[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

I disagree, but lets for the sake of argument assume that I buy into your premise. In terms of degrees, do people who own land and have the laws of the nation apply to you ( which is a fascinating distinction by the way, which you may have not fully thought through, but I will leave it as a tangent unless you want to explore it further here ) have more skin in the game than those who only have laws of the nation apply to them?

[tsimionescu]

No, they have the same amount of skin in the game. Given that the state can decide to kill you, or to force you to work, land is irrelevant in the grand scheme of the law's impact.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

The response seems a little too emotional to be considered rational. Still, lets consider another perspective.

Would you agree that people with more money are treated differently from people with less money? Money is not exactly property or power, but would you agree that they stand more to lose than a person without either? If they stand to lose more, they automatically have more skin in the game. In fact, if we count money, we can give fairly definitive amount of skin in said game.

[tsimionescu]

No, this is an absurd idea. People with more money have more options - including easily leaving the country if they don't like its laws. In contrast, people with less money have less options and are more dependent on the state, and more at the state's whims if it decides to turn against them. For example, a wealthy person may be able to appeal a wrongful conviction, even taking things all the way up to international courts. A poor person will likely have to accept the initial decision of any judge. An increase of 50% in taxes will cost a wealthy person much more in pure monetary terms, but will have a much, much higher impact in quality of life for a poor person.

So, since laws and governance have a disproportionate impact on those with less money, I would say that, if anything, those with less money have more skin in the game. But I wouldn't put it like that myself - my position is that every person who lives in a country and is subject to its laws for a long enough time has, on balance, the same amount of "skin in the game". The only distinction related to the right to vote should beade based on the ability to take rational decisions (that is, while they still have just as much skin in the game, some people shouldn't be allowed to vote because they lack the ability to rationally understand the vote - but this only applies to children and to those with severe mental disabilities).

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< People with more money have more options - including easily leaving the country

If the above is true, then your position that laws governing the country determine skin in the game is not valid, because those individuals pick, which skin they get to wear ( as in, it is not a factor at all for them ). The two positions are not compatible, which suggests that there is a facet to these factors that is not captured within the model you propose.

<< The only distinction related to the right to vote should beade based on the ability to take rational decisions

Careful now, you are dangerously close to suggesting people, who make irrational choices should not vote, which includes just about 99.9% of the voting population.

<< An increase of 50% in taxes will cost a wealthy person much more in pure monetary terms, but will have a much, much higher impact in quality of life for a poor person.

On the other hand, it costs poor person nothing to vote for themselves somebody else's money and with opportunistic enough a leader a ignorant enough a populace, the sky is literally the limit. Who has more skin in the game here, the person, who gets to lose 50% of their resources to taxes or a person, who was promised someone's taxes to trickle down to them?

Yes, I am setting you up a bit.