georgephillip
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #141
It requires no imagination to recognize a small minority of high "earners" whose inherited wealth will always grow faster than low earners earned wealth. No one is advocating for the repeal of the US Bill of Rights, so none of your imaginary scenarios apply. The rich are getting richer because they bribe politicians for favorable tax and trade policies. Just imagine what would happen if that were to change.Governments that exist to serve the best interests of a majority of their citizens would view health care and education as indispensable to the general Welfare, IMHO.
It's the bolded portion that I think is the most significant aspect of the modern liberal conception of government, and the most misguided. In my view, the goal of government should be to secure the rights of all the people, not just the majority. That's a key distinction, and I think it's why our founders steered clear of pure democracy. They deliberately sought government that was limited in it's ability to satiate the majority, especially when doing so would violate the rights of the minority.
Indeed.
A purely democratic society would probably restrict the minority in many ways.
Just imagine if the majority of heterosexuals decided that the minority of homosexuals should pay more tax % simply because they were homosexual.
Just imagine if the majority of whites decided that the minority of blacks should pay more tax % simply because they were black.
Just imagine if the majority of women decided that the minority of men should pay more tax % simply because they were male.
Just imagine if the majority of non-diabetic people decided that diabetics should pay more tax % simply because they are diabetic.
Just imagine if the majority of low income earners decided that high income earners should pay more tax % simply because they earn high incomes.