely to need them. * Child labor laws cost me money in increased cost of goods Even in the 60's and 70's, when the top tax brackets in countries like the US and UK were incredibly high, there was no real sense of the poor voting to give the money to themselves. Instead it was driven by the middle class wanting to make sure the rich paid their 'fair share' toward helping the poor. Some have argued that it's because Americans believe that they will be rich one day. But Britain doesn't have the same "rags to riches" mythology, and has more formal class distinction, yet you see the same trends. TL:DR; Given the opportunity to screw the minority rich, the majority haven't taken it, due to a belief in fairness.

[Nosrac88]

Mentality* it's not a mythology.

[garnteller]

I disagree. It's not just the mentality, but it's supported by a series of stories of alleged "self-made men" where the reality doesn't necessarily match the story being told.

[Nosrac88]

Examples?

[arkofcovenant]

Exactly this. The roughly 50% that vote republican every election don't all think they will be rich someday, they do it because they think that their policies are the most fair.

[caeciliusinhorto]

The flaws in the argument that I see: * Politicians tend to be in the richest portion of society -- they have to be, to be able to afford to campaign instead of working -- and so tend not to propose radically socialist measures, even if that would get them more votes. * Not all people who would benefit from drastic redistribution of wealth are in fact in favour of it, either because of ideological reasons (Socialism/Communism is evil!) or pragmatic reasons (believing that they will one day be rich enough that they would be negatively affected by the redistribution of wealth. This is one of the reasons why poor white men tend to be on the right (as can be seen, e.g., in the Republican party's support in the US). (Poor black men in the US tend to be Democrats because they are the party, just about, of civil rights...)

[hellohellizreal]

[STA-CITE]> Politicians tend to be in the richest portion of society and so tend not to propose radically socialist measures, even if that would get them more votes. [END-CITE]Although i didn't think of that point, I don't think it really goes against my view. It is more a reason why the process of taxation increase is slow. I don't think money is the main reason people go into politics. And there are politicians who are not that rich (depends on the country). [STA-CITE]> Not all people who would benefit from drastic redistribution of wealth are in fact in favour of it, either because of ideological reasons (Socialism/Communism is evil!) [END-CITE]Indeed this seems to go against my claim that people don't refuse free money. You seem to refer to right wings people. I don't know statistics about your country, but i wouldn't be surprised that those people are in favor of increasing budget for the army. Increasing a budget of a state run organization requires an increase of taxes. An increase of budget for an organization they like means an increase of taxes, allocated to the organisation they like. This is not very different from allocated the money to them. I doubt the consistency of their view. The problem is not **how** money is allocated but **how much** is collected via taxes. (my view being that universal suffrage entails tax increase)

[caeciliusinhorto]

[STA-CITE]> Increasing a budget of a state run organization requires an increase of taxes. [END-CITE]No, increasing the budget that the state spends overall requires the state to raise more revenue, which it usually does through taxation. Advocating increased spending on a single part of the budget is entirely consistent with advocating decreased state spending overall, e.g. by advocating cuts in other areas. Nor is all taxation inherently socialist, even in your very loose definition. Only taxation which sees wealth redistributed to other people. Taxation which goes towards military equipment is not redistributed to the poor (except insofar as money goes into the economy, which in the long term benefits everyone) and so is not socialist by your definition. [STA-CITE]> (my view being that universal suffrage entails tax increase) [END-CITE]Are you suggesting that tax increase and socialism are the same thing?

[Raintee97]

If this problem exists, could you explain why Warren Buffett's secretary pays more in taxes than he does?

[phcullen]

Not pays more. But pays a higher percentage of net income. I think it was something like 33% vs 13%

[hellohellizreal]

I don't know this case at all unfortunately. However in the model I propose, there is only 1 country, and you can hide your wealth from it. In the real world, people who are very rich can afford to pay people to optimize their tax spending.

[Hq3473]

[STA-CITE]>Socialism: political system in which part of the wealth is reallocated to other people. (debatable definition but not the important point) [END-CITE]No. Your definition strips socialism of all meaning. By your definition EVERY society is socialist. In every society, wealth is transferred from dead to those alive, from spouse to spouse, from parents to children etc.. Socialism is an economic system where means of.production are owned by the government or by the people as a whole. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism Your argument falls apart from there.

[VortexMagus]

"Ownership and the means of production" are just two other words for wealth. And yes, every single society DOES use socialist policies. Unemployment checks are completely socialist in nature (owners giving up some of their capital - AKA their means of production - for the well-being of their workers). So are basic workplace safety standards (owners required by law to pay for better working conditions, to the direct benefit of their employees but not themselves), and child labor laws, and minimum wage, and a bunch of other fundamental things we've implemented over the years. They're all socialism. All of it! Money, in its current form, is nothing but an alternate currency for land, or infrastructure, or whatever else you want to call the "means of production". Anything which redistributes money from the wealthy to the less wealthy is socialism.

[Hq3473]

This renders the word Socialism meaningless. Is the parent feeding her child socialism? You know, because it redistributes food from wealthy parents to hungry child who had zero dollars to his name.

[namae_nanka]

Of course it isn't, you are peddling nonsense here.

[Hq3473]

The nonsense is the crazy definition of socialism other users try to.push.

[namae_nanka]

Nope, it's you who is twisting and then knocking it down. Sadly such stupid rhetoric gets the upboats.

[Hq3473]

Yeah, if your ideas logically less to ridiculous conclusions, it is not my fault.

[namae_nanka]

It's your fault if you're leading them to ridiculous conclusions, 'others' is not family, if that wasn't clear. In fact one of the charges against socialism has been its problem with family.

[Hq3473]

Are you arguing that a father and a son are the same person?

[VortexMagus]

No, it's an investment, since the child will one day presumably return the favor and take care of the parent in his or her old age. Plus, there's a lot of value derived from taking care of children in and of itself - it's one of the most fulfilling experiences possible. I would not consider this a particularly socialist transaction. Now, if it was a pair of well-off parents feeding a whole orphanage, not just their own child, I'd consider that much closer to socialism.

[Hq3473]

This is arbitrary. The child is not obligated to help his parents. Make up your mind, is all transfer of wealth socialism or no

[VortexMagus]

It's a silly semantic point to argue; most people who have children do not regard the money they invest in raising the child as non-beneficial to themselves. It's *not* a socialist transaction when Kim Jong Un inherits the money and status his father and grandfather gathered. I am not particularly interested in arguing this point, either - if you disagree, that's fine with me.

[Hq3473]

[STA-CITE]> not regard the money they invest in raising the child as wasted or non-beneficial to themselves [END-CITE]You are narrowing the definition of socialism here, non of this was in your origInal proposition that all wealth transfer is socialism. What if a capitalist regards taxes as a good thing, does that decrease how socialistic taxes are?

[VortexMagus]

I think you have this silly yet very common belief that socialism and capitalism are two opposite things. Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, every *communist* state utilizes capitalist markets (albeit heavily regulated ones), so you can't even really say that even communism and capitalism are mutually exclusive, and communism is a far more extreme expression of collectivist policy than socialism is.

[Hq3473]

I think you have a very silly belief that socialism is types of wealth transfer. Socialism refers to actual, physical control of means of production (factories/land). Taxing business is not socialism.

[VortexMagus]

Then explain the socialist governments of Europe. Why is Denmark considered socialist, when its government does not own all the means of production? Answer: The government taxes approximately 48% of its total GDP (2009), and uses that money for programs like welfare, public healthcare, and unemployment nets.

[kodemage]

You are correct, every society is at least partially socialist. It is a fundamental political philosophy.

[Hq3473]

Then it is silly to say "suffrage necessarily entails socialism" rather "human societies entail socialism."

[kodemage]

Human society without suffrage would not be socialist though. It would be autocratic ot kleptocratic a plain old dictatorship.

[Hq3473]

Dictatorships can still have wealth reallocation, so by your definition it would still be socialism.

[kodemage]

Dictatorships entail the concentration of wealth, not redistribution of wealth. Though, the word redistribution should be used in the above instead of reallocation, for increased accuracy but the meaning is the same.

[BlackHumor]

By OP's definition, redistribution of wealth to the dictator is still socialism. Of course, this is obviously ridiculous, but take that up with OP for having a shitty definition.

[Hq3473]

[STA-CITE]>Dictatorships entail the concentration of wealth [END-CITE]Proof? Why can't dictators redistribute wealth? Many did.

[kodemage]

They tend to give wealth to their family/clan/cohort/etc, not to the general public but you could have a socialist dictatorship, we just don't see it very often.

[hellohellizreal]

Okay my bad let change this to :"Universal suffrage necessarily entails tax increase". This reflects better what i meant. Thanks

[tocano]

How about "Universal suffrage necessarily leads to wealth redistribution."?

[Hq3473]

Every society has wealth redistribution. Name one society that does not / did not redistribute wealth.

[tocano]

Ok, then perhaps "Universal suffrage necessarily leads to ever-increasing wealth redistribution."?

[Hq3473]

That would require proof. Surely, at some point taxes will top out.

[tocano]

[STA-CITE]> Surely, at some point taxes will top out. [END-CITE]Only when you get to the point that a universal income is established where every person earns the exact same income. That is, a perfectly horizontal [Lorenz curve](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_curve) (after welfare). At that point it's merely maintenance.

[Hq3473]

That's not true. At some point the society will stop tolerating the insanely high rate and will revolt. That will happen way before any kind of "every person earns the exact same income" situation.

[tocano]

Doesn't that depend on the number of people in each group? If only ~5% of the population is being taxed and ~95% are gaining benefits, would there necessarily be a revolt that overthrows the system?

[Hq3473]

Depend on what kind of 5% we are talking about. I can easily imagine a society where the bottom 5% are taxed at 100% (that is - they are slaves.) But even slaves will revolt at some point.

[Hq3473]

Tax increase for who? Would not the majority vote to decrease taxes for the majority?

[hellohellizreal]

[STA-CITE]>Tax increase for who? [END-CITE]By the mechanism I presented, I would say only for the minority which can't outvote the majority. However, I am not sure average taxes really ever go down. So people wouldn't vote a tax decrease for the majority in order to compensate for the extra income from the rich minority. ( Well i don't know any country who vote an overall tax decrease) So the average tax would increase as well.

[Hq3473]

[STA-CITE]> So people wouldn't vote a tax decrease for the majority [END-CITE]Why not? Proof? [STA-CITE]> ( Well i don't know any country who vote an overall tax decrease) [END-CITE]Soviet Union decreased overall tax to almost nothing after all factories were nationalized and private enterprise was all but eliminated. etc.

[hellohellizreal]

[STA-CITE]> Why not? Proof? [END-CITE]It is not a reasoning. No proof just an impression. I just don't see it happen on a regular basis. [STA-CITE]> Soviet Union decreased overall tax to almost nothing. [END-CITE]Well i though they nearly eliminated the concept of private property. If they nationalize all the tools used to make money, wealth is kinda standardly split between people. So I guess the concept of tax wouldn't make a lot of sense. (I don't really know if we can consider it 0% or 100% tax ...)

[Hq3473]

Your original reasoning only shows that majority will increase taxes for minority. However, you presented no justification for majority failing to lower their own taxes. Why would you hold a view you can not justify?

[hellohellizreal]

[STA-CITE]> Your original reasoning only shows that majority will increase taxes for minority. [END-CITE]Agreed. [STA-CITE]> However, you presented no justification for majority failing to lower their own taxes. [END-CITE]Agreed too: I provide no logical justification. Although I seem to notice that it is the case, even though I am not very well informed on the subject. Maybe people don't want to lower taxes because most people feel like they benefit than it cost them. [STA-CITE]> Why would you hold a view you can not justify? [END-CITE]Well I can't justify the opposite view either. I am just trying to find out how it works.

[Hq3473]

[STA-CITE]>Well I can't justify the opposite view either. [END-CITE]So should not you suspend judgment on the issue, until better evidence becomes available?

[hellohellizreal]

[STA-CITE]> So should not you suspend judgment on the issue, until better evidence becomes available? [END-CITE]I don't really know. I think is it ok as long as I remain aware that the view is not strongly justified. I agree it is hard to keep track of how well each of your view is justified. But waiting for having proved an idea at 100% isn't always realistic. Words themselves are not define with 100% accuracy so this ideal seems kinda hard to reach.

[GoSaMa]

So you view is basicly that if ever vote is equal the majority can vote things through that harms the minority?

[hellohellizreal]

Good point. That basically boils down to this I guess. The main difference compared to just hatefully oppressing minorities is that there is something to gain from reallocating the wealth from rich people.

[MontiBurns]

Not necessarily higher taxes, but also labor laws/protections, social safety nets, public education funds, consumer protections, safety regulations and dozens of other laws and policies that benefit the poor/working class by ensuring some level of protection and security, and giving them some check/power to the lower class in an inherently imbalanced system. Are you arguing this is a net negative thing? What would you propose to replace it? Aristocracy? Where only landed people over a certain net wealth can vote on policies?

[hellohellizreal]

[STA-CITE]> laws and policies that benefit the poor/working class by ensuring some level of protection and security [END-CITE]Well protection and security is a service provided. This service cost money. The government chooses to provide the service instead of the raw money. The way tax income is spent doesn't change the increase of tax described by the mechanism. [STA-CITE]> Are you arguing this is a net negative thing? What would you propose to replace it? [END-CITE]Huu I am not necessarily against it. I don't propose anything. I just recently though of this mechanism and wanted to know if there was logical arguments proving it wrong.

[GoSaMa]

I'm not really sure what you're saying, of course the people with less money would benefit from getting money from the rich. Is this just some pure utilitarism you're talking about?

[hellohellizreal]

[STA-CITE]> I'm not really sure what you're saying, of course the people with less money would benefit from getting money from the rich [END-CITE]What I am trying to say is that as they would benefit from getting money from the rich, they would votes tax laws to get that money. [STA-CITE]> Is this just some pure utilitarism you're talking about? [END-CITE]I am not sure what the concept of utilitarism is..

[pensivegargoyle]

Nope. A lot of critics of universal suffrage as it was being debated (and a fair number of socialists) thought this but it really has not been the case. Voters have not taken the opportunity to vote away the property of the wealthy. Why not? Explanations run along the following lines: Institutions - Representative institutions either retained through the achievement of universal suffrage or were designed new with features that entrenched and protected the interests of property owners. The constitutionalization of property rights and the original design of the Senate in the US and the House of Lords in the UK are among these features. The power of small property owners - Not everyone with an interest in retaining private property rights was part of the elite. The middle class with their homes and small businesses and farmers with their land found threats to private property troubling and were capable of making cross-class alliances with large owners to prevent or defeat them. False consciousness/ideology - The legitimacy and inevitability of private property came to be heavily promoted by the expanding news and entertainment media, schools and religious authorities.

[hellohellizreal]

[STA-CITE]>A lot of critics of universal suffrage as it was being debated (and a fair number of socialists) thought this but it really has not been the case. [END-CITE]Interesting, I didn't know about that. Do you know where i could find info about this? [STA-CITE]>Voters have not taken the opportunity to vote away the property of the wealthy. [END-CITE]Well tax is already a way to get the property of the wealthy. I am not saying that it is bad, but i don't really see the difference between the 2. [STA-CITE]> The constitutionalization of property rights [END-CITE]I consider this as a way to slow the process, or try to stop it. But once again, every time every time a tax is voted it by passes the constitution. [STA-CITE]> private property came to be heavily promoted by the expanding news and entertainment media, schools and religious authorities [END-CITE]So is taxation. (Once again it might depend on the culture of the country...)

[Riktrat]

Youre presuming that among the ten poor people there exists 6 who dont think they'll be the rich man someday. If the social ideal is, as Mitt Romney said, "we exist as a society of haves and soon to haves" the poor will vote to protect the sanctity of the rich.

[Sohcahtoa82]

[STA-CITE]> Mitt Romney said, "we exist as a society of haves and soon to haves" [END-CITE]It's sad that so many poor actually buy into that bullshit and will vote against their own self-interests.

[Riktrat]

My pat response is always [STA-CITE]> Democracy is the theory that the common folk know whats good for them and deserve to get it good and hard. [END-CITE]H.L. Mencken

[hellohellizreal]

Thanks, you changed part of my view: the explanation i gave does not take into account the fact that people might not remain poor. ∆ However, most people know it is unlikely for them to grow multimillionaire. I think my reasoning is valid to some extent: if 50% of the population think they won't be millionaires, they benefit from taxation on millionaires

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Riktrat. [^Riktrat's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/riktrat) ^| [^delta ^system ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)

[Riktrat]

[STA-CITE]>However, most people know it is unlikely for them to grow multimillionaire. I think my reasoning is valid to some extent: if 50% of the population think they won't be millionaires, they benefit from taxation on millionaires [END-CITE]Do they though? State lotteries are still a huge industry which sell the idea of being a millionaire. People also think about the possibility of their children being rich so they might not want to jinx them.

[hellohellizreal]

Once again, good point considering the children and their full of hope parents. However, multimillionaire children would still earn half the money they make and that is still rich... their is statistically more to gain than to lose for them at increasing taxes. I don't claim this reasoning would be fully conscious, but the point is that is think there is more to the subject than just anticipation of possibly being wealthy.