You are correct that there are very valid functions of government, and that of course those individuals who perform those functions ought not be denied the rights to vote or speak politically with their campaign donations.
However, artists and historians ought not be government employees. The only proper function of government is to employ the retaliatory use of force against those who initiate it against its citizens. That of a police officer. The military would fall into this category as well. Our court system (and I'd say likely the public defenders office as well) would be the domestic enforcement wing of this endeavor, but also to since rational disputes between citizens. And the only reason these functions should be relegated to government (and only government) is because they involve the use of force, which rightly should be the monopoly of government. That also means it should not involve itself in any endeavor in which force should not be involved, such as art, science research, historical records, education, food and drug regulation, etc.

There should be absolutely no limitation on the amount of money any person can give to a political candidate, party, or cause. This is a freedom of speech issue.
To make the argument that you would prefer government employees to not be able to make as much of a difference in election because they will vote for government is really exactly the same as people who oppose in the citizens United decision because it allows corporations to have more influence over government.
The only way to fix the conflict of interest, while still respecting human rights, is to eliminate government employees

yes it should be ZERO.

If the services being "provided" are valuable then fund them through voluntary donations from the people who receive the benefit. Do NOT steal the funding from them at gunpoint.
Boondoggles to Southeast Asia at taxpayers expense. Pay for it yourself if you feel it is a benefit to you. Stop looting from others.

Thanks for proving my point with your vote.

RELISH.
Math and science are taught in part because they are proven tools to give better outcomes in the real world than teaching witchcraft. Assuring that people are educated and clearly understand the value of individual liberty and free markets and how government must be very limited to protect them is just as rational as teaching math and science. Yes, some will have more aptitude and/or interest than others. If they choose not to learn or cannot learn these things then they should not be consulted for their input on policy.

In my crazy scenario, it would only apply to excludable things. It's hard to exclude the value of streets, so those don't get counted. For the post office, it's the difference between the ave of DHL, Fed Ex and UPS pricing minus USPS pricing. The Purple Heart would have no impact. Regardless of what you're getting paid to do, even fight to protect the country, you wouldn't be able to vote.

I don't actually think this is at all a good idea, but I'm desperate for ways to limit gov't. There's a huge incentive to keep the spending plan that benefits one person and most no incentive for everyone who's paying half a cent toward it to keep their half cent.

This is why I reject the stuff about moochers, as if there were a few evil people behind the problem. If you close a military base, stop subsidizing a college, stop a research grant, jobs go away. It's hard to explain that they'll come back and grow to more wealth if we return that money to taxpayers and let them spend and invest as they see fit.

Sorry CG. "You need to be more explicit in Step 2." What is "most" of your money? Should you include the value in streets and roads, or the post office? What about proper functions such as the military, courts, police, and legislature? (Hate Congress; love my Congress(wo)man.) Would having a Purple Heart allow you to vote?

I agree with your intention. I have worked as a contractor several times and one time, it was an election year and we got memos warning us not to wear campaign buttons. So, I get that; I understand.

In Atlas Shrugged near the end, there is an altercation at the Ferris Persuader. "You're not allowed to have political opinions!" an officer yells at a soldier. But it is pretty close to reality. Talking politics among peers is perhaps unavoidable, no different than sports or sex, but like sex (and unlike sports), politics crosses too many social boundaries; and (more to the point) officers have power over enlisteds that silences the voices of those without "birds, bars, leaves, and stars." As a petty officer E-5 (like a buck sergeant) I often zip my lip when other people spout off their political opinions.

But, being combat veterans, they should not be denied the right to vote. In fact, Heinlein suggested just the opposite: in order to vote, you must be a veteran.

Sorry, vote down on that. I serve in the Texas Military Department in the Plans directorate of Domestic Operations which (1) guards the border and (2) responds to disasters.

I would agree with what I hope is your underlying assumption (see elsewhere in this thread), but your blanket condemnation is unjust. Government has proper functions. If anything, paying more would attact even better people from the private sector. After all, We the People deserve the best servants that money can buy: soldiers, sailors, surveyors, lawyers, computer network security analysts, artists, musicians.
See here:
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...
and here:
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...

In particular on the second, does not our Republic deserve the best historians to archive our narrative?

In my day, it was the 9th grade. In my mother's time, it was the 6th. Now, it is not even college. In graduate school (2009-2010), I had a lot of "progressive" classmates in sociology and chatting with one of them amicably enough, I said, "Well, you've read the Communist Manifestp. And she replied, "Most of it." It's a hundred pages! This self-styled radical progressive ("critical sociology") could not be bothered...

The problem with your suggestion, though, is that you are here despite the lack of things you demand that everyone else be forced to read. I find several contradictions in that. I look to the words of "President Bartlett" (Martin Sheen) "Decisions are made by those who show up."

You decide for millions.

Government employees should be allowed to donate unlimited amounts of money to Libertarian Party candidates. It's their right! :-)

Thanks, blarman. I will check them out ;^)

If you like the last one, you might also like some of the fiction writings of Brad Thor.

Maybe the 12th grade courses could all be pushed down to earlier grades and use the 12th grade as a year long civics lesson just before the students are old enough to vote. (Most students get nothing from the 12th grade, and the ones who would, can learn it a year earlier.) The only curriculum allowed would be writings of Ayn Rand, the Anti-federalist Papers, the text of the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, Unintended Consequences by John Ross, and the Creature From Jekyll Island.

It used to be that the media and the education system took part in the education of the nation regarding civics. It's really bordering on criminal that neither fulfill that role any longer.

To do it fairly, you would have to not allow anyone who received most of their money from gov't grants, military contracts, gov't assistance, military or peace corp service, or any federal agency. It would be a question whether to count Social Security and Medicare benefits as income.
You'd have to look at how much of people's primary clients' or employers' revenue comes from gov't contract to do the calculation. Few people would be able to vote.

Despite that and the despite the inherent problems, I love the spirit of it. I don't love denying people the right to vote. But our current system seems inherently flawed because if even 20% of my earnings come from companies funded by grants, I have a strong incentive to ask my congressman to keep that money flowing. If the cut the program, maybe it would save every taxpayer 1 cent. They won't lobby for their 1 cent. I might grudgingly lobby to keep the grant, though. After all, I send them those quarterly estimates, and I want some of that money back. I can't unilaterally disarm. That's so wrong. It will cause the country to go bankrupt.

I don't think a voting formula is part of the answer, but I'm open to radical suggestions to cut gov't.

There is no quandary. If you work for government, you have proven beyond doubt that you can't be trusted. Anyone who gets support from government should not be allowed to vote. Neither should anyone vote or run for office who can't pass a civics test including understanding the importance of individual liberty and every one of the Bill of Rights. (No need for term limits when blood sucking looters can't run for re-election.)
That would leave less than 1 million voters and eliminate 99% of the current looters from running for office.