Re: I will grab my copy of the Federalist Papers .
So, you're going to make me dust off my books.....<s>
Madison's point on public opinion that I referred to was in one of his letters and not the Federalist papers. I think the particular Federalist that you may be thinking of is Ferderalist 10. Returning to the Madison's letter, perhaps the opening paragraphs of the letter would suffice.
Public opinion sets bounds to every government, and is the real sovereign in every free one.
As there are cases where the public opinion must be obeyed by the government there are cases where, not being fixed, it may be influenced by the government. This distinction, if kept in view, would prevent or decide many debates on the respect due from the government to the sentiments of the people.
In proportion as government is influenced by opinion, it must be so by whatever influences opinion. This decides the question concerning concerning a constitutional Declaration of Rights, which requires an influence on government by becoming a part of public opinion..... Madison, 19 Dec 1791
or from Jefferson....
The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we shuld have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the later. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers, and be capable of reading them. Jefferson, 16 Jan 1787
So, I have to disagree that we have a representative government because of the fickle nature of public opinion. We have a representative government because of the inability of a working government in the late 1700's to discern true public opinion. We have representatives that we entrust to discern and implement public opinion within their jurisdictions. Government than has the responsibility of implementing public opinion or influencing public opinion when it is believed needed.
Even at that time, the papers were used fairly effectively by Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison to effect public opinion through the use of essays; without the use of gross hyperbole and rhetoric. It's difficult for me to accept in this day and age, with the technologies available that the government has less ability to do. I would expect the Framers to be enthusiastic about the use of today's communications' technology to inform the people and to be able to discern public opinion.
There's no question, however, that the Framers were concerned about factionalism and public opinion being a threat to liberty. The Bill of Rights were intended, by at least Madison to ensure that the people's basic rights were always protected ..... In his address to Congress, presenting the Bill of Rights for approval, But I confess that I do conceive, that in a government like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body [Note: leading argument up to this point was that the legislative body was more of concern than the executive with respect to abuse of power.]. The prescriptions in favor of liberty ought to be leveled against that qauarter wehre the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power. But this is not found in either the Executive of Legislative departments of government but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority.... Madison, 8 Jun 1789
Obviously, if the progressive tax structure becomes less onerous
Less onerous to who? If you assume a revenue neutral modificaton, I'll bet that a greater number of people declare it to be more onerous.<s> In the abstract, I don't disagree with your comments on taxes. But directly to your point of the potential for a drag on the economy, I have never seen any sort of analysis that suggests even roughly where that point is. There isn't anything that I've seen that suggests that the current progressive tax system is a drag on the country.
Let's shift to the truly fair system: since government is fundamentally a non-profit services "business" in which the populace roughly receives the same services. Taxes are quite easily calculated by dividing the operating expenses by the population number. Your tax libaility is based on the number of persons that you are responsible for. So a family of 6 pays 3 times as much as a family of two. Why someone should receive a tax deduction in our current system for having unprotected sex, i.e., children is somewhat of a puzzle. Your actual income is irrelevent. Anything that would deviate from that, simply isn't fair and can be couched in terms of a redistribution of wealth.
Some might possibly object to my proposal of a fair system. I'll agree that any modification closer to this proposal is "fairer" than the current system. So a flatter tax system would be more "fair". But I'll also say that the less disposable income of the masses can also create a drag on the economy. If people can meet only their economic needs for survival, food, utilities and housing. It has a significant impact on the economy.
I think we're at the point of all likely tax systems will be "unfair" to one degree or another and perceived as onerous to one group or another [practically speaking everyone will declare any system to be unfair to themselves...we tend to be pretty self oriented as a species]. So, we pick a tax system primarily as a means of funding government operations that interferes the least with the economy. If you can find a group of 10 randomly picked economists in which at least 7 out of 10 will agree on the best tax system, I'll take it.
Europeans simply expect less of their accommodations, even at comparable prices. It ....
Said a little differently. Europeans have different expectations and the market responds to those expectations. I have no problems here with services here in the UK. Having dinner here with some US friends, on occasion, they have complained about the service in a restaurant. I've asked why and a frequent complaint is that they didn't bring the bill when we were finished with dinner. I had t tell them that you have to specifically ask for your bill; once you have a table it's yours as long as you care to have it. Most restaurants will not bring the bill until you ask for it...the response: Oh.
I've heard some Europeans complain about the poor service in the US at restaurants. The complaint is that they bring you the restaurant bill before it was asked for. How rude!
Enough on the litter.
Cheers,
jttmab
P.S. If you're asked in a restaurant in Europe whether you would like anything else and you answer no; it doesn't necessarily get interpreted as you are asking for the bill. That table is still considered yours whether you want anything else or not. |
