Yes, this is a classic dichotomy ... highlighted by the following statement: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy..."
It reminds me of a very contentious search for a DISD Superintendent many, many years ago when the differences between those who paid for the school district and those who used the district's schools were becoming more greatly pronounced. The property owners who paid the school district's bills were overwhelmingly white, middle to upper middle class citizens ... and they wanted a superintendent who would be prudent in managing the affairs of the school district and instill a working attitude of responsibility and accountability. The majority of the school district's students were non-white - Black and Latino - from lower middle class to poor families who paid relatively little into the school district's coffers ... and first and foremost, they wanted a superintendent who looked like them ... which ended up creating quite a few sparks between the Blacks and the Latinos, as I remember. The property owners believed they should have a greater say because they paid the bills and the Blacks & Latinos believed they should have a greater say because they were the bigger users (and I do mean that in every sense of the term, don'tcha know!).
The ideal is to create a system of voter eligibility whereby only those with "skin in the game" would be able to vote. But, such a system is easier said than done because the proper dividing line always seems to be quite elusive.
| 
