Madison considered the federal government a good way of diluting the the power of faction, because interests would vary so much over a far flung territory. I am not sure, then, what you are referring to. I will grab my copy of the Federalist Papers and see if I can make sense of your point, if I get a chance.....
Public opinion is by its nature superficial, ill- informed, and fickle. That is why we have representative government. On almost any issue, the relevant actors are the particular interest groups involved, who use public opinion as it may benefit them, and ignore it and make other forms of appeal if it does not. In this political system, the threat of losing the support of several thousand mobilized special interest voters within a Congressional district is more compelling than crossing the general electorate with a vague contrary sentiment, and environmentalists, feminists, and others use this as much as anyone else....
Obviously, if the progressive tax structure becomes less onerous, the rich profit. Not only that, but economic expansion may sharpen income differences. On the other hand, reading according to quintile is somewhat misleading, since, as time goes on, many people ascend to the next level. The experience of most people, over a twenty year period, is not merely of the rising tide lifting all boats, but of attaining greater profit from promotion. This is, for one thing, an inevitable function of reducing marginal tax rates, so that earning more does not reduce the value of the additional dollar. Further, in a low inflation environment, the value of savings accounts, certificates of deposit, savings bonds, and annuities, which are more common investment instruments for lower income people, as they have less risk associated with them, is better preserved.
On taxes, the use of rates means automatically that the rich pay more. There is no particular reason to increase the rate in addition, except as it may compensate a break at the lower end. Nevertheless, there is a point where the marginal tax rate can act as a drag on the economy, and breed resentment as being confiscatory. A futile bid to redistribute income is hardly reason enough to take over half of someone's income.
In a tourist market, one would think that tourists would take the priority. In any event, one needn't focus exclusively on ice, which may be partially a matter of taste. Europeans simply expect less of their accommodations, even at comparable prices. It is hard to get a rental car with an automatic transmission at reasonable prices; the hotel rooms that charge about what a budget chain would have fewer amenities; however it may be in the suburbs, it is almost impossible to find a supermarket in Paris; and, in various other ways, the system seems to favor the interests of producers and retailers over consumers.....
On litter, somehow we have drifted. To remind you: "You mention litter in the parks. In Washington, that has never been a major problem, certainly not in the main park areas. Even in New York, in Central Park, it is a lot cleaner than it was 10 years ago, due to Guiliani...."
Message 15841771
Since I never would have ventured similar observations of New York Avenue or the Annapolis Mall parking lot, bringing them up seems beside the point. I do not find the docks in Annapolis particularly dirty, but I am not sure what standard I am supposed to apply....
Not having lived elsewhere, I cannot swear that America is more free. I have known a number of exchange students from diverse countries (both European and Asian, both allied and former Warsaw Pact), and generally, even those who have a Leftist view of American hegemony in the world find it an incredibly free society. First, there is the amazingly broad affluence, and the ability to find goods and services at all prices ranges of reasonable quality. Second, there is the sense of social equality, that contrasts sharply with the residual class sensitivities in some other countries, and also with the greater ethnic sensitivities. A lot of blacks that I know who have lived in the UK and the States prefer the States. Similarly with Vietnamese I have met who have lived in both Paris and the States: they are more accepted as part of mainstream society here. Third, the sense that one has numerous opportunities to try again, rather than being herded into one's class and occupation by the system, or having one's fate depend on one exam. There are community college's; colleges accommodating working people seeking degrees; it is comparatively easy to start a business, even after a prior bankruptcy; it is comparatively easy to change profession in mid- life, rather than feeling bound to a metier; it is comparatively easy to relocate and start again. These are for starters. My impression, from my contact with the exchange students, is that they can hardly believe the sense of confidence with which Americans speak their mind, or strike out on their own, without regard to family or community opinion, or take for granted that they should expect a certain level of service at shops, restaurants, and so on (an interesting sidelight: studies have been done showing that Europeans are much more resigned to standing in line for a long time than Americans).
Anyway, I am sure that England is a good place to hang one's hat. Only, it may be better if one is affluent and able to ignore the usual inconveniences, than it would be for the average bloke...... |
