Do you know this for certain? I’ve worked with a lot of career criminals and gang members, and I would say that some people never experience love and, as a result, may not be able to give or receive it. — Tom Storm

Seems I did not use the quote function correctly, here is the other part.

Love is an experience shared by all. — Tom Storm

(This is my first time using the quote function, I'll see how it turns out.)
I think that it is not that everybody has felt love, but everybody can feel love.
My experience with philosophical thinking has mainly come from fiction books. That is why I bring fictional examples to the table to get an emotional connection, without denying the need for base.
For this example, like you said gangsters who haven't felt love can have problems with emotional development. However, do you think it is impossible for him to ever love or ever feel love again?
Many times in fiction you see a gangster have a child and 'soften up'. Though only a fictitious example with little base to it, it is quite relatable (at least to the heart.) It also shows a possibility which isn't impossible.
However, my argument still falls to the same question,
'Are you certain that everybody can potentially feel love?'
I cannot say for certain because I have never met every single person on the planet.
All of this brings me to the question,
Is the ability to feel love something you are born with?
In the example with the gangsters they were not given love growing up, they started with the ability to feel love, but their ability to love was not 'developed/nurtured'. (Words that do not quite fit)
Does the lack of love kill the sense of it? Or is it just dormant like a seed during winter? I think the later is correct, because no matter how little evidence I have of my workings, you have just as little to oppose them.
P.S I know that my argument is based on mere ideas, and I will not argue if you wish to deny it. Through reading fiction I have gained the ability to think on a deeper level than before. Using these examples is how I can argue without practical experience or quoting the words of others.
Greetings.

I apologize for my mistake.
I was thinking on a chart that I saw for global wealth distribution (Which still must have been false).
Also, thank you for the video, it was interesting.
However, it only proves my point even more. If votes were based on the amount of taxes paid, the power would be in the hands of the extremely rich.

This post has gone in some different directions, so I would just like to state my opinion on a matter.
I believe that the government should not be able to hinder our freedom of speech or expression.
This is not to say that people should be able to do anything they want, but there should not be a systematic response from the government.
Instead I think that societal pressure could be of help. Especially because societal pressure can be overcome.
In this way a person who screams something inappropriate such as the aforementioned "Heil Hitler" is put down by society. On the other hand a person who supports 'Black Lives Matter' or 'Transgender Rights', while facing opposition has a chance of overcoming it.
The point is not to be perfect from the beginning, but to have the potential for both freedom and control of some of the chaos.
Of course this system is bound to face corruption. However, I believe that the systems with the most room for corruption have the most potential for good. This is because it is not based on imperfect law which always seems to have some loophole, but our society and human morals which has the potential to handle all problems.

I can see you have put a lot of work into the certain policies. However none of it will work if the premise is flawed. What you are suggesting is a society in which the people with the money decide the laws.
This is based on the votes being based on the total amount of money paid, but if it were based on the number of people that is no different from just one vote per person.
A majority of the wealth is in the middle class, but only just behind them is the top 1%. In the society you suggest the poor people would get almost no vote. Additionally, the rich people would decide the laws, which is not much different from an oligarchy.
This is not to say that money shows no results in our current politics, just that it is not as upfront and directly efficient (if you know what I mean).
Though I do like that people would actually pay their taxes this way.