Every argument I've read against the net tax payer voter system is boils down to arguments that assume: Utilitarianism is the only valid school of ethics, assuming Egalitarianism is an essential principle of democracy, the convoluted tax codes we have now must always exist, or the franchise is a fundamental right from birth for an individual in a jurisdiction; thus, all actions away from universal suffrage are a form of disenfranchisement, which is inherently bad for unexplained reasons.
If you think of a broad category that doesn't fit one of these categories of arguments against the net tax payer vote, post it.
I really want to steel-man this.
@DoubleD
You should look into
1 Post left Anarchism
2 Anarcho Capitalism
3 Gift based economics
4 Distributist economics
Every single one of these in some form might argue against any sort of taxation and might argue against voting, some of them might argue against money all together
In distributism you might have each family own the means of production for their occupation
If every family did farming and each family owned their own untaxed farm then you might not need money
@shortstories I have looked into these. I prefer Mises. He makes more sense and actually describes reality 95% of the time.
