I suppose it is possible that uploads would have an initial period of adjustment, but I suspect that once the technology is mature, this would not be a long period (just think how subjective time would be for the upload). Also, I think for either uploads and/or duplicates the situation is not amenable to child labor laws or anything similar. These "new" beings would have the same initial experiences and personality of the original, and thus would not be some "babe in the woods". As far as means to lower the rate of upload production, especially in those of "lesser" performance and "lower" intelligence - I wonder what criteria you would use to determine who falls in which category, and who will judge....I note that you say make it expensive, which I suppose would limit it based on finances, if not necessarily financial success (some people, after all, got rich the old-fashioned way; they inherited it). But if this barrier were an artificially high one, there is still the matter of what level to set the bar. Personally, I'd say let whoever can afford to do it (based on the market) with the desire to do so copy themselves. Time will tell who the "elite" are.
I suspect from our discussion about voting and borganisms that you might be of the opinion that there is some definite breakpoint in the development of borganisms, where the borganism becomes rapidly unitary in outlook. If this is not so, I appologize for my misapprehension. But going on that theory, I would guess that those existing in a quasi-borganism would count as individuals, while those who are encompassed in a full borganism would be counted as one. If the division between the two turns out to be crisp, then this would, I believe, be a valid vote allocation. However, I am not sure that there will be such a clear dividing line between borganism and nonborganism, in which case I see the issue becoming complex.
As for the scenario where the Borganism is granted a vote for each member, then gains a majority and imposes borganization on the individuals still in the community, why not the opposite? The borganism is allowed to have people join if they do so of their own free will, but then everyone in the borganism only have one vote between them. Perhaps if the borganism is successful in growing, there is a conservative backlash amonst the individuals sharing the community. They vote to have the borganism forcibly disassembled, its networking severed. Since you have assigned the borganism one vote, it can easily be voted down on any issue. What is to stop either scenario? First, constitutional safeguards for the rights of citizens, regardless of the will of the majority. Second, understanding amongst all citizens, borganism or individual, that if you take away your neighbor's rights today, it may be your rights which are stripped tomorrow. You might argue that the borganism would no longer have neighbors if it force assimilates everyone, but this would only be if it succeeded in doing so literally, as in the entire world (or known civilizations). I suspect before it got that far someone would start fighting back, and if the borganism can successfully assimilate everyone against their will, then likely they wouldn't have needed to vote in the first place.
In regard to opposing viewpoints and subjective vs objective truth - First,
sometimes your voting issues involve more than two options. For example,
there could be several candidates running for the same position, among whom
you might feel two or three could do adequate jobs, but less so the rest. You
may want to give support to two candidates, and be happy if either wins. In
regards to the truth, I believe that for every specific situation there is one
objective truth, but I am not usually chosing between an objective truth and
subjective truth; usually it is between two or more subjective truths, I only
have a rough indication of what the objective truth might be, and I have to
try to figure out which of the possible subjective truths might be the closest
fit to the objective truth. In this case, more than one viewpoint might have
elements reflective of what I believe to be the objective truth, and thus both
might have partial validity, though in differing fashions. Also, in regard to
sympathizing with and supporting a side, whether it acknowledges what I
consider the objective truth may not be as terrible as it first appears, if
you believe there is something of value in that side, you may want to support
and foster it, while at the same time suggesting that there are some flaws in
that side's position. As for doing this based solely on a "feeling", I
suppose it depends on what type of feeling we're talking about....is this an
intuition, an emotion, a guess? I personally pay very close attention to my
"feelings", all the different types of them. Often, they are indicating
things that my conscious mind has missed, or not yet considered. Usually, though, I do not allow them to rule my decisions, but instead explore why I have these feelings using my logical faculties. However, sometimes there is no time for rational contemplation, and you have to make a split second decision. In these cases, I occasionally do act on my "feelings" especially if I'm not getting any good choices from my rational side. Luckily, I rarely have to make split second decisions on voting issues<g>.
As for the lottery incentive, I concede that it might indeed help prime the pump of voluntary funding....but then why even have it be one item vs another, why not hold separate lotteries for them all, with the winner in each getting a percentage. Hey, play all the funding lotteries, and increase your chances of winning....if you don't play, you can't win<G>.