Tax Policy: History & Ethics of Taxation

On a side note, but in regards to this issue of the "poor" taxing the "rich:" this class warfare narrative is promoted by two political parties, both of which get the vast majority of their funding from a small handful of people who in effect own the majority of private property. If you read the government's own statistics, 50% of the population has NO net assets. The upper 1% of the population has in total as much wealth as the bottom 60% combined. If you look at stock ownership statistics, you can calculate that the controlling interest (i.e. > 50%) in ALL publicly held corporations is in the hands of about 50,000 people. Out of about 300 million, that is a very serious concentration of wealth and power. As a State, we have less than 2% of the nation's population. Our vote counts for next to nothing in the Federal government. However, we are still citizens of a sovereign State. We still set our own policies for our own community. If our State is to make any progress, we must reject the false class warfare narrative that is pushed by politicians and political parties, and recognize that our common interests as citizens of this State are far more important. That is precisely why I recommended rejecting Measure 66, which would raise taxes on upper income Oregonians. There is no issue of rich and poor here. The entire citizenry of this State, regardless of their position, is doing their best to survive and prosper here. People with a bit of money need to stop blaming people with less, and vis-versa. State government is the only place where we can really make our voices heard and affect policy. In order to do that, we must have social unity. As long as our State is split on the fake social divisions promoted by the Republicans and Democrats our State government will continue to be a weak parody of the Federal government, and we will continue to bicker our way into progressively deeper poverty. If you view that as acceptable, then keep doing whatever you've been doing, because it is working. If not, then start thinking about the reality of our State and society instead of the fiction that is promoted in political propaganda.

Oregon Reader: You state a lot of opinion, and you refer to my arguments as "assumption," but my arguments are not assumption. They are based on propositions and logical conclusions. There is no comparison between a logically sound argument and mere opinion or assumption. You say that most people wouldn't agree that the primary benefits of government flow to property holders. I doesn't matter who agrees. What matters is whether or not it is true. In both of your responses, you have dismissed sound logical arguments as assumption or belief, then stated your own assumptions and beliefs as if they were somehow on par with well reasoned and well supported argument. This is not public discourse. You continue to repeat some tripe about the rich getting taxed to give money to the poor. Where is your evidence of this? What is your response to the detailed arguments I give in this article that demonstrate this to be impossible?

Friend Daniel: Mine own obfuscations must surely be source of basic misunderstandings you hold via "Canadianitis". Your points here always insightful and often more comprehensive than I find elsewhere (forcing further cogitation, sometimes painfully so !) What is meant is that NO ONE has right to denigrate another group on basis of same factors clearly forming sty-in-eye for them. For the record, Canada still answers eventually to the Queen - right ? We departed "the Empire" by choice and then Revolution way back in 1776. What's delaying full break into "independence" for you up there ? Yours indicates continuing strong dissatisfactions similar to ours in '76. Further fact is that ONLY an American can fully, finally and fulsomely truly appreciate and thus evaluate what the world chose to designate as "exceptionalism",starting with Tocqueville. It must have had some basic-fit to survive all these years,become contentious demanding ongoing comments here NOW (as intended). In essence praise goeth to us for self-realization, with all faults-found by others not in any way denied-just plainly separated from self-knowledge. We may be allathethings now charged by some (yours not by any means unique in that !). YET fact stll exists of the truth of "exceptionalism"; as you make clear in illuminating "rest of world" vs us. Without solid basis for self-evalution, very little chance for forward steps can ever exist: That's why I still listen for "voice of the people" as in "OF...BY...FOR', esp. the latter. Please note heavy,full emphasis on same approach via numerous Presidents,reflecting true public opinion supported by force at times,as in Civil War ending slavery, even with enduring, very damaging racist rationalizations ever since. Pogo's words more profound than some can come to know, and surely apply NOW more than ever, with that realization the beginnings of what can now come closer to the perfection sought by the Founders, who were profoundly aware of their own place, own selves --and of their failings to find, follow and somehow project what their wonderful words have set forth as ideal-to-shoot-for ever since. Do you contend that is NOT current responsible reality, possible if not highly probable, in 21st Century ? We CAN "make it so", thus developing "experiment" into true-status of democracy. No denigration of yours is intended; only perhaps some further light from another dark corner, typical of where we all find ourselves NOW. It gets real smoky out here these days !!

Henry Ruark, you clearly made more money in your career than those about whom I was referring. But, did you not receive a tax break from those children? Is that not also money from the taxman? I am not following the rest of your post. What is the question re: governance that you are trying to ask? Keep in mind that representative governance does not necessarily follow the will of the people, at least in the short run.

Hank, I do not think your anti-Canadian comments are fair or warranted. Please be civil.

Ersun....I really enjoy your writing ! Look at how many comments your article is generating! Great writing style and interesting reading. I think you could write about carpet fibers and make it an interesting read ! One more reason why S-N rocks ! Thanks ! Looking forward to more from you...!!

Ersun, you make good points in your argument. But land is simply one source of income. Saved income is also a source of income (dividends, etc.) without regard for the final investment that the income can be put towards. The point is that the fight should not be framed in a conventional capitalistic fashion. You wrote "If the primary benefits from government flow to property holders"... This is a big assumption that I don't think most people would agree with. I think that those of us who pay more in taxes than the average person earns in a year would say that government accrues dividends to the poor. Ask some of your doctor or lawyer friends. Finally, the biggest costs of government are, indeed, "investments" in the form of entitlement programs, such as Social Security, and interest on PAST expenditures, which were, largely, investments in the "little people". I favor a progressive income tax, and a sales tax. I also think that there is a need for property taxes, which initially were used to support local programs, primarily education. The problem is that government has learned that it can continue to tax, tax and tax. If the government is really "us" then the majority (lower income) will be able to continue to shift taxes to the middle and upper income brackets. Unfortunately in our "representative" government, votes are all that matter, and as long as someone "else" is the one on the hook, we like the unending flow of funds from the government. The problem is that the average Joe won't be the ones to pay for the largess. It will be our children. The largest voting block of people will be the aged, and the aged will make sure they get the benefits that have been promised for generations. The shell game, unfortunately, continues.

Hank: You write that "'Canadianitis' is simply one form of virus found universally within those so separated by life experience of their own they cannot ever accept the fact of "American exceptionalism" --which is the main reason we stand solo among world's nations"

Logically, your statement is equivalent to Jews saying they are the Chosen People. Look at your post and where you have "Founding fathers" or the equivalent, replace it with "Jesus" or "Mohammed" or whatever and your statement still makes sense.

The Founding Fathers were not gods or deities, although in your arguments you treat them so. They were fallible men, aristocrats of their time, and they were not trying to set up a democracy for the ordinary people. They were trying to reform an aristocracy, but the ordinary people got in the way and messed things up.

This is the main problem with many Americans--they believe they are the best in the world and the best that history can produce. Of course you acknowledge failings. You say "Founders set it up precisely and presciently; we've failed to follow through as demanded." Logically, Christians say exactly the same thing--Jesus set it out, but "we've failed to follow through as demanded." In your post you said others "cannot ever accept the fact of "American exceptionalism"--which is the equivalent attitude of many Christians towards others who "cannot ever accept the fact of "Jesus Christ as their saviour"

Sorry to sound dogmatic but there are other people on the planet. Since the 1950s the American people have almost singlehandly ruined the planet by consuming oil and resources far in excess of their proportional numbers and at the same time producing global pollution (it does not stop at the borders of the U.S.--if it did, and they just poisoned themselves, nobody else would care) far in excess of their numbers. These things because of American Exceptionalism which says that because of their superiority on the Earth, Americans have a right to do whatever they want, where ever they want. To see another example of this syndrome look at the Zionists in Israel: As the Chosen People they have the God-given right to do whatever they want. Because of this attitude, Israel as a nation is starting to come under criticism and garnering dislike. America is going down the same road and has been for decades.

This is the point I was making that you called "Canadianitis". Many Americans believe they are exceptional; others can see that they are not, they are just like everyone else in the Western tradition.

Oregon Reader: of course my feeling passionately about something does not make it so. However, logic is a style of argument. You state your propositions, you reach a logical conclusion, and it is either true or false. You can attack the logic of the argument, or the truth of the propositions, but trying to divert from the matter by claiming that I am only asserting my feelings is no argument at all. Is income property? Property is a social construct, and so it is subject to shifting definitions. Land is the primary form of property. The crucial difference between land and all other types of property is that land is the source of income. Land is the only type of property that produces value. Consequently, it makes sense that those who have the privilege of right to ownership over this unique source of value should be the ones who pay for the maintenance of that right. Someone without land, who works in order to buy the things that land produces, such as food, water, energy, and goods, does not gain anything from the fact that someone else owns land. Everything they earn is the produce of their labor. What someone who owns land earns is in part the produce of their labor, but also in part the produce of the land. A tax on land is not a tax on labor, but a tax on what is produced from the land, which the land owner does not produce by their own efforts, and thus has no right to, other than the right conferred by government. I include other forms of property, particularly stocks and bonds, as property that should be taxed because these are often legal instruments that merely obfuscate a title to land. Take for instance the case of mortgages. A great deal of property is in fact owned by banks. The person who holds title to the land is taxed, but those who legally own a share of the land through debt agreements are not, even though they both represent ownership of the same thing. In many cases, a bank may own a greater share of a piece of land than the nominal owner, yet the nominal owner pays all of the property tax, while the bank and its shareholders pay nothing. My views on taxation of property are focused on land, but because of the proliferation of this kind of legalistic tax evasion, it is necessary to cast the net a bit wider.

O-Reader: You wrote"...many are able to have money freely given to them due to their poverty, or due to the number of children they have, etc. One problem is that we have become too dependent on the redistribution of wealth from government..." Both actions set up by rep. governance, Congress et al, so majority/will...do you disagree with that ? If so, YOU disdain heart-matter of all democracy: rep. govt., by consent of those governed. BTW, please document rest of statement, so I can cash in for my share; unable to locate any such, and qualify in several respects including 5 kids none of whom had any help from any such programs during my fatherhood. What am I missing ? Where do I now apply for retrospective payment, surely available from such free-handed govt. action ?? First thing learned as a commentator is to document anything you write...you ready on this one?

Ersun Warnke Muhammad Ali never made the statement you quoted. This has been bandied around for quite a while but there are actuall records of his statements available if you get away from some of those search engines. When Clay (his name at the time) upset Sonny Liston in Miami and became heavyweight champion of the world in 1964. The next day, Clay announced to the world that he was a member of the Nation of Islam and that his name was Cassius X. The X reflecting the unknown name that was taken from him by the slave owners centuries before. Nation of Islam was a organization who’s members called themselves Muslims but who’s ideology was completely against Muslims religion Islam specially its teaching of “White is Devil” and most importantly Declaring its Leader Elijah Muhammad as “Messenger of God”, which breaks the fundamental principle of Islam that Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) was the Last Prophet and no Prophet would come after him, Any one not believing in that is not a Muslim and Nation of Islam is till now is not considered as an Muslim organization. Malcolm and Ali both later dropped out of NOI and became Muslims by joining Sunni Teachings. The national response was immediate, negative and intense. Cassius X, soon to be given the name Muhammad Ali, by NOI founder, "The Messenger," Elijah Muhammad, chose to disassociate himself from his friend and mentor Malcolm X after the Messenger suspended Malcolm. Herbert Muhammad, eldest son of Elijah, was installed as Ali’s new manager as Ali continued to defend his crown against all comers .In 1967, as the Vietnam War was escalating, Ali was called up for induction into the Armed Services. Ali refused induction on the grounds of religious beliefs. He was, in fact, a practicing Muslim minister. This refusal led to the now-famous Ali quote, "I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong… "The national furor over that comment combined with Ali’s refusal to be inducted into the Armed Services, caused virtually every state and local entity in America to cancel Ali’s boxing licenses. Ali final fight of 1967 was against Ernie Terrell, who incensed Ali at the weigh-in by calling him "Clay." Ali pounded him in the ring with taunts of, "What’s my name?!!" That fight was reported by many newspapers as the bloodies fight ever as Ali was Not Knocking out his weak opponent but was punching him and taunting him ,the opponent’s face was full with blood and Ali was called By some News Paper as “Dracula”.

The views here seem to indicate that Americans are ill-informed. I think many are apathetic. The views of historians are often only opinions. In fact, for example, Hawaii was NOT overthrown my the U.S. This is an issue that is debated with fervor in Hawaii. Too many of the comments take a black or white approach to the issues. Ersun, your viewpoint is fine. But you have some things to learn as a reporter/commentator. Just because you feel passionately about something does not make it so. Interpretations of the past can be made from anyone, and there is room for reasoned debate on issues you may feel there is only one "right" answer. And, while I appreciate your viewpoint, you seem to have disdain for the typical American voter. You have that right. However, you might want to re-think your admonitions. Many readers like to think for themselves. I, personally, do not agree with your views on taxation, including that of income taxation being "unjust". While I do not like taxes in any form, income really is a form of property, is it not? I think the issue is that poor people not only pay no income taxes, many are able to have money freely given to them due to their poverty, or due to the number of children they have, etc. One problem is that we have become too dependent on the redistribution of wealth from government, which is largely done through taxation. This is where Democracy has a large shortcoming. Our government is now broke. Were it not due to the ability to print money and make future guarantees, our entire system would be demolished. Indeed, we are no longer "free" people. We will be slaves to our government's debt for generations.

Engle: if you vote that 2 + 2 = 3, does that make it so? No. Clearly then there are limits to democracy. Democracy must exist within the realm of reason. Therefore, there are some issues to which voting does not apply. The rational principal at the foundation of our government is that all humans have equal rights, and that no human has the right to force their will on another. The government, being a collection of individuals, cannot have any more rights than any one individual would. When individuals form governments, they can transfer their own rights to that government, but they cannot transfer the rights of others to it. Governments have no more right to force their will on individuals than any individual does. These are fundamental principles of rational/just government. In the specific case of marriage: this is a free choice between two individuals. If two people say they are married, then no other individual has a right to force them apart. Consequently, no government could ever have the right to force them apart. Government recognition of marriage is a benefit. If government is to confer benefits, it must confer them without unjust prejudice. It cannot discriminate in conferring benefits on the basis of free individual decisions in which the government has no right to interfere. Now, you can construct your government any way you see fit, and so it is quite possible to write laws that are full of all kinds of irrationality and violate all of these basic principles of reason and justice. The result is the same as writing down 2 + 2 = 3. It stands there as a testament to irrationality and ignorance. To the extent that it is enforced, it corrupts society. How long could a society last that violently enforced the principal that 2 + 2 = 3? How long can our own society last, and in what condition will in persist, if we violently enforce laws just as irrational as 2 + 2 = 3?

Pogo's statement simply acknowledged a recognized truism. Was it shocking, of course not, except maybe for those who were/are naive about the ways of the world. Cartoonist's generally reflect events of the time, and we in some cases know exactly the point they are making before they make it. Cassius Clay aka Muhammed Ali, has truely enjoyed the benefits of living in a free society. As I have also, and I presume most everyone posting comments. Having listened to the Liston/Clay fight on the radio in 1964, I know that time period well and have seen over the years how much mythmaking has evolved from that time period. As far as military service, things were different then, and to apply current values, mores, and folkways to the past promulgates a gross misunderstanding of the past. Ersun why is it you would think someone is trying to "bs" you with their status as a veteran? Do you ever take your personal history (resume) and assert it in your opinions? Pretty confident that you have from reading your past articles. I'm quite confident that America would not exist if we all were conscientous objectors. There is much evil in the world and they count on the naive to gain power.

Engle: You wrote re Pogo-line : "...but to use it as a way to think that Americans are politically naive and uninformed, is naive." Au contraire, sir ! Pogo's point was the unmistakable, unavoidable, impossible to miss fact at the heart of the matter: Americans ARE not only clearly guilty of naivete but also of ennui, inattention, easy acceptance of distortion and perversion of plain fact, and several other political charges reflecting posture and action (delicacy bars clarity here !) imposed on them by a whole long line of socalled "politicians." On that there can be doubt for anyone who will but read history written by historians, not those same politicians. To contend naivete on that is simply to reverse reality itself, honored in every solid American history text. 250-years-and growing is no excuse for our many immature --even childish-- political choices, but at least we have solid political principle, set for us by the Founders, to which to return in the opening days of this new Century.

What I would argue is that "Democracy" is never given to people. It can only be asserted by people. The point is that "government" is a living thing only in the minds of its citizens. What is written down on some pieces of paper have no ability to compel action. Action is taken by every citizen, and in the sum of those actions, society results. Constitutions and laws are not what is important. What is important is the ability of the citizenry to first arrive at some just system of law, then understand that system of law, and then live their lives according to it. This cannot be forced on people. It relies on individual intellect and the decision to live according to the law. Engel I have no doubt that many veterans "know what is going on." In fact, most of the people in this society "know what is going on." But what good is knowledge without action? It is useless trivia. --- btw trying to bs me with your status as a veteran is not impressive. i come from a town where the choices for life were pretty much the military or crime. most of my close friends ended up in the military. my father, all my uncles, both my grandfathers, and all of my grandmother's brothers served in the military. about half died, out of the rest some are crazy, some alcoholics, all kinds of other issues. Despite this, I seriously considered joining the military, because I had very few other options available to me, and because I had close friends in it which creates some social pressure to "go along." But at the end of the day, if I was going to kill anyone, it wouldn't be thousands of miles around the world. If I have a war with anyone, it will not be in a desert somewhere. Muhammad Ali had it right a long time ago when he said "no viet cong ever called me a nigger."

Ersun since various members of different state legislatures and state judges in some cases, e.g., Massachussetts, Vermont and Iowa, took it upon themselves to pass laws that legalized gay marriage, then the "individual rights" of the citizens of those states were usurped because their input was totally ignored. Ersun who decides exactly when "individual rights" begin and when do they end? Hint: The U.S. and various state Constitutions lay that out, somewhat arbitrarily. So far, via the democratic process, 31 states have decided that gay marriage is in violation of their value system. Those who disagree will either accept that or continue to pursue the issue via the voting process. There are excellent points on both sides of the gay marriage debate, but since financial benefits (taxpayer funds, e.g.,SS) are involved, the way our society and our laws are constructed, allows the public a right to get involved. Daniel Johnson your low opinion of America and your subjective interpretation of selected history amply demonstrates and augments your limited knowledge. In terms of Ersun having the freedoms he has, is not having those freedoms provided by the sacrifice of veterans the real point Daniel? I guess you could say the same thing about Canadian veterans (and these are fine people who I have considerable respect for). I was curious about your perspectives on America and our history Daniel, so I did a little research and saw that recent polls on Canadians suggest that most of you share a contempt for America. Though we are good as a trading partner, our health care is favored by those who can afford it, and then the military shield we provide is of some benefit also. I spend time in Bristish Columbia and the Canadians I interact with there, have a very different view than you. Have you ever served in your country's military? Vic it is unfortunate that so many see the government as the enemy, what do you suggest we do? As far as your viewpoint that our military personnel nor our veterans ever put it on the line, well it's wonderful that you can say that, for in some area's of the world that concept does not even exist? Isn't it great that you live in a country where you can be an individual? Free to express your opinions? Maybe even have the chance to pursue life, liberty and happiness? Do you think there are people in the world who don't want us to be able to do that?

D.J.: For me "Canadianitis" is simply one form of virus found universally within those so separated by life experience of their own they cannot ever accept the fact of "American exceptionalism" --which is the main reason we stand solo among world's nations --by our own choice. It DID and DOES exist, has always done so as overall characterization for which we stand responsible: "We are what we are" --and for very solid reasons forced by facts of change-process over generations within huge new empire, faced with realities unavoidable as consequence, with slow-growth inevitable and "healthy", too. (Cliche: "THAT's history !" --also inevitable, unavoidable and undeniable...) Fact of far too many of us UNinformed, Misinformed, even some few Malign, re Founders' principles still awaiting full application displays only our own selective lack of wise choice, distorted/perverted by wide, deep, desperate impacts of technologies on information starting soon after '76. Founders set it up precisely and presciently; we've failed to follow through as demanded. Every event, action, issue, problem fits pragmatically into that pattern, and total impact suggests solid protocol for practical next-steps, too. As in longlist of current achievements, starting with abolishing slavery despite in face of furious economic fire, and similar economic, social, cultural activities ever since then.(T.Roosevelt, FDR, Lincoln and Eisenhower - now Obama.) moresoon re "exceptionalism" and denigrating impacts of the false view American democracy "on way down the drain" ever since "the failed Revolution, as if concocted by monied,thus self-defensive, elite, and frightened "leadership". (DJ-forgive distortions for emphasis-demanded here ! ) Re American hero Lincoln, he it was who also, in face of inevitable final-choice forced by Civil War, wrote: "OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people" --true guiding principle we have still to achieve. (Many others make same list, names/records/reasons on request to Editor Tim.) We'll never make it come out right (as "experiment in democracy" with better,fuller opportunity than now in early 21st Century, given the overriding consequences so clear since the '60s. Internet-protected, open nature preserved our best single instrument for faster, fuller citizen participation demanded for D-I-Y democracy. (As open, honest, democratic dialog in S-N surely doth demonstrate for many of us !)

Engle...you do not think Americans are politically naive and uninformed?? I think the majority of Americans are incredibly uninformed. And most everyone I know does indeed see the government as our enemy, regardless of age or political persuasion. And the "those that lived off other's sacrifices" comment is so cliche among the militarists...a cheap attempt to define killing for big business and the oil companies as some sort of honorable profession that the rest of us should be grateful for. We are not grateful for your willingness to be pawns for the rich. We are not grateful for the death and destruction you create in the name of "freedom"..It is tough to realize the truth, so many of you simply dont, evidently. Keep talking about "sacrifices" and how people who sign up to kill others when we are not being invaded are better than anyone else in society. I say they are the dregs of society..ignorant pawns who do what they are told without reasoning or questioning. You did not "put everything on the line" for anyone but yourselves and the military-industrial complex. Get over yourself...you are no better than anyone else. America was not invaded and you did not rescue anyone.

Engle, if you want to wave the flag, I’d suggest you first read Stephen Kinzer’s 2003 book Overthrow. He details how many governments the U.S. has overtly overthrown, beginning in 1893 with Hawaii, at the behest of the Dole Fruit Company.

After that: 1898 Cuba, 1899 Philippines, 1903 Panama, 1910 Nicaragua, 1911 Honduras, 1954 Guatemala, 1963 South Vietnam, 1973 Chile, 1983 Grenada, 1987 Panama, 1996 Afghanistan 2003 Iraq. The outcome, says Kinzer, is that

“Almost every American overthrow of a foreign government has left in its wake a bitter residue of pain and anger. Some have led to the slaughter of innocents. Others have turned whole nations, and even whole regions of the world, into violent cauldrons of anti-American passion.”

What freedom have the vets delivered to Ersun? Even in WWII, the U.S. was never threatened by Europe (only by Japan), nor was it in WWI. As Kinzer summarizes:

"Throughout the twentieth century and into the beginning of the twenty-first, the United States repeatedly used its military power, and that of its clandestine services, to overthrow governments that refused to protect American interests. Each time, it cloaked its intervention in the rhetoric of national security and liberation. In most cases, however, it acted mainly for economic reasons-specifically, to establish, promote, and defend the right of Americans to do business around the world without interference."

Hank has suggested that I have “Canadianitis”. This I interpret to be the ability of an outsider to see America as Americans themselves are largely unable to. The “wisdom of the people” is a hangover from the Enlightenment period where it was believed that people are naturally reasoning beings. This is now recognized to be false. And when you consider how ignorant and ill-informed most Americans are, where is the “wisdom of the people” going to come from?

There are many fine, upstanding, educated and forward looking Americans. Unfortunately, they are in a real minority and every time they try to express positive, progressive views, they are shouted down by the likes of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Hannity, Anne Coulter, etc. As Lincoln said in a speech before he became president: “A house divided cannot stand.” So, America needs to go forward or backward. It can't move in both directions at the same time.

Daniel I was not trying to impress you, just pointing out your misinterpretation of the American perspective, e.g., evidenced by the recent elections, and also by leading scientific/professional pollsters. Your definition of a Canadian also is quite inaccurate. Canadians are certainly not unarmed, and there is a growing trend towards more gun ownership, which is a good thing. Also your national healthcare leadership is opining for more private insurance carriers, which is an excellent idea considering how many of your "unarmed Americans" come to the states for their healthcare. Ersun some interesting comments by you. Have you ever attended any veteran organization meetings? You would be surprised how well we veterans, our loved ones and those in our social/economic orbits know what's going on. You might even run into some economic Phd's at these functions. It's accurate to say that veterans occupy every niche you could think of, except those that lived off other's sacrifices. Talking to those who have put it on the line for you Ersun, may make you appreciate what you have a lot more, but who knows?

Ersun and Friends: Your-last delights me: Could not have said-it-better, albeit have tried. D-I-Y is testerd,proven characteristic of any working democracy, of which our "experiment" has long been and remains "shining exmple, although somewhat shame-faced when mirrored vs Founders' prescient vision --despite too-strong reliance re property rights shaping all else, as well summarized here. DO believe D.J. may well suffer from Canadianitis, and lose perspective while still tied irrevocably to Britain by indestructible history. moresoon from Seaside and thank you all for sensible, sensitive participation proving once again that open, honest,democratic dialog can continue constant forward-step slow-progress,leading to famed Churchillism that American people always make the right choice...but insist on trying every conceivable other-way first...

Ersun: Your comment reminds me of what Ferdinand Lundberg wrote in his 1968 classic--The Rich and the Super-Rich. He wrote:

“In giving them electoral democracy, history played a dirty trick on the American people, most of whom actually want and need benevolent paternalism… In getting electoral democracy, the American people had figuratively thrust upon them a political version of a Stradivarius violin. But they had not the least conception of how to play it… As an avalanche of evidence shows, people in general are not the least bit democratic at heart. True democracy, of course, can be learned; but only under carefully controlled conditions such as are rarely present in the upbringing of most children.”

Brilliant, I posted my comment and then saw that Engle made a comment that completely proved my point. How could anyone ever claim that a democratic government has the right to interfere in any citizens individual decisions? How could anyone ever claim that a democratic government can confer benefits to some citizens on a discriminatory basis that is based on legitimate free personal decisions? These are the most fundamental principals, not only of democracy, but of reason. Engle, you come here to discuss an issue which is really a non-issue. Government has no business dealing with personal life period. If government issues marriage licenses, they have to issue them on a non-discriminatory basis. These are not questions that are subject to debate. They are not even subject to voting. You can vote 2 + 2 = 3. It sure makes the voters look like idiots, but it don't change a thing. This is the problem: happy with war, happy with economic collapse, happy with environmental destruction, happy with corruption, upset about gay marriage.

Daniel, insightful points. I am pretty sure that there is not one consistent american view on this, but a variety of many confused and conflicted views. The government Americans seem to hate is the self-fulfilling social organization type of government that brings people together and gives them more than they came with. Americans seem to like authoritative and exploitative governments. As I am sure politicians have learned, Americans get extremely discontent and fall to endless arguing when you try to propose any real policy to improve the quality of life, but they will acquiesce to the stupidest and most unjust wars without batting an eye. In my view, this is ultimately a social problem, not a political one. Democratic government, in some sort of hypothetical sense, is not something anyone will ever hand you. Freedom is defined by action from conscience, and by the assertion of rights, and it requires taking responsibility for one's condition and the consequences of one's actions. You can never have a democratic government when you are blaming the government for your condition, and refusing to take responsibility for your own actions. The American people are simply unfit for democratic government, and so they continue to get what they deserve. I think about corruption in government, and all of the complaining about it, and i ask: haven't all these people been corrupted for far less? Even a few dollars? How do they expect their representatives to act, in view of how they act?

Daniel Johnson your interpretation of the American political perspective is incorrect. My experience with Canadians is that they have had little academic exposure to American history and our diverse culture (but we have similar mores and values), other than how it is taught in Canada by uninformed teachers it appears, which is clearly reflected by your interpretation. As you know that in Canada there has been a trend away from big government and this is also happening throughout Europe as evidenced by elections over the last year or so. The different state elections yesterday confirmed that the American voter, like the Founder's of America, are rejecting big government, high taxes (the above article was about this Daniel) and out of control spending. Here in Oregon, each time our state legislature has increased taxes the voters in a later election rejected that legislation. Every time. Of a side point Daniel, the other day Maine voter's rejected their legislature's legalization of gay marriage. So what we have as the current tally in this matter is that in 31 state elections, the voters have rejected legalizing gay marriage in each of those elections. The states that currently have legalized gay marriage have had done so by their state legislatures and all are developing future elections to overturn this recognition which ignored the voters as evidenced by the previous 31 state elections. People/voters are not buying into the argument that this is about equal rights. This also applies to high taxes when voters have the opportunity to vote on that, in most cases. Your use of the Pogo line has been used for a number of interesting issues over the years, but to use it as a way to think that Americans are politically naive and uninformed, is naive.

Engle. Are you one of the 40% or so of Americans who doesn't believe in evolution; who doesn't know that the earth goes around the sun but if you do know about the sun, doesn't know that it takes the earth a year to go around the sun? Just wondering. I'm reminded of the definition of a Canadian: An unarmed American with health care. I'm not impressed by your comments. Daniel

Excellent overview, Ersun.

The fundamental political problem, in my view, which underlies your tax analysis is that of all the developed nations that have come out of the Enlightenment of the 17-18th centuries (UK, Canada, Western Europe, Australia), the United States is the only country that has not advanced politically beyond that era. It's like the 30-year-old man who still talks about his high school exploits and accomplishments as if they are still current. As I frequently point out, King George III is long dead. There's no need to be afraid of the English government, any more.

I think it's fair to say that of all the developed nations, Americans are the only ones who see government as an enemy exemplified in the famous Pogo line of the 1960s: "I have seen the enemy and he is us".