Quote:
Jack Simth said:
... (C) have checks and balances of such near-perfection that a particularly extraordinary person or group will never be able to come along and turn this ideal government around so that it now only cares about that particular person or group?
|
Isn't this somewhat contradictory? I mean presumably the so-called checks and balances will require some sort of overwhelming majority to make big changes, so in order to make a government care only about a particular person or group, a sizable majority of people not in the favoured group must also somehow be persuaded that favoring this particular group is somehow good.
And of course, this is already the case in modern industrial economies. In France, for example, the majority of the population put up with higher taxes and higher food prices in order to maintain subsidies for farmers at least partly because they agree that it is part of France's national identity that the so-called "produits du terroir" be accorded a privileged and honored position and that having a France with no sweeping farmlands would just not feel like France.
And note: this is not a bad thing. It's simply what the French people want, and the government gives it to them.
And finally, isn't someone going to rebut Randallw's communist nonsense?
