Don't think that is the case now or anytime soon, and even if it was, is it more of a problem than the rich pushing things their way???
I think each is important. I don't understand why you don't.
The vast numbers of middle class and poor in a democracy where everyone gets one vote serves as a brake on plutocracy.
Ideally, government acts on behalf of the country as a whole. Most of what the government does is in behalf of all, more or less. With a limited government, that is more the case than with a government with its fingers in everything and a bent towards redistributing the wealth. This is independent of which citizens it chooses to be receivers and givers. When the government starts redistributing beyond the obviously helpless, folks start putting their hands out and demanding their share. That goes for rich, poor, and everyone in between. It becomes a game of who can give the least and get the most. Of course, everyone thinks his share should be bigger.
From my point of view, the answer to that problem is limited federal government. Then the government doesn't give to the rich or the poor. It doesn't take in money from some to give to others.
But if you insist on having a government that redistributes the wealth, then you have to recognize the problem when the receivers outnumber the contributors and are in a position to strip the country bare. As I said up top, there is a natural constraint in a democracy on the minority. There is no constraint on the majority other than wisdom, which is not in abundance. How can you watch that unbalance happen and brush it off or blithely say you'll deal with it once it's too late? |
