Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Paint The Table -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: arno who wrote (10785)	1/22/2002 6:31:25 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23786

This part of Madison's speech refers to property but the underlying principle that voting majority (or plurality) will be pandered to by politicians utilizing transfer payments from one class to another has been a present and increasing danger since the New Deal.. Targeted tax "relief" has a nice ring to "transferees" As the holders of property have at stake all the other rights common to those without property, they may be the more restrained from infringing, as well as the less tempted to infringe the rights of the latter. It is nevertheless certain, that there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defence against the danger. On the other hand, the danger to the holders of property can not be disguised, if they be undefended against a majority without property. Bodies of men are not less swayed by interest than individuals, and are less controlled by the dread of reproach and the other motives felt by individuals. Hence the liability of the rights of property, and of the impartiality of laws affecting it, to be violated by Legislative majorities having an interest real or supposed in the injustice: Hence agrarian laws, and other leveling schemes: Hence the cancelling or evading of debts, and other violations of contracts. We must not shut our eyes to the nature of man, nor to the light of experience. Who would rely on a fair decision from three individuals if two had an interest in the case opposed to the rights of the third? Make the number as great as you please, the impartiality will not be increased, nor any further security against injustice be obtained, than what may result from the greater difficulty of uniting the wills of a greater number. In all Govts. there is a power which is capable of oppressive exercise. In Monarchies and Aristocracies oppression proceeds from a want of sympathy & responsibility in the Govt. towards the people. In popular Governments the danger lies in an undue sympathy among individuals composing a majority, and a want of responsibility in the majority to the minority. The characteristic excellence of the political System of the U. S. arises from a distribution and organization of its powers, which at the same time that they secure the dependence of the Govt. on the will of the nation, provides better guards than are found in any other popular Govt. against interested combinations of a Majority against the rights of a Minority. press-pubs.uchicago.edu

To: arno who wrote (10785)	1/22/2002 8:58:06 AM
From: Alan Smithee	Respond to of 23786

We get the government we ask for. Until our government "servants" learn that they work for us, and not the other way around, the tax burden will continue to be high. In my state, we have an initiative process. There is an individual here who proposes new tax reduction or limiting initiatives annually. It's not surprising that state and local government finds it necessary to challenge in court each and every initiative that passes (usually by a wide margin).