The Left Ideology and Vote Buying

[Whiteronin]

The ideology of the Left emphasizes protecting the weak. Initially this was a continuation of European humanism,  but now this has become exaggerated (a reason why the Right constantly criticizes the Left).
The Left appeals to various groups of people, whom it calls hurt by "white supremacists," and promises to force these supremacists to pay compensations to these minorities. Thus, leftist governments pay all sorts of subsidies to ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, and disabled people; to some extent, the Left also includes all women among these hurt groups (feminism). The final result is that white working men are forced to pay money to all these minorities. If we think about it, this is nothing more than vote buying—the Left simply buys the votes of these minorities. And these minorities collectively become the majority.
I wonder how clearly the ban on vote-buying is written into the constitutions and laws of modern democratic countries, and whether, purely theoretically, the US Constitutional Court could forbid the Democratic Party on this basis?

[passwordnow]

I wonder how clearly the ban on vote-buying is written into the constitutions and laws of modern democratic countries, and whether, purely theoretically, the US Constitutional Court could forbid the Democratic Party on this basis?

Even if there's a ban on vote buying, it still happens for some reasons. People are being bought when money is already in front of them and they think it's an easy money for which they only have to vote the one who bought them. While I'm not sure if this is possible in the US, those countries that have the electoral system that involves a different type of election that includes all people and not a block voting type, they can easily feed people with this kind of strategy especially in the poor countries.

[InCap Live]

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." ~George Bernard Shaw

If your aim is truly limited Government then an even bigger challenge lies in how far left the traditional conservatives have now become. Is anyone who reads this aware of a single place on Earth with a relatively benign and almost friendly central government?

[caroasi]

This concept was first known to be an issue by Alexander Fraser Tytler, a 1700's to 1800's Scottish historian: “Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasure." That was then misattributed to Benjamin Franklin, but he never seemed to actually say in the records. This issue is considered a Molochian twisted incentive system under game theory as a negative sum game. (ref https://www.lesswrong.com/w/moloch)

True or false: Positive societal outcomes can come from an unethical foundation?

Where I disagree with Tytler is that democracy has to have any voting at all to have such a twisted incentive structure. I specifically advocate for a Cooperative Republic because there is zero ability to simply plow over minorities and ignore them with voting systems. Every emancipated person chooses anyone of their choice to represent them. So, everyone is always represented. As it stands today, most people go unrepresented entirely because if someone votes for a candidate, and their vote fails, then they contradict 100% of their wishes on all issues.

One of the biggest problems with modern society by a very wide margin is the attitude people have that the government should lie, cheat, steal, and kill, but just re-name what they are doing to other things so it sounds less bad. Lying becomes "national security. Cheating becomes "subsidies",  stealing becomes "taxes", and killing becomes "war". All of these things should all result in someone going to prison, not being celebrated as a leader or authority.