Everyone loves to complain about the government but few provide solutions. Indeed, few can even describe the problem at its root. One of those root problems is people voting themselves rich.

"People voting themselves rich?" you ask? Sounds like some paranoid fantasy of evil scheming people consciously trying to vote themselves rich. No, that's not what I'm talking about. Sure, a few people like that do exist but are such a rare exception to the norm there aren't enough of them to be a problem. The problem is that people do exactly the same thing unconsciously - not through evil scheming, but with the best of intentions, due to public perceptions and attitudes about government.

This is a fundamental question about fairness and justice. When is it fair, just or right for some people to force others to pay for things? This is the root of the question, because everything the government does is funded by taxes - money taken by force. Some might say taxes are given voluntarily, but that speciously ignores the policemen and jail time waiting for those who don't "volunteer".

Most people (short of anarchists) would agree that people may be rightly compelled to pay for 3 things: the military, the police and judicial courts. This is because everyone benefits, whether directly or indirectly, from these three functions. Without the military we would have no liberty. Without the police we would not have public order. Without the courts we would have no final arbiter for dispute resolution whose decisions are backed by the authorized use of police power.

It is clear that even the most stanch statists (whether from the Left or from the Right) fundamentally understand and agree with the idea that nobody can rightly be forced to pay for something from which he derives no benefit. Indeed, even these extremists often argue that their pet programs, whether government provided child care, health care or a new bridge, benefit everyone in some way - even those who don't directly use it or need it. Flawed or not on its merits, the fact that they make this argument at all is tacit understanding and agreement with the above premise.

But even this argument has a key flaw. Just because it is a necessary condition, doesn't make it sufficient. That is, just because somebody benefits from something - even if he admits he benefits - he may still believe the costs outweigh the benefits or disagree with the means by which the benefits are provided.

For example, maybe he does want the government to provide roads but he doesn't want them repaving his street every 5 years when it doesn't need it just because his local city public works department must spend all its budget or lose the money. Or, alternately, letting his street fill with potholes while they repave the mayor's billiard smooth street every 3 years. Just because a person fights these abuses doesn't mean he doesn't want the government to build roads!

A truly civil society eschews all use of force except when necessary, and this should apply to its power of taxation just as much as it does to military or police powers. In that light, how can we reduce or eliminate the abuse of political power?

A NEW FORM OF ELECTION

Any proposed legislation - whether from representatives in Congress or on the ballot before the people - that does not pay for itself should be voted differently than other measures. "Does not pay for itself" means the measure is a net revenue sink: it does not generate its own funding. It requires tax revenue above what is currently spent - whether in the form of a shift of dollars from other programs, new taxes, or borrowing (which is new taxes deferred to future generations).

A vote in favor of such legislation would not be a mere Boolean as it is today, but instead a dollar amount that the voter is personally contractually obligated to pay. The voter bids the maximum amount the measure is worth to him personally. Bidding zero dollars is a "no" vote.

If more than half the people vote zero, it fails no matter how much money was bid.

If the total dollar amount dedicated during the voting process does not meet the required amount, the measure fails even if more than half the people voted for it.

If the total dollar amount pledged during the voting process meets or exceeds the cost of the measure, and more than half the people dedicated some dollar amount, it passes.

If the total dollar amount pledged exceeds the cost of the measure, the excess is divided among the voters so every voter gets the same percentage reduction in cost.

If the total dollar amount pledged meets or exceeds the cost of the measure, but some voters fail to pay their contracted amounts, the difference is made up by any excess equally divided on a percentage basis (as described above). If the excess is insufficient to cover the loss, the measure fails.

This system would provide the ultimate in fairness to everyone. Those who believe in a measure can always get it passed if it has enough real support. Measures that everyone agrees with but nobody wants to pay for, don't have real support and should not be passed in the first place. Every voter has the opportunity to prioritize his desires realistically based on costs & benefits. Nobody is forced to pay for anything he doesn't want beyond the 3 basic branches of government mentioned above. Nobody can use the legislative process to vote himself rich or to force other people to fund the luxury of his preferences.

Example 1:
The measure is expected to cost $125.
Joe votes $10, Mary votes $50, Tom votes $100 and Jane votes $0.
Total dollars dedicated is $160.
Excess is $35.
Compute the refund: 10x + 50x + 100x = 35
160x = 35
x = 0.21875.
That means each person gets a 21.875% refund from his pledged amount:
Joe pays 10 - 2.19 = 7.81
Mary pays 50 - 10.94 = 39.06
Tom pays 100 - 21.88 = 78.12
Jane pays nothing.
The measure passes, paid as the voters themselves considered fair.

Example 2: Same as Example 1, except that Joe fails to pay. First, Joe's credit is dinged just as if he didn't pay any other contractual obligation. Then the sums are computed as if Joe voted no. In this case we have a total of $150 pleged and $125 in costs. Compute the amounts as shown above.

Example 3: Same as Example 1, except that Mary fails to pay. The excess is not sufficient to cover the difference, so the measure fails and nobody pays anything.