[quote=jficquette][quote=asianautica][quote=davelj]
Our system is one of democracy. Democracy is one of “majority rules.” Thus, the majority, via the legislative process, gets to define things such as “fair share” and “equal and fair treatment.” You do not. I do not. The majority does. That you don’t agree with the majority is, in a democracy, known as “tough shit.” I, personally, may agree with you. But that’s irrelevant. Democracy is no place for idealists such as yourself. Some of your comments are like those of a child who clings to a belief in Santa Clause. You’re going to be a very bitter person if you don’t just accept democracy’s injustices (by your definition) and move on.[/quote]
By this argument, all of us on this site who are oppose to the bailouts should just accept the democracy’s injustice of bailouts and move on since the majority want it. Just like how people now should accept the idea that gay marriage is not acceptable because the majority say so, or 40 years ago, the majority say interracial were illegal. We all should just hold our tongues and say “tough shit” huh?[/quote]

That is my point actually. Here we have a situation where a small minority of people for whatever reason make a lot more money then 99% of the rest of the people and they have no control over the situation because they can never have the voting power to protect themselves.

What is next along these lines? My concern is the future. Where we will be 50, 100 years from now if we continue along this path and get use to the idea that Tyranny by the Majority is ok.

A huge issue associated with this is that we will never get government spending under control as long as half the people don’t pay taxes. Why should they care what the government spends if they don’t have to pay?

John
[/quote]

I’m not a religious person in the least, but I’ve always liked the underlying message of the Serenity Prayer, and I think it applies here:

“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.”

First of all – again – as a libertarian-lite I’m somewhat sympathetic to what you’re saying here on taxes. I have similar concerns. But at the end of the day I’m a pragmatist. And things aren’t going to change dramatically. It’s just not gonna happen.

You asked, so I’ll tell you where we’re headed in “50, 100 years from now.” Watered-down European socialism. Europe, Russia and Asia have been moving to the right for two decades now. The U.S. has been slowly moving to the left for over 100 years. We’re going to meet in the middle – the point where no one’s particularly happy with the result, but few are pissed off enough to revolt. That’s the nature of democracy and that’s where we’re headed. Yes, there will be national health care – my bet is within the next two decades. Taxes are going higher and will be increasingly progressive. But it won’t be the end of the world. It will just be “blah.” England, Sweden, France. We are on the march toward the murky middle ground and there’s no stopping it.

I will say, however, that folks like yourself tend to assume that the top 1% of earners got there purely by hard work and moxy. I would argue that a large part of any wealthy person’s success is also tied to, for lack of a better word, “luck.” Behind any fortune is a lot of luck. (And, for that matter, behind most spectacular failures is some bad luck.) Period. While I personally don’t begrudge anyone their luck, I can understand the philosophical view that, “If part of extreme success is rooted in luck (or randomness), then why shouldn’t we tax that good fortune heavily?” It’s a seductive argument that’s difficult to counter but with some level of sophistry.