Rights do not depend on wealth, let alone taxes paid, no matter what one's career and means of earning. There is no right to "zillions of votes", which rationalization sounds like a parody of Marxist economic determinism.

There is no such thing as " political contract rights". Civil rights are codified into government as the means of implementing natural rights. A proper government represents all citizens in a nation. Neither that nor natural rights established philosophically require "service in the military or other duties requiring some degree of personal sacrifice" -- which is an arbitrary, irrelevant criterion counting on altruism and collectivism for plausibility and which completely avoids the nature and basis of rights of the individual.

In a pure democracy the mob votes themselves largess from the government paid for by the minority of producers. That is why the founders set up a Republic and only allowed taxpayers to vote. One man one vote is nothing but a return to mob rule.

You are advocating elevating the mentality of vote buying into the root of they system. That is not the basis of a free society. Our rights do not depend on "contributing to society", let alone paying taxes, which is a thoroughly collectivist premise adopted as a conservative mantra. Nor is paying taxes the measure of "contributing to society" at all. Conservatism is a false alternative to modern liberalism.

Wishing and demanding that opponents not be allowed to vote is a concession that you have lost the battle and offers nothing as a solution. Not only is it hopelessly futile, the vote-buying scheme fantasizes about who is voting for what: The intellectual establishment and wealthy "blue states" are dominating support for the welfare state and more extreme versions of socialism without regard to the small portion who are on welfare. Do you want the wealthy likes of George Sorros, Nancy Pelosi and Bill Gates deciding who runs the country?

"What would you suggest we do now"? This has been discussed many times here and you know what I advocate. There are no shortcuts, and the battle for ideas cannot be won starting two weeks before an election.

If there isn't anyone left you can vote for within the choices available on the ballot in front of your nose right now then there isn't anything you can do "now". If there is someone, at least enough to stop the latest surge from the new New Left, then help to get him elected by whoever is still open to it and willing to vote, at least with prodding. But whatever last minute backlash may be possible, it does nothing to stop the trend without advocating for better ideas.

If the Democrats do not this time take over the House because of a backlash against a new extreme as part of the trend, don't just sit and do nothing then come back two weeks before the next election wringing your hands and asking "what do we do now"?

This is like not keeping up a nation's defenses and otherwise not preparing for an impending war, then two weeks before the assault demanding "what do we do now"? "What is the shortcut I can employ here now in defiance of reality as a substitute for my failure to prepare?" There isn't one. You can fight with whatever you have and desperately try to hold them back, hoping that you can, and that it may be enough to buy time to do it right. But it doesn't substitute for having the necessary defenses to win the war through countless future battles that require knowledge, effort, and preparation.

There shouldnt be mob vote when it comes to whose rights will be taken away, like happens today.

I vote when its a matter of having MY PERSONAL rights being perhaps taken away. Otherwise, I agree with you tht the vote of an individual citizen doesnt matter much. But, that said, in 2016, the deplorable ones did make a difference, as it does in this mid term. Without winning this election and retaining the congress, Trump will be a lame duck president and he might as well resign.

I may trigger some, but objectively, we are NOT all created equal. We are ALL created different with a very different set of genes. We do all have individual rights, which should be respected by all.

I appreciate that you are interested in considering my outlook. Your question....."Then, does one heart surgeon contribute more or less than 100 janitors or 6 engineers or 1/2 of a brain surgeon?" Supports my idea. Because the surgeon earns more and therefore generally pays more in taxes ....yes he does contribute more......Also ....the fact that he earns more in a market based economy proves that he has more value than a janitor.
We are all "Created equal" but we diverge after birth. Society then assigns a value to us based on our particular skill set, this results in earnings and then ...under our current system.,...taxes.

OK, +1, but you do realize that "contribuitions to society" is not the way to express that. First of all "society" is a floating abstraction. Then, does one heart surgeon contribute more or less than 100 janitors or 6 engineers or 1/2 of a brain surgeon?

But, yes, the idea of voting shares is market-based and therefore just.

Would it not depend on how they got those billions? In a laissez-faire economy, they would have earned their wealth objectively. So, their zillions of votes in the hustings would be no less their right than their votes in the corporations they invest in and therefore own.

How do you earn the right to vote?

We use the word "right" ambiguously. When you lease a car, you buy the right to drive it. But you have no natural right to a car. I know that we are on the same page with that. In another post here, you differentiated true natural rights (LIfe, Liberty, Property, Happiness) from politcal contract rights such as voting and trial by jury.

We grant non-citizens the right to a jury trial (in most cases), 4th Amendment rights, etc., etc., But they have no right to vote.

Do you have a Citizenship Test that objectively determines who gets to be naturalized? What makes a 50-question multiple guess the objective standard?

See the blog post that started this:
I am proud of my voting record. I show up for primaries. I never cast a vote without an opinion: if I do not know anything about the candidates, then I do not choose among them. I always vote for the candidate, never for the party. (I also contribute money to campaigns, but that is another topic.
https://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2...

That said, you vote for your own purposes. Unless you are in a village of 30, your vote hardly counts at all. The outcome is the same whether you vote or not. Back in 1960, Kennedy defeated Nixon by one vote per precinct and it was just about that: evenly distributed across the nation. But now, Red and Blue are ensconsed by neighborhoods, cities, and states.

At the local level, perhaps, yes, during a primary, even in a metropolitan city, your vote might count beyond how good it makes you feel. When the mobs arrive on Election Day, though, your vote is a waste of your time. It is a matter of selfishness. Do what makes you feel good, if you want, but you are not improving your life by voting.

Love STOS. My daughter and I watched them all on Netflix. Educational TV! She can quote some now.

Interesting.
Star Trek often was enlightening.

SPOCK: “How often mankind has wished for a world as peaceful and secure as the one Landru provided.”
KIRK: “Yes. And we never got it. Just lucky, I guess.”

What I'm proposing is not vote-buying. It is apportioning voting power based on actual contribution to the society. You liberals always think that the rich people don't pay any taxes well you should be happy with a system like this. Of course you wouldn't be because you know darn well that are relatively narrow portion of the population pays all the taxes. The lower end, that only take from society, should not be getting to decide how the money is spent. All they're going to do is vote for a greater sinecure for themselves.

+1 for Landru!

So what would you suggest we do now.

Half the citizens are definite collectivists, and the other half are intellectually compromised people leaning more towards individualism.

The election is two weeks away. I can vote for the definite collectivists guaranteeing I will get taken advantage of and Trump will be stopped in his tracks for the next two years, vote against them and get less of my rights violated and perhaps get some of the things that violate my rights get repealed, or I can not vote at all and most likely let the collectivists convert Trump into a lame duck.

There are no intellectually consistent individualists running in any significant races, so thats not an option.

Entitlements is the drug for dependency and stimulated government growth. Stopping entitlements would be like stopping Landru,
https://youtu.be/nZMuBIJxmnA
“Landru, Guide us! Landru!”
(Stopping Landru required knowledge, reason and communication.)

The "of any kind" is too much.
Perhaps direct welfare would be better.

It sounds like a good idea to eliminate the ability of people to vote for their own subsidies. However, there are so many and of various kinds - food stamps to ethanol to electric cars - that reducing the quantity and variety of subsidies would have to be done first. Otherwise, there wouldn't be very many voters left.

Changing representatives and policies were supposed to be within Constitutional limits, with variations and options resulting from elections only supposed to be what most people thought was the best way. Voting was not supposed to (and could not possibly) result in each individual getting what he wanted, but the government still represented his interests in the form of his rights under Constitutional limits on government power and obligations, with the particular implementation representing the majority of the public.

Today it is the opposite, with every election and bureaucratic decision putting your rights up for grabs as a matter of principle. That is the result of Pragmatism and Progressivism operating on a political premise of collectivism. That is why the government resulting from an election you lose does not in many important ways represent you. Voting was not originally intended to put your rights up for grabs in accordance with desires of pressure groups.

Wishing or demanding that political enemies not vote or not be permitted to vote is not the answer. All that can correct it is restoring (and improving) the foundations of government in accordance with reason and individualism, and that requires changing the philosophic ideas and premises that are broadly accepted across the culture.

I agree that theoretically the people have to have a say in something that “represents them”. I am having trouble accepting the idea that a government can represent me if I am one of the voting block that loses the election.

I feel today that I am being subjected to the government that I do not approve of. Perhaps the solution is to move somewhere which has a government I do approve of. Not an easy solution though.

That quote is from The Ayn Rand Letter Vol. III, No. 24 August 26, 1974 "The Lessons Of Vietnam".

Another one pertaining to what she called the "right to vote" is, "Voting is a derivative, not a fundamental, right; it is derived from the right to life, as a political implementation of the requirements of a rational being's survival", from The Ayn Rand Letter Vol. 1, No. 21 July 17, 1972 "Representation Without Authorization".

The principle was stated in the context of discussing the limits on proper voting based on the philosophical basis of a right to vote for proper purposes.

Both essays are also in her anthology The Voice of Reason.

If you earn your salary through the work you do then you do pay taxes when the state takes some of it back, just like everyone else.

It's a very bad idea that evades the source of the problem. Like most of the other "don't let them vote" schemes presented here it ignores the proper nature of government as it hopelessly wishes for political enemies to not be able to vote.