The wealthy SHOULD have more influence in government than the poor.

1. Because they have more to protect

2. Because they have more people trying to get what they own.

Take it from anyone who's climbed the ladder of financial success, everyone is after his money. You own a business, you're gonna get sued, a lot. If you own a Wendy's franchise, eventually some sick woman is going to "find" a human finger in a bowl of chili she bought at your restaurant and sue you. (this really happened) Then you have politicians who devote their entire political platform and bid for election on going after what you worked so hard to earn in the name of "fairness" to redistribute it to those who have not. If you're part of an industry like the tobacco or firearms industry, groups of lawyers will shop for sympathetic local judges and then file a class action lawsuit against you for hundreds of millions. Hell, you don't even have to be a millionaire before covetous and unscrupled crooks, elected or otherwise, will get a gleam in their eye looking at what you amassed.

So why shouldn't the rich get a proportionate amount of representation considering all the forces arrayed against them? When people are called greedy for wanting to keep most of what they earn, and the truly greedy people, those who covet what others earned and use the legal system to extract unmerited money, I say that the rich are more than justified in hiring lawyers and influencing congress to write laws protecting them from plunder, as the firearms industry was forced to do. So when the Left continues to crow about wealthy influence, as if I'm supposed to agree that's a bad thing, I'll just cheer that we have a great system whereby people are able to secure justice for themselves in proportion to the assets they need to protect.

 

Exactly what proportion of the population do you think behaves in such a way? Bringing fingers to restaurants and such?

 

Translation: Screw the constitution!

 

uh, not really. Have you ever read the Constitution? Cause you quoted the Declaration of Independence. It actually leaves voting requirements almost entirely up to the states. It's why some states require a state-issued ID, but in MN you can vote so long as someone with an ID vouches for you.

 

Whether or not the rich should have more influence in the government than the poor is a matter of opinion.

One thing is for certain, they always will have more influence though.

And the poor don't generally have much influence to speak of in most systems.

 

How many people should the average rich person be allowed to own?

 

Whatever the market bears? j/k

 

Should we just start evaluating how much of a person non-millionaires are?

Like maybe people working their asses off at McDonalds for peanuts can be 3/5ths of a person and just adjust the scale from there.

While we're at it, let's just get rid of child labor laws. Those freeloading children get everything they need without ever working for it. And how dare we tell the wealthy corporate owners who they can and cannot have as indentured servants.

 

As a one time contender, you sir are a disgrace to all those who are real business men. Yes, is it hard to get to the top and stay there, yes. The struggle to find success is the true success. The person who is willing to toil and fight for success understands that the finale is not success.

I did not, nor would I ever think that my vote is more important than anyone else's merely because I am successful, most of those whoever worked for me understood that there were good people in the world and voted republican, not because I demanded it of them, but because I led them to the light. Someone who is so full of themselves to believe that becoming rich is successful, or running a business is success, is delusional. Success is measured not by you, but by your peers, and many a business man is measured very poorly by their peers.

Success is making everyone around you successful. My job was taken away form me but someone that once worked under me, it was the proudest day of my life.

 

Hoarding wealth SHOULD be illegal

 

Hates communists, promotes a corporatist government, is rabidly religious - fascist much?

 

Not a very sane thought.

 

I misjudged you, and for that I sincerely apologize. That's one of the most decent and downright cool things I've ever read on these forums.

 

If every Republican thought like you the GOP would not exist.

 

It was like this in Britain 100's of years ago, you used to have to have to own land to be able to vote (at the time this was a very small amount of people).

Some people are just bat (*)(*)(*)(*) crazy!

 

You didn't read or didn't understand the OP. I wasn't making the case that one person's vote should count more than another's. In fact, I didn't even bring up the subject of voting. You are a disgrace to reading comprehension.

 

You too somehow found the subject of voting even though it wasn't in the OP. Maybe I accidentally added it with invisible ink?

 

Do you care to contest the OP (you would be the first) or are you not really a real American thinker? Since child labor laws, congressional representation, and indentured servanthood aren't up for discussion, can you actually discuss my specific argument? Every one who has responded is apparently too stupid to understand what I'm arguing here.

 

Fair enough. Just remember history tends to tell us that governments disproportionately controlled by the wealthy breed nepotism, and monarchy. Which in turn creates growing poverty, and eventually revolution. Either ending in massacre or civil war.

 

This.

10char

 

I didn't propose having a government controlled by the wealthy, but you're closer than all the other twits responding to this thread. I'm talking purely about influence in the context with the Left's obsession with doing away with corporate donations. How they propose to fund campaigns who knows? They certainly haven't offered a plausible alternative. I'm not proposing any radical change, I'm just saying that there's a certain amount of justice in how things operate right now.

 

Why are conservatives so anti-American?

 

In my opinion you, like most people are living under illusion that others just want to sue the rich, but I believe that what we need is a STRONGER REPRESENTATION OF JUSTICE SYSTEM. we now have two hypocrites debating for presidency, both liars, flip floppers and dishonest, just professional talkers. we have people on welfare who can buy sodas, candy and other junk for food stamps, and have iphones, tvs, and other stuff working people like me never need. we have to pay for military to protect some interests in the middle east while people like me had to live 13 years in a total US ghetto full of criminals and other low lives. we have hypocrites for president like Clinton who took credit for collapse of USSR when he would have been one of the biggest commies had he and his (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) been born and living there. we have a system of scum that no one respects. government SHOULD be respected, but I don't see that happening when money is what decides the outcome of elections - they will just SING the nice song to the poor, but still serve those who provide money - as you advocate - THE RICH.

 

From many a posters here and other sites, many R think exactly like that.
It's the I worked hard, got to the top, now screw everyone else so I can keep it. Make laws that protect the wealthy so they can keep it easier and not have to worry if/when they screw up and are held accountable for something.
Provide a faulty product, don't let em be sued.

 

Maybe you weren't very concise in what you meant by having favorable gov't? Or more gov't assistance(welfare)? Or more protection than non millionaires?
How do suppose that would happen if equal voting rights were for all citizens?