@All: just a few very quick points here, because I have lots of work to get done today. If necessary, I will come back next weekend and respond further.
Originally posted by HighLordDave
I think that our friend Lazarus has some valid points, and is obviously very passionate about them, yet I disagree with him on one key factor: I do not believe that unrestricted capitalism will look out for anyone other than itself.
This is a very, very interesting idea: capitalism will look out only for “itself.” But there is no such entity as capitalism – only individuals who engage in trade. In my view, if people “look out for themselves,” they do in fact make the world a better place for
everyone. You may refer to my posts in the Education thread on this point (i.e. greed and selfishness).
Originally posted by HighLordDave
I also don't believe for a second that business would look out for the environment, the average citizen or anyone other than their own bottom line without regulatory agencies looking over their shoulders.
I disagree. Why is it any more likely that a corporation will trash the environment for a quick buck, than it is that they will act with a long-term outlook? Again, this gets into your general view of man: can we think? Can we act rationally? If you believe that we are capable of directing our own lives, then capitalism is the only proper system of dealing with one another. If, on the other hand, you believe men to be generally corrupt and dangerous, then no amount of government will save us from the predations of such people.
Originally posted by HighLordDave
I must say that our friend Shadow Sandrock hit the nail on the head with the flat tax.
I can say this in favor of the flat tax: it does indeed put aside the idea that people who are successful
should pay more in taxes. The idea that the successful should be punished with a 60% tax rate, while the more moderate earners should get away at 30% is an exceedingly dangerous one. While I disagree with taxes of any kind, I would certainly like to see the flat tax discussed more widely if only as an indication that people reject the
idea behind the “progressive” tax.
@mediev: perhaps you and I have a definitional problem here. While I have been using the term “democracy” as an umbrella word, I think you may be using it in a more narrow sense. I think some of your argument comes from Madison’s Federalist #10 (?), where Madison explains why a “democracy” would be an inappropriate system of government. I understand his point, and his assertion that a more realistic system would be that of a republic. I apologize for any confusion I may have engendered with the use of the term “democracy.” I have indeed used it loosely, and intended it (as I say) as an umbrella term, meant to include a republican form of government.
However, I must agree with brother monk when he asks that you now explain what you believe to be a fair system of government.