JoeA wrote:I also observe that you continue to be pertinacious, if nothing else, in your archaic mercantilist perspective on the economy.
At the risk of appearing truculent towards the more turgid of tropes, I would note that the OP begins with a citation from an 18th century historian. Were I to really advocate running the political economy as it was in the 18th century, you would have a case to build. However, I advocate that neither the economy nor the political structure of any country should follow centuries old doctrines, whether "divinely inspired" Sharia law or an 18th century constitution. To illustrate, allow me to point out a similar problem with not learning from history:
Paul Anthony wrote:I have to return to this comment. I have been more guilty than most, lamenting the fact that nearly half the population doesn't pick up the tab for the exorbitant cost of government. But... the Constitution was amended to allow Income Tax by promising the voters that it would only affect the wealthiest top 1% of earners! So, the majority gladly agreed to allow the government to tax...someone else.
That's the fallacy of the claim that a democracy is "fair", and is the point of the OP.
Indeed and quite right. The "founding fathers" of the concept of democracy certainly foresaw this and therefore took measures to ensure these kinds of problems didn't arise by making sure that certain peoples couldn't vote. Specifically slaves, plebs and of course women (who certainly didn't contribute to the economy in any way). As democracy became diluted so that people who were not aristocrats, then those who were not land owners, etc., were allowed to vote, all kinds of economically ruinous policies were adopted from freeing slaves to allowing women to vote and even work. Consequently, here we are in the 21st century wondering how to set the clock back a couple hundred years to a mythical golden age.